MOVEON’s Matzzie to Run Dems Soft Money Operations

The Washington Post is saying:

Even as the Democratic primary fight enters the final stretch, plans are proceeding apace among party strategists to build an independent money machine that will rival or eclipse what they created in 2004, when donors poured millions into two key outside-the-party organizations — America Coming Together and the Media Fund.

Tom Matzzie has been hired to run a new effort for 2008, which he has described in an e-mail as a $100 million-plus venture organized around “issues and character.” Matzzie is leaving his post as the Washington director of Moveon.org to take the job. He did not return an e-mail seeking comment on his new position.

The news of Matzzie’s hiring comes roughly two weeks after a group of the largest donors in the Democratic party gathered in Washington to discuss where they’ll put their money during the 2008 race. One of the attendees — Hollywood producer Steve Bing — is said to be one of the leading financial forces behind the organization Matzzie has been hired to head

A short while ago, MoveOn was telling us how they owned the Democrat party. The Democrats for their part, backed away from the line. Now we see MoveOn DOES own the Democrats.

Like what you see, America?

Kevin Drum makes the usual argument…

VOTER ID….The State of Indiana has the most stringent voter ID laws in the country. Democrats are always griping about this, and have even gone so far as to challenge Indiana’s law in the Supreme Court. But this is just silly. In this day and age everyone has a photo ID anyway, so what’s the problem?

Just in case, though, the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race decided to check and see if this was really true. The three charts reproduced here illustrate the guts of their findings. By a substantial margin, the Indiana residents most likely to possess photo ID turn out to be whites, the middle aged, and high-income voters. And while this is undoubtedly just a wild coincidence, these are also the three groups most like to vote for Republicans. (2006 exit poll data here for the suspicious.) Overall, 91% of registered Republicans had photo IDs compared to only 83% of registered Democrats.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We know…  those wascalwy Wepubwicans are all wasicsts. 

But should we also mention, Kevin, that the reverse is also true.. those most likely to be voting illegally, and gaming the system  (As we saw in Philly, where several precincts had more people voting Democrat than the total number of people registered to vote… and particularly those getting paid to do so)  are mostly non-white, usually quite young, and Democrat?

I’m sure you had no idea….

BBCT: Memeorandum

The Seattle Times has her collective head buried in the distal end of her alimentary canal:

Activists protesting military shipments at the Port of Olympia poured cement over railroad tracks to try to block shipments coming out of the Port today, according to Olympia police.

Nobody was arrested after protesters unsuccessfully tried to keep trains from leaving the Port, said Olympia police Lt. Jim Costa. The Port cleaned up the cement, Costa said.

Protesters are a frequent presence at that location, where Iraq-bound Army equipment goes through the Port

The description should not be protesters   It is saboteurs.    Distruction of property for political ends is sabotage.  

Memo to Seattle police, saboteurs should be arrested.

Michelle Malkin has a great round-up.

If we ever needed an indication of the way Newsweek is going, we don’t anymore.

Newsweek press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Tuesday, November 13, 2007

MARKOS MOULITSAS, FOUNDER AND PUBLISHER OF DAILYKOS.COM,
TO BECOME NEWSWEEK CONTRIBUTOR FOR 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

New York — Markos Moulitsas, the founder and publisher of dailykos.com, will become a Newsweek contributor for the 2008 presidential campaign, offering occasional opinion pieces to the pages of the magazine and to Newsweek.com.

“We have always sought to represent a diversity of views in Newsweek, and we think Markos will be a great part of that tradition,” said Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. “He will give our readers in print and online a unique perspective. As always, our job is to create the most energetic and illuminating magazine possible, and Markos will help us do that as the campaign unfolds.”

That’s OK… Newsweek didn’t have any credibility left, anyway.  No loss.

Debbie Schlussel, this morning:

**** UPDATE: Muslim FBI/CIA Agent Spy for Hezbollah is Sis-in-Law of Hezbollah’s $20 Million Financier; FBI/CIA Allowed Her to Remain on Job for FOUR! Years ****; Shocker: Hezbollah Said They’d Infiltrate the FBI & They Did; When a Spy is “Not a Spy”;

Printer Friendly

By Debbie Schlussel

**** UPDATE: I was right, yet again.  I’ve read Muslim FBI Agent/Hezbollah spy Nada Nadim Prouty’s plea agreement (read it here).  And guess what?  Surprise!–She’s the sister-in-law of Hezbollah’s $20 million dollar financier Talal Khalil Chahine (owner of “La Shish” restaurants which remain open!), whom U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy allowed to flee the country.  Prouty is the SISTER of Chahine’s wife, Elfat El-Aouar.  Yup, LUUUV those great FBI and CIA Background Checks of agents.

And get this: The FBI and U.S. Attorney Stephen Murphy (and before him, U.S. Attorneys Craig Morford and Jeffrey Collins) knew Prouty was a spy for Hezbollah back in 2003, but they allowed her to work for the FBI and CIA for over FOUR Years! They did not remove her from the job until the end of this past September–1.5 years after her brother-in-law was indicted for financing Hezbollah!!!!!!

Forgive me the thought, Debbie, but it appears to me that keeping her within the org could have served the purpose of revealing her connections both inside and outside ‘The Firm”. Other than that, may I say “Good work”.

New York Times- Gov. Eliot Spitzer is abandoning his plan to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, saying that opposition is just too overwhelming to move forward with such a policy.

The governor, who is to announce the move formally on Wednesday, said in an interview Tuesday night that he did not reach the decision easily.

“You have perhaps seen me struggle with it because I thought we had a principled decision, and it’s not necessarily easy to back away from trying to move a debate forward,” he said.

But he came to believe the proposal would ultimately be blocked, he said, either by legal challenges, a vote by the Legislature to deny financing for the Department of Motor Vehicles or a refusal by upstate county clerks to carry it out.

Well, now, what will Mrs Clinton do? And for that matter, what will Spitzer do?

Chris Welch and David Schechter, CNN, report on Muriel  Gallo-Chasanoff of one Mrs. Clinton’s plants from Grinnell, Iowa:

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was simple: She said a senior Clinton staffer asked if she’d like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

“I sort of thought about it, and I said ‘Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates’ energy plans?'” Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.

According to Gallo-Chasanoff, the staffer said, ” ‘I don’t think that’s a good idea, because I don’t know how familiar she is with their plans.’ “

See the video, here. 

So how long before one of Mrs.  Clinton’s paid stooges calls  Gallo-Chasanoff something along the lines of trailer park trash or a bimbo?

Get this, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign staff did not think she was familar enough with her own energy “plan” to field a question about it.   If Mrs. Clinton can’t field a question about her energy plan, she doesn’t have a plan.    Heck does she even have a clue?

Mrs. Clinton is not the smartest woman in the world.   Heck the only time Mrs.  Clinton would even be the smartest person in the room is when she is in the loo.   She is a charlatan and poseur.   It is time for Mrs. Clinton to get off the political stage and do something for which is qualified, bake cookies.

Hat Tip:  Drudge.

CBS is now saying that Hillary Clinton’s lead is not there, anymore in Iowa:

In Iowa, the Democratic contest is knotted up. Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.

Just a passing thought; Have you noted that there are not nearly the number of complaints about Iowa being a major primary state anymore?

I mean, that’s all we heard from the Democrats a month or two back… people who couldn’t figure out, in essence why these moronic bumpkins from the corncob capital of the country, had so much pull in picking the presidential candidates.

Heh….Apparently, somebody whispered in Howard Dean’s ear the shocking revelation that people you’re asking to vote for you don’t like being referred to, that way.

Here again, as with the previous posting, it comes down to an issue of respect… who needs to show it… and who deserves it. And here again, the Pols don’t qualify.  The respect that needs be shown is to the voter.

The trouble for Hillary, Barack, and the Breck Girl, and the rest of the gang, is the voters in Iowa remember that string of insults tossed their way earlier this year, even if those Democrats running for office, pretend that they don’t. This lesson is particularly painful for the woman who figured she had it locked up as soon as she decided she wanted to move back into the White House.  The people in Iowa… even the Democrats…  aren’t buying it, if the numbers we’re seeing are solid.  Again, she’s not earned their respect. The rest of ’em aren’t doing much better.

Know what? It does my heart good to see this bunch showing us their understanding of what to kiss, and when.  Because I get the idea the folks out there know full well all this groveling is as disingenuous as it comes. Something which will be fairly well demonstrated come the General election.

At which point, we’ll hear the complaints again from the people who think the sun rises and sets on the whacked out liberal coasts, about how the process is being ruined because flyover country has it’s say, again.

Oh… should you be interested in how these numbers are breaking down, Memeorandum has lots more.

Byran, Hot Air:

It’s a good thing for NY Gov Eliot Spitzer that he’s less than a year into his term. He has three years to dig himself out of the Troopergate and licenses-for-illegals chasm that usually takes at least a term and a half to carve out. The latter has pushed his popularity down to Washington levels. Almost. But he can get there if he just tries a little harder. Whaddya say, Eliot?

If Spitzer is still in office at Christmas, somebody ought to stick copy of How to Win Friends & Influence People in his stocking.   Byran seems to think that Spitzer will serve out his elected term.

Allah Pundit opines that Spitzer has killed any chance of amnesty at the federal level:

We shouldn’t have to worry about the amnesty shills feeling too frisky for another few years after this.

For which we thank you Eliot.

John Amato, Crooks and Liars, has his knickers in a twist because a member of John McCain’s audience referred to Mrs. Clinton as “the bitch” and the senator did not rebuke the questioner.

Grow up John.  Mrs. Clinton is a potty mouth.  I’d say it shows more respect to be called a bitch than a bimbo, Mrs. Clinton’s favorite term of endearment for B.J.’s women.  Mrs. Clinton shows little respect to people with whom she disagagrees.  Paula Jones, David Petraeus.  The bitch shows no respect to her betters, and she will get none from them.  Get used to it.

More, Memeorandum.

Addendum (Bit)
Looking on Memeorandum, I see the other usual suspects are having kittens over the nature of the question. But just chill, guys…  There’s two points to be made, here.

• McCain, clearly, is not setting up questions, as the subject of the question has been. I see that as a good thing. So should Clinton’s people if they have an ounce of honesty left. (I know… what the hell am I SAYING??!!?!?!?)
• Seems to me the questioner shows the ability to identify the reality of the situation.

And a bonus:

After sitting back and listening to some of the utter garbage the left has been coming up with since Reagan was in office, (Here’s a recent example on Crooks and Liars) their cries of ‘foul’ fall on deaf ears. (Don’t bother taking it offline guys, I’ll just post the capture like I did last time with your buddy, Adkins)

It comes down to this; Respect is EARNED.  Neither Hillary Clinton or her supporters qualify. Take your complaints, and dry up and blow away.

Boortz, doing a message to Bill Clinton:

You want to talk about being “rough” on your wife?  Let’s do a short review:

We’ll start with a few names: Gennifer Flowers, Dolly Kyle Browning, Then there’s Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones — plus goodness knows how many more.  These are just the names of some of the women Bill Clinton either assaulted or has had affairs with during his so-called “marriage” to Hillary.

So Bill calls it “getting rough” when Hillary’s campaign opponents question her flip-flopping on the issue of driver’s licenses for illegals, or make statements about Hillary’s planted questions during campaign stops.  That is “getting rough” on the lady … while having multiple affairs and being a serial sexual harasser – including at least one rape – is not?  If putting your “wife” in charge of cleaning up after multiple affairs and assaults isn’t “being rough on her,” then what, pray tell, is?

The fact is that Hillary Clinton has been engaged in a fraud marriage for decades … a marriage born out of a desire for political power rather than an endearing love and dedication.  The problem here isn’t that the “boys” are being rough on Hillary, or that Hillary and Bill are playing the gender card in this primary … the problem is that we have a woman who has conspired with her husband to disgrace the institution of marriage trying to pass herself off as a loyal wife and dedicated mother in order to appeal to women to whom the institution of marriage actually means something.

The real question here is why various pundits and columnists don’t step up and call the Clinton marriage what they and everybody else knows full well it is … a fraud and a sham.

And there it is, Gang. I’ve said this here for years.  Mark this well:

There is only one reason these two are still “Married”…. Political power to the degree they want it would be harder to get, if they were to surrender to what everyone else on the planet already knows… particularly the women Boortz mentions.

And if she’s willing to lie so about this, what else would she be willing to lie about?

Update: (Bit) The wheels are coming off the wagon.

Surber:

CNN uncovers more planted questions

Guess it no longer is the Clinton News network. CNN interviewed the Grinnell college student who said the Clinton campaign gave her the question to ask Hillary in Iowa.

Planted questions are her Dumbo Eruptions.

The student, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, 19, said a senior staffer for Hillary approached her and asked her if she’d like to ask a question. He opened a binder with 8 questions.

Said she: “The top one was planned specifically for a college student. It said ‘college student’ in brackets and then the question.”

At the top was this question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

What Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff wanted to ask was how her energy plan compares to the other candidates’ energy plans. The staffer said he didn’t think Hillary was prepared for such a question.

Fellow Swamp Stomper Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard quoting Jonah at the Corner, here:

Earlier today, I posted about a new Rasmussen poll that indicated that American voters were most definitely refusing to buy the “Hillary Clinton as victim” game that her campaign has been trying.  Hillary’s campaign, however, appears unable to change course and are trying to play the victim card yet again, this time preemptively.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday’s Dem debate on Hillary. ‘This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,’ top Clinton insider explains. ‘Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull ‘a Russert.” Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux… Developing…

Again, can someone please explain to me, how asking the junior Senator from New York state whether she agrees with the governor of the state (and a close political ally) on the question of drivers licenses for illegals is even remotely wrong, never mind some sort of vicious, Nazi-like, personal assault on truth, decency, and Hillary Clinton’s integrity? I really, really, don’t get it.

John at Right Wing News notes the same post from Jonah, and wonders a bit:

Doesn’t Hillary seem like she’s a little too delicate to handle the Presidency? After all, you can’t get all teary eyed if 2 or 3 world leaders decide to “pile on” you or if the press ramps up their normal all out assault on you a notch or two.

Captain Ed: (under an interestingly named post)

The Clinton team has forgotten the First Rule of Holes: stop digging. No one except the most ardent of the netroots bought the explanation that Tim Russert was a right-wing plant at MS-NBC. If the Clintons expect that anyone will believe them when they hang the same jacket on Blitzer, they’re not just mistaken, they’re delusional.

Ed goes on to point out…

t wasn’t just an overeager staffer who improvised the planted question out of excess zeal. The student noted at least seven other prepared questions, along with the profile of questioner they wanted with each question. That indicates a lot more preparation and thought than the Clinton response acknowledged. It looks like question-planting has its own process and procedure, indicating a more extensive use of it than first thought.

Gee. Hillary Clinton lied to us? Whodathunkit?

More, Memeorandum

If there is anything clear from Charlie Rangel’s propasal for the largest tax incresae in American history, John Murtha’s pork is there is nothing ‘rats like to do more than spend other people’s money. 

John Edwards wants both to be President and provide paid family leave., but be doesn’t want to pay for either.   Edwards want you to pay him to run for President and want you to pay for his proposed famly leave.   Holly Ramer, Associated Press:

The former North Carolina senator on Tuesday will propose spending $2 billion a year to help states create family leave programs that offer workers at least eight weeks of paid time off to care for a newborn or ill family member. The proposal is similar to those offered by his rivals, but Edwards would put up more money — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plan calls for $1 billion a year; Illinois Sen. Barack Obama proposes $1.5 billion

If Edwards thinks being President and providing paid family leave are such fine ideas, he should pony up his own money.   Until he does, he should just shut-up about spending more of our money

.

Hands down, the strangest line I’ve ever seen, from a local paper in Anderson SC

 About 3 p.m. Nov. 3, the woman, who is divorced from the 60-year-old man’s son, reportedly accused her new husband of hiding “five hookers” in their house on Veterans Street. She also claimed he put a snake in her car, attempted to poison her and was going “crazy with younger women” after he obtained a prescription for Viagra, according to a report by the Anderson County Sheriff’s Office.

Ummm… she’s 47.

BBCT to the Jawa Report’s  Dr. Rusty Shakleford who wisely decides there’s not much to add to this.

Addendum:  (David L)

If the story was fiction, it would be bad fiction.

For the third time in the last two days, the website of The New Republic has come out with a decidedly “Democrat-Unfreindly” article. Here, we have one from Jon Cohn, questioning the wisdom of government healthcare, as an example.

And I have to ask; Is The New Republic trying to regain it’s credibility by ditching the left?  Was it stung that badly by the recent questions about it’s fact checking?

I wonder.

Update:

I get a note from Cohn, this morning, saying in part:

I don’t want to seem presumptuous

Uh-oh. You always know there’s some presumption attached to that line…

I don’t want to seem presumptuous, but before characterizing an article as “questioning the wisdom of government healthcare” and “ditching the left” perhaps you should take the time to read it.

If you did, you would discover that it is not an argument against universal health care.  It is an argument *for* it.

…

As a magazine, we have been vocal advocates of universal health care for some time now.  The very same issue in which this appears contains two other articles on the subject.  One — the staff editorial — dissects claims, made by certain Republicans, that the problem of the uninsured has been exaggerated.

…

I have no idea how many people read your blog.  But I would appreciate it if you would correct the item.

Well, Jon, I did, in fact, actually read your article.  Where else would I be getting this idea from, but your own words?  While you apparently went to some lengths to argue for the government running things, you brought up a goodly number of reasons why we shouldn’t… and then failed, (Miserably, in my view) to counter the reasons you yourself broached.

Example:

As Mike himself acknowledged, none of this seals the case against universal health care. On the contrary, maybe the trade-offs between covering everybody and fostering innovative health care are inevitable–and perhaps innovation has to come second. Maybe what is good for some people with Parkinson’s isn’t necessarily in the best interests of the country as a whole. On the other hand, people with Parkinson’s can contribute more to the economy (and society in general) if their symptoms subside. They might also need less ongoing care, which could actually save money. Besides, true innovation ultimately benefits everybody by pushing the boundaries of the medically possible. Can we really count on a universal coverage system to weigh all of that? In other words, can we really be sure that universal health care won’t come at the expense of innovative medicine?

 

It’s a valid set of questions,

Actually, no they’re NOT a valid set of questions. They are all overridden by what you fail to consider… the rights of the individual…  in terms of “By what right does government decide not to allow someone’s illness to be treated with every known curative that can be brought to bear by the individual’s doctor?”

I find it alarming that the left allows the government to deal with such issues by simply deciding not to cover the patient for it, almost in an arbitrary fashion, but complains bitterly when private insurance does the same, in some cases. (Irony abounds: Such private insurance edicts are usually as a direct result of governmental controls on such plans.)

And here in the end is why your article is to my mind one of the best arguments against Government run health care;

If you’ve listened to Rudy Giuliani or any of the other Republican presidential candidates lately, then you’ve probably heard them claim that creating universal health care would necessarily lead to inferior treatments, particularly for deadly diseases like cancer. But that just isn’t so. While the United States is a world leader in cancer care, other countries, such as France, Sweden, and Switzerland, boast overall survival rates that are nearly comparable.

I like your use of words… if you’re a used car salesman.  Here’s the reality you’re trying to hide with this chocie of words: “nearly comparable”… translation… “inferior”. If that were not the case, you’d have pointed out their record as being superior. Since it is decidedly not, you had to find other words to couch it in.  So, it DOES, in fact, “lead to inferior treatments”.

You tried to hide this point, and failed.

You also try to hide the facts here:

While the United States is a world leader in cancer care, other countries, such as France, Sweden, and Switzerland, boast overall survival rates that are nearly comparable. For some variants–such as cervical cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and two common forms of leukemia–the U.S. survival rate, although good, lags behind at least some other countries.

The claims for leukemia are particularly onerous, given the state of industrialism in the repspective countries represented. (You may recall, that the causes are thought to be environmental in nature, though of course susceptibility is not.)

But it’s one thing to say that universal coverage could lead to less innovation or reduce the availability of high-tech care. It is quite another to say that it will do those things, which is the claim that opponents frequently make

Here again, you hide. The reason such claims are made is because governmental involvement has invariably led to such reduction in innovation and thereby, quality of care..

Every.

Single.

Time.

And yes, even in the examples you cite, as I point out, above.

Those are two examples of many within the article, chosen at random.

In the end, your article seemed to me a fair argument against government healthcare.  Usually, you only see those kind of weak arguments when someone is trying to back off of a position without admitting to doing so for political reasons. OK, I could have been mistaken as regards your intents.

OK. I’m a fair guy. I gleefully acknowledge that TNR has been, and is, heavily invested in the socialist line, still doing everything it can to lean left, in spite of the facts your article (perhaps unintentionally) exposed.

Now… about this Beauchamp thing. Do you suppose you can get Frank Foer to answer some questions on the record?  No, I suppose not.

Michelle Malkin reports, today:

The Chicago Tribune’s Howard Witt penned an investigative piece published yesterday on the controversy surrounding the charitable funds raised for the Jena 6. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that much of the money can’t be traced, while some of the defendants are literally rolling in race-hustling dough:

Just weeks after some 20,000 demonstrators protested what they decried as unequal justice aimed at six black teenagers in the Louisiana town of Jena, controversy is growing over the accounting and disbursing of at least $500,000 donated to pay for the teenagers’ legal defense.

Parents of the “Jena 6? teens have refused to publicly account for how they are spending a large portion of the cash, estimated at up to $250,000, that resides in a bank account they control.

Michael Baisden, a nationally syndicated black radio host who is leading a major fundraising drive on behalf of the Jena 6, has declined to reveal how much he has collected. Attorneys for the first defendant to go to trial, Mychal Bell, say they have yet to receive any money from him.

Meanwhile, photos and videos are circulating across the Internet that raise questions about how the donated money is being spent. One photo shows Robert Bailey, one of the Jena 6 defendants, smiling and posing with $100 bills stuffed in his mouth. Another shows defendants Carwin Jones and Bryant Purvis modeling like rap stars at the Black Entertainment Television Hip-Hop music awards last month in Atlanta.

The teenagers’ parents have strongly denied that they have misused any of the donated money. Bailey’s mother, for example, insisted that the $100 bills shown in the photograph were cash her son had earned as a park maintenance worker.

But civil rights leaders who helped organize support for the youths say they are concerned about the perceptions that are spreading.

“There are definitely questions out there about the money,” said Alan Bean, director of a Texas-based group, Friends of Justice, who was the first civil rights activist to investigate the Jena 6 case. “I hate to even address this issue because it inevitably will raise questions as to all of the money that has been raised, and that is going to hurt the defendants.”

If there’s anything that surprises me about this, it’s that anyone is surprised by this.  Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the defendants in this case.  Clearly, they got what they wanted.  Now it’s down to reconsidering why we gave them what they wanted. The phrase about fools and their money leaps to mind.