Sean Carter: FOB (Friend of Barack???) and other gems from the White House visitor logs
CORRECTED: ThinkProgress has the real deal, and I had it wrong (though I should stipulate that I actually wouldn’t care if any of those people visited the White House…) But the facts are these: Jay Z and Michael Jordan? yes, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright: not so much…
… as the original post by White House ethics counselor Norm Eisen makes clear, the “William Ayers” and “Jeremiah Wright” on the list are actually different individuals who merely share the same name:
Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few “false positives” – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly (”R. Kelly”), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.
And from the Washington Post:
The records reflect only those names that members of the public specifically requested information about from the White House Counsel’s office and so is skewed in the direction of famous individuals who are a matter of public interest or controversy. The White House’s comprehensive voluntary disclosure policy covers the period from Sept. 15, 2009 onwards, but not the earlier months of the administration.
Meanwhile, at least the folks at Fox can still be upset about GE/NBC’s Jeffrey Immelt. And Sean Carter (AKA Jay Z)? We can only hope that one’s actually true…
Check out the list for yourself here.
Local politics: Down and dirty in District 5
Miami Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones is running for a second term, buffeted by headwinds that include an ethical cloud that has hung over her office, resistance from a growing number of quarters in Miami’s Black community, and grumblings from supporters of her former pastor, Gaston Smith, that Spence Jones milked him for $8,000 in “consulting fees” and then threw him under the legal bus (Smith goes to trial this month on charges he mis-used MMAP funds.) But so far, Spence-Jones has also had a lot going for her: namely, about $180,000 in fundraising (though money can’t buy you love, in Miami, it can usually buy you an election.) However, with just days to go before Election Day, things are starting to get weird.
I was apparently one of several journo types and political people who were emailed a pretty scathing 3-page document cataloging a string of alleged bad deeds, not just by Ms. Spence-Jones, but also by her husband, Nathanial. The document is written with enough legalistic language to sound like it came from an attorney, or someone who works with one (or maybe with a bunch of taxpayer-paid ones, if you know what I mean…) and it contains case files that link to actual cases against Nathanial Jones (I looked them up via the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s case file hotline.) However, an attorney friend of mine who specializes in criminal cases tells me the information in the document could easily have been found by anyone, using the County Clerk’s website (which the county clerk’s office also said.) Still, someone went to an awful lot of trouble to do three pages worth of research. Among the dirt: male prostitution, petty larceny, theft and drug possession charges (both verified by the case files, and all resulting in pretrial “diversion” or no adjudication…) on the part of Nathanial Jones dating back to 2000, 2004 and 2006, plus a litany of allegations that Spence-Jones and her political mentor, Barbara Carey-Shuler, played fast and loose with tazpayer money. A peek at the dirt inside. Read more
Shameeless self-promotion
My latest column in the South Florida Times is on the missed opportunities in President Obama’s recent stop in Miami.
Enough is enough: why the Democrats must punish Joe Lieberman
Joe Lieberman no longer belongs in the Democratic caucus. In fact, he hasn’t belonged for a long, long time.
Having declared himself an “Independent Democrat,” whatever that means, after being rejected by Democratic voters in Connecticut, and then begged for his gavel after supporting the Republican nominee for president, Lieberman has now declared himself on the side of Republicans (and the insurance industry) when it comes to the party, and the president’s, top priority: healthcare reform. Harry Reid continues to make nice for some reason, perhaps believing that just saying the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate makes it so. In fact, the Democrats do not have a caucus of 60, and allowing Lieberman to remain in the club, just so he can say he’s got 60, is a fraud on the American people. Joe Lieberman must be made to pay a price, at long last, for his disloyalty. Kicking him out of the caucus, stripping him of his seniority and his committee chairmanship, and daring him to go ahead and join the GOP, are the least Senator Reid can and should do, if Lieberman makes good on his threat not to allow the healthcare bill to come to the floor. The evidence against Lieberman is damning:
1. Conflicts of interest - As Joe Conasan reported back in 2006, Lieberman’s wife Hadassah is for all intents a lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry (and AIG). Pair that with his own status as the Senate’s biggest recipient of insurance industry cash, and you’ve got a problem that makes even Ben Nelson look like a stand up guy. Read more
What Joe Lieberman might hope to gain by killing healthcare reform
Senators don't do something for nothing. So what is Lieberman hoping to get by killing the public option?
In politics, the name of the game is who gets what, and it’s the rare member of Congress — and usually the very rich or very safe one — who isn’t at least for rent, if not for sale. So what does Joe Lieberman want, and what is he hoping to — or expecting to — receive in exchange for emasculating the men who handed him back his gavel despite his fundamental and serial betrayals of the party that (foolishly) made him their vice presidential nominee in 2000, and gutting healthcare reform for the second time in his ignominious political career? That question has been on the minds of just about every non-winger in America today who cares about healthcare reform, and who knows that if President Obama signs a bill requiring all Americans to purchase the crappy, expensive products of a handful of private insurance giants, it will indeed be his Waterloo. There are a lot of theories out there (he’s doing it for the attention, or to boost his influence in shaping the final bill …he’s still mad at Democrats for defeating him in the primaries in 2006, he’s just a jerk…) which are well encapsulated here, including a very cogent series of “what’s in it for Joe?” mind bogglers from Nate Silver:
Would voting to filibuster the Democrats’ health care bill (if it contains a decent public option) endear Lieberman to his constituents? No; Connecticutians favor the public option 64-31.
Would it make his path to re-election easier? No, because it would virtually assure that Lieberman faces a vigorous and well-funded challenge from a credible, capital-D Democrat, and polls show him losing such a match-up badly.
Would it buy him more power in the Senate? No, because Democrats would have every reason to strip him of his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.
Is Lieberman’s stance intended to placate the special interests in his state? Perhaps this is part of it — there are a lot of insurance companies in Connecticut — but Lieberman is generally not one of the more sold-out Senators, ranking 75th out of the 100-member chamber in the percentage of his fundraising that comes from corporate PACs.
Over at Newsweek, the analysis is that Lieberman is just demonstrating how a person behaves when there’s been no price to pay for disloyalty. But there is another possibility, and it has less to do with Lieberman’s narcissism or vindictiveness or even his desire for a book deal or a Fox News show of his own (Lieberman can crack a joke, but he’s no Mike Huckabee…) The possibility I’m thinking about was articulated by LIsa Richardson today in the LA Times: Joe Lieberman is not running for re-election in 2012. What he’s doing right now can rightly be called “securing his golden parachute.” Read more
The nanny
Wow … that explains a lot …
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
How much longer can Shep Smith take it?
Fox News’ lonely champion of “fair and balanced” reporting continues to fight the good fight:
We’re with you, Shep. And when you’ve finally had enough and leave Fox News, I’ll be sure to tune in to your next gig.
South Florida Buzz: Shake-up in District 5?
While the Miami media establishment is focused on the upcoming Miami mayor’s race, something interesting is happening in District 5 — the district covering some of Miami’s poorest neighborhoods (Overtown, Liberty City, Little Haiti…) Just a few weeks ago, most people you talked to would tell you that no one would be able to beat the incumbent, Manny Diaz protege Michelle Spence Jones. The commissioner has raised nearly $180,000 — mostly from an assortment of developers and other business interests (no obvious Marlins money, but you’ve got to figure…) while her opponents, David Chiverton of the MLK Economic Development Center, and Jeff Torain, the former deputy police chief in Opa-Locka, have barely raised $20,000 between them.
But that was a few weeks ago. Read more
Lieberman pulls a Lieberman
Joe Lieberman does what he does best: sticking it to Democrats.
We’re all familiar with Joe Lieberman’s act by now. First, he cheers the election of Democratic president, and then practically shoves him over the side to darned near support impeaching him for having a sexual affair. … Next, he humbly accepts the vice presidential nod, only to turn on his party by sucking up to the Republican president, out chickenhawking his fellow chickenhawks on Iraq, and finally, supporting the GOP candidate against the Democratic Senator he supposedly mentored just two years earlier. Oh, and if a Democrat runs against him in a primary? He quits the party and still expects to keep his seniority (and because the Senate is what it is, he does.)
The latest Lieberman act comes on the subject of healthcare — not whether he’ll support the bill being put forward by Harry Reid, but whether he’ll join the Democrats, with whom he supposedly caucuses, in putting down an expected Republican filibuster. Well … Read more
NASCAR driver on ‘taco’ remark: ‘who is Bob Griese?’
Bob Griese, former Miami Dolphins football great and current sports commentator, extended the fine tradition established by men like Jimmy the Greek, Howard Cosell, Al Campanis and Rush “Never, Ever Gonna Be an NFL Team Owner (heehee!)” Limbaugh on ESPN this week, and has been handed a draconian one week suspension for it. Meanwhile, over at Fox Sports, Griese’s fan base proves the troglodytes are alive and well in America (scroll down to comments.) The story:
ESPN's Griese brought low over 'taco' remark.
During ESPN’s broadcast of the Minnesota-Ohio State game Saturday, a graphic was shown listing the top five drivers in NASCAR’s points race. Fellow analyst Chris Spielman asked where was Montoya, who is Colombian.
Griese replied he was “out having a taco.”
He has twice apologized on air for the remark.
Who does he think he is, Lou Dobbs? And how hard am I fighting the urge to make a “Bob’s Griese taco” joke…? (Answer: really, really hard…) Meanwhile, Montoya reportedly shrugged off the remark, and said he really has no idea who Bob Griese is. Now THAT’s insulting. And now for some greatest hits… Read more
Connect
Book deals
Links
Finalist: Best Liberal Blog
Poll
Loading ...
