Home » Posts tagged with » house (Page 121)

We have been wondering all week whether Speaker John Boehner and the Senate Republican leadership will actively lobby and whip the Republican Senate conference to support Representative Paul Ryan’s disastrous and cruel budget plan that would gut Medicare. We now have an answer to this question. The Hill is reporting today that Senate Republican leaders do not have the testicular fortitude to whip Paul Ryan’s plan to gut Medicare: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is leaving Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget plan to its own fate in the Senate by not whipping his GOP colleagues on the vote. Republican senators say McConnell has made it clear he will vote for the House Budget Committee chairman’s plan, but has said rank-and-file members should vote as they want on the 2012 budget proposal. Okay then. McConnell is not up for re-election until 2014. According to the article Sens. Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), two key members of the Republican Leadership will vote for Ryan’s proposal but that does not mean anything. Kyle is retiring and Alexander is not up for re-election until 2014 either. If these guys were really excited and supportive of Ryan’s extreme budget plan, they would have actively whipped it. That is not happening as they are playing hot potatoes with it. Boy, when these Republicans need to impose party discipline they are ruthless about it yet we are seeing none of that here because they just do not have the courage to vigorously lobby their colleagues to support it. So how do their counterparts in the House Republican Leadership feel about this? Eric Cantor and the entire right wing movement spent the whole week beating up on Newt Blingrich for daring to speak up against Ryan’s “right wing social engineering” project . What are they going to do now that even the Senate Republican leadership is too cowardly to embrace this crazy plan? Are we going to hear from Boehner, Cantor, and Ryan if a “group of centrists” Republicans in the Senate decide to run away from Ryan’s joke of a budget plan? However, many Republicans are undecided, and a group of centrists is leaning against voting for the plan because it would cut Medicare benefits substantially. Ryan’s proposal calls for $5.8 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years and would transform Medicare and Medicaid. One GOP senator who spoke on the condition of anonymity expressed his belief that Ryan made a serious tactical mistake by spelling out Medicare reforms in his budget plan. Uh, the translation here is: They preferred Ryan hid behind some Frank Luntz talking points without offering any specifics. It is not going to work this time. The cat is out of the bag now for these guys and they will have to make a choice between what should be a lose-lose proposition on the Senate Floor next week. If the Senate Republicans embrace the Ryan plan, they will go on record supporting a cruel and draconian budget plan that would gut Medicare as we know it and double the cost of health care for our seniors. It would also enact – to quote Newt – a right-wing vision of “social engineering” by putting insurance company bureaucrats between patients and their doctors, giving them the power to decide what tests and treatments seniors can get. They will get destroyed on the campaign trail for it. If they choose to walk away from it? Well, in that situation, they should be under fire from the crazy and reactionary House Republicans and their frothing constituencies from the Fox audience and corporate-funded Tea Party groupies. Not a pretty situation for these guys, and it is a reason why we are seeing guys like Scott Brown coming unglued in front of our eyes.

Continue reading …
Tuesday open thread and news and notes

There’s a lot going on, and I haven’t the energy to write up individual posts (still KO’ed; no passage of kidney stone yet), but there’s plenty to discuss. * In shakeup, HRC poised to lead Md. marriage effort . via the Washington Blade: The Human Rights Campaign is expected to emerge as the coordinator of a reorganized coalition of national and local LGBT groups pushing for passage of a same-sex marriage… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Pam’s House Blend Discovery Date : 18/05/2011 17:45 Number of articles : 5

Continue reading …
John Boehner Stuck Between Tea Party And A Hard Place

DAYTON, Ohio (Reuters) – This John Boehner was not the John Boehner that Tea Party leaders in the room thought they knew. Compared to the Boehner who talked tough on spending ahead of last November’s elections, the one who showed up at Club 55, just off Interstate 75 in Troy in southwestern Ohio, struck them as timid. The private April 25 meeting was convened by the Speaker of the House of Representatives at the request of Tea Party leaders, who were seething over recent Republican compromises, most notably on the 2011 budget. One of the 25 or so leaders, all from Boehner’s district, asked him if Republicans would raise America’s $14.3 trillion debt limit. According to half a dozen attendees interviewed by Reuters, the most powerful Republican in Washington said “yes.” “And we’re going to have to raise it again in the future,” he added. With the mass retirement of America’s Baby Boomers, he explained, it would take 20 years to balance the U.S. budget and 30 years after that to erase the nation’s huge fiscal deficit. That answer incensed many of the Tea Party activists, for whom raising the debt limit is anathema. “You could have knocked me out of my chair,” said Denise Robertson, a computer programer who belongs to the Preble County Liberty Group. “Fifty years?” She said “my fantasy now” is someone will challenge Boehner in the 2012 Republican primaries. “If we could find someone good to run against him, I’d campaign for them every day,” Robertson said. “I am sick of the tears,” she added, a sarcastic reference to Boehner’s famous propensity to cry. “I want results.” Fed up with “broken promises,” some Tea Party activists have already moved beyond the fantasy stage and aim to “primary” Republicans who have let them down — that is, challenge them in primaries. Some talk of long-shot attempts to unseat leaders like House Majority Whip Eric Cantor. Led by Boehner, Republicans in Congress are at odds with Democrats and the White House over how to raise the limit on how much debt the United States can afford. President Barack Obama’s administration warns of global financial chaos if lawmakers do not increase the current cap of $14.3 trillion. Boehner, in a May 9 speech in New York, did insist that any increase to the debt limit include “cuts in trillions.” But conservatives expect the Republicans will not uphold his demand. If the Republicans lose the debt limit battle, more Tea Party groups say they will aggressively seek candidates to challenge establishment figures in the 2012 primaries. “At this point, all of them are potential targets,” said Dawn Wildman, president of the SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition, who lives in San Diego. “All the way up to Boehner.” FAILURE AN OPTION? Born in the days after Obama took office in early 2009 in a wave of conservative anger at corporate bailouts and hefty government spending to stem the Great Recession, the Tea Party movement has come a long way in just two years. After failing to halt the passage of Obama’s health reform bill, Tea Partiers staffed phone banks, knocked on doors to get out the vote and played a major role in gaining 63 seats for the Republicans in the 2010 elections. The biggest midterm election year swing since 1938 delivered a large House majority for the Republicans and made gains in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Flush with victory, Tea Partiers dived headfirst into local and state politics in 2011 — the results of which are expected to affect the state and national elections of 2012. Their primary foe is still America’s progressive left — it is a given in Ohio, for instance, that the top target for 2012 is Democratic U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown. But now more than ever before the full force of their ire is directed at the Republican Party establishment. Dozens of interviews with Tea Party activists across the country paint a picture of a conservative movement whose members gave the Republican Party in Washington a chance to prove it was serious about fiscal responsibility after years of running up deficits under Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush. And many Republican politicians promised to uphold the Tea Party’s central tenets — constitutionally limited government, lower taxes and the free markets. “They certainly talked the talk before the election,” said Tim Dake of the Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty. “They told us what they knew we wanted to hear and sought us out.” After the election, not so much. “All of a sudden they stopped taking our calls and were no longer interested in what we had to say,” Dake said. Hoping for meaningful change, they watched as either the same people — Boehner and Cantor — or party loyalists took up leadership positions in the House. Then came the first real battle of the new Congress that mattered to the Tea Party — cutting spending in the 2011 budget. Instead of $100 billion in cuts the Republicans promised in their “Pledge to America” unveiled last September, Republicans and Democrats agreed on $38 billion. When the Congressional Budget Office said the real spending reduction was $352 million that set many Tea Partiers boiling. “They volunteered that damn promise of $100 billion, we didn’t ask for it,” said Randy Keller of the Bowling Green Southern Kentucky Tea Party. “They seem to think that we can’t handle simple math. We in the Tea Party are so angry we can’t stand it.” Not raising America’s debt ceiling has now taken on even greater importance for Tea Party groups. The April 25 meeting with Boehner and inside accounts of others between House Republicans and Tea Partiers in their districts hint at a party trying to manage expectations ahead of the real debt limit debate. The trouble is while compromise is a trademark of Washington politics, to many Tea Partiers it is a dirty word. According to Ned Ryun, head of American Majority, which provides training for conservative activists, the Republicans’ problem is they mistook their November victory as a sign the Tea Party backed them because its members are conservatives. “The Republican establishment suffers from a weird belief that somehow the Tea Party will fall in line because it is an adjunct of the Republican Party,” he said. “But the Tea Party is not and never will be an arm of the Republican Party.” That leaves Boehner stuck between the Tea Party and a hard place. If he pushes too hard on cuts, that will rattle the Republican Party’s powerful Wall Street wing, potentially roiling the markets and unsettling the broader electorate. But backing down will also hurt him. “After accusations he didn’t do enough in the budget battle, Boehner has to have something real to take back to conservatives or he’s in trouble,” said James McCormick, a professor of political science at Iowa State University. “He’s boxed in between two components of the Republican Party. Obama knows that and is not under the same pressure.” If the Republicans falter, the search for establishment targets will kick into a higher gear — with freshmen, or those elected in 2010 seen as the easiest to unseat as they are new. “The Tea Party will almost certainly primary those they want to get rid of,” said Larry Sabato, a politics professor at the University of Virginia. “They are not out to rebuild the Republican Party. They are out to take over the Republican Party and make it more like the Tea Party.” “If it takes some Republican defeats along the way to make that happen, then that is what they’ll do,” he added. ‘SCREW UP A FREE LUNCH IN A SOUP KITCHEN’ When night fell on election day last November 2, Tea Partiers across the country were flat out exhausted. Most activists in the amorphous movement are unpaid. Many have full-time jobs as well as volunteering for the cause. In the run-up to the election an army of volunteers learned the mechanics of electioneering: from manning phone banks to knocking on doors to get people to the polls. Ana Puig of the Kitchen Table Patriots in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, says her group staffed a “Liberty Headquarters” 12 hours a day for four months, made 36,000 phone calls, knocked on 20,000 doors and handed out 5,000 yard signs, helping to elect conservative Pat Toomey to the U.S. Senate. “The Republicans would not have been able to achieve those results by itself,” said Puig. “We reached the folks the Republican Party could not.” This is the real power of the Tea Party in its raw form: the ability to get voters to the polls. Tea Party activists in many states describe with contempt an “atrophied” Republican Party machine that in some places they have taken over or ignored entirely. “The Ohio state Republican Party would screw up a free lunch in a soup kitchen,” said Ralph King of the Cleveland Tea Party, a sentiment echoed elsewhere, though less colorfully. After the election, Tea Party groups in many states immersed themselves in local and state politics — a task made easier by massive Tea Party-infused gains for Republicans at the state level. Groups in states like Wisconsin, Indiana, New Hampshire and Ohio have pushed “right to work” bills to take on the unions. Others have backed voter identification bills, under consideration now in 25 states, which conservatives say would prevent voter fraud. Democrats say these bills would lower the turnout for minority, low-income and elderly voters. In Texas, Tea Parties have pushed hard for cuts to the state budget. Social conservatives have used new Republican majorities in state houses to pass some bills targeting abortions. Others are pushing gun rights legislation. And in many states Tea Party groups have pushed back against Obama’s healthcare reform — dubbed “Obamacare.” In Ohio activists are nearing the 386,000 signatures needed for a statewide ballot in November challenging the mandate that individuals obtain health insurance. “We needed time to breathe,” said Chris Littleton, head of the Ohio Liberty Council, who said he is happy control of Washington is divided in the short term because it has allowed Tea Party groups in Ohio “to build up infrastructure.” “By not having a federal agenda flying at us, we have been able to focus more on local and state politics in 2011,” he said, “before we go back to federal politics in 2012.” There has been some media attention devoted recently to the fact that attendance at Tea Party rallies, the hallmark of the early days of the movement, has dwindled. But Tea Partiers say they are too busy learning how the political system works — prior to 2009 most had little or no political experience — and that rallies produce few results. “Rallies get people off the couch,” Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty’s Dake said. “But the return on investment from all the work and money that you have to put into them is not very high. What we’ve found is that people want to have an impact, even if it is just at the local level.” Though the anger may burn with a lower intensity than the white-hot rage of the early days, it still burns — and the Tea Party is trying to put that to good use. “You can’t sustain that kind of anger for long, it drains you,” said Jim Lefler of the Southwest Michigan Tea Party. “We’ve learned to channel our anger to get results.” ‘OUR WAR NOW IS WITH THE REPUBLICANS’ Irrespective of their immersion on local politics, however, the Tea Party movement has maintained its laser focus on the national political scene. Despite their fervent opposition to Obama’s health reform, few appear impressed by the symbolic vote in January in the House to repeal the law — it never stood a chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate, let alone reached Obama’s desk. “That vote was just so Republicans could go home and campaign by saying they voted to repeal Obamacare,” said Paul Keith, chairman of the Bowling Green Southern Kentucky Tea Party. “That vote was meaningless, it was crap.” “The things that matter to us are what the Republicans control. Where if they don’t cooperate, there is no deal.” The fiscal 2011 budget was one such thing. In their “Pledge to America” the party promised spending cuts of $100 billion “in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington.” Not only did Tea Party members around the country note which Republicans voted for the 2011 budget — especially those who ran as fiscal conservatives last year — they are also aware of the 59 Republicans who voted against it. Tea Party members in Ohio, for instance, know three House Republicans held the Tea Party line — Jim Jordan, Steve Chabot and Jean Schmidt — while nine did not, including Boehner. For some Tea Party groups the budget was too much. So they want to target RINOs — Republicans In Name Only, a pejorative term conservatives use for moderate Republicans. “There isn’t any urgency among the establishment Republicans,” said Phillip Dennis of the Dallas Tea Party. “They just don’t get that we elected them not because we love them, but only because they weren’t Democrats.” “Our war now is with the Republican Party,” he added. “We need to send home a whole boatload of RINOs.” So far the only high-profile attempt to “primary” a moderate Republican in 2012 is Indiana, where conservative state treasurer Richard Mourdock is challenging Senator Dick Lugar, who has steadfastly refused to change his views. But others are mentioned as possible. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is one, though no challenger has yet come forward. Tea Party groups in a number of states are eyeing potential candidates for House races, but say their searches are still in the early stages. Perhaps the highest-profile member of the House whom Tea Partiers hope to unseat is Eric Cantor. Karen Hurd of the Virginia Tea Party Alliance is working on a two-pronged strategy to challenge him. The House Majority leader is considered conservative by many, but Hurd says he is a RINO. Hurd is compiling an “information campaign” highlighting his record, including voting for the unpopular 2008 bank bailout. If the campaign gains traction, Hurd wants to find a challenger, though she acknowledges that is a tall order. Cantor’s is a safe seat and he can raise a lot of money. “Right now Cantor is impregnable, but if we can make him vulnerable then he can be primaried,” Hurd said. “A few years ago challenging Cantor was inconceivable. The big change now is that while it’s a huge challenge, it’s not impossible.” Others, like Dake of the Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty, are waiting to see how their Republicans vote in the near future. The more they stray from the fiscal conservative line, the more likely they will be challenged. “It’s still early in the year,” he said. “We’ll give them a couple more votes before we decide.” ‘NOT ONE HAND WENT UP’ Tea Party leaders who attended the April 25 meeting with John Boehner — a member of his office confirmed much of the account given by those who spoke to Reuters — recall he put on a nice spread: quiche, fruit, some “nice cheese” and such. But the assembled leaders found his answers on raising the debt limit unpalatable. Ron Musilli, 62, a native of Troy, recalls asking Boehner what leverage points the Republicans planned to focus on in debt limit talks with the White House and Senate Democrats. “We haven’t figured that out yet,” he recalls Boehner replied. Musilli says that was “a little disconcerting. My kids will be retiring in 50 years, so I like to see a plan to reduce the deficit before then.” When someone asked what happened to the bold-talking John Boehner of October 2012, the Speaker became frustrated and responded with a question: “Would you have the United States default on its obligations?” For many, the short answer is yes. Gene Clem, a spokesman for the Michigan Tea Party Alliance, says at a meeting of 120 activists from 12 Michigan counties at the end of April he asked who wanted to raise the debt limit. “Not one hand went up,” he said. “Not one.” Others want the Republicans to force the Democrats to agree to major cuts before they raise the debt limit. Boehner and other Republicans have talked tough in recent days about slashing spending. Now the onus is on them to deliver. The University of Virginia’s Sabato said the Republicans’ predicament is they cannot do enough to please a movement that wants drastic cuts and dislikes compromise. “The Tea Party wants to take it (the debt limit debate) to the brink,” he said. “The Republicans won’t go there because they know the price will be too high for them.” The Republicans’ corporate wing would prefer a mix of gradual spending cuts and tax increases, which conflicts with the Tea Party’s ideals of both lower taxes and spending. Matt Kibbe, CEO of FreedomWorks, which has provided logistical support for some Tea Party groups, said corporate support for the banking sector bailout, the stimulus package and even for healthcare reform had been unpopular with Tea Party activists. That has created what Kibbe called “a growing divide” between the Tea Party and corporate America. ‘NOT QUALIFIED TO BE DOG CATCHER’ Tea Party groups learned some tough lessons in the 2010 election. First, they often split the vote between them when going up against establishment figures. Hoping to avoid the same mistakes, the Michigan Tea Party Alliance, a coalition of Tea Party groups across the state, is working out guidelines to agree on one challenger per seat. The other main drawback in 2010 was that Tea Party neophytes often chose candidates whose track records or background made them unelectable. Possibly the prime example of that was Christine O’Donnell, who beat a moderate candidate in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat in Delaware, but whose campaign foundered in part over embarrassing revelations of dabbling in witchcraft. Some establishment Republicans claim poor Tea Party choices cost them the Senate. “Let’s face it, we had people who were solidly unqualified for dog catcher, let alone the office they were running for,” said SoCal Tax Revolt Coalition’s Wildman. “The other thing we are learning now is what happens when naive people get into high office,” she added of some of the freshmen the Tea Party helped elect. “So we are learning how to vet candidates properly.” While being a complete outsider was seen as a plus last year, Tea Party groups are now looking for conservative candidates with a track record and name recognition. Some in the movement have run or plan to run for office at the local level. But they will not be ready for primetime until they have worked their way up the political ladder, which is some years off at best. “The biggest challenge we are facing is finding people to run,” said Ken Emanuelson of the Dallas Tea Party. “We need an experienced person with a political track record. It may take several cycles to get the right people in place.” But even an unsuccessful run can be bad news for an establishment candidate, forcing them to spend time and vast sums of money, plus move further to the right to win the primary. In short, incumbents fear primary challenges. “I get a lot of feedback from people locally and from around the country and it’s pretty clear the Republicans do not want us to influence the primaries in 2012,” said Jane Aitken of the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition. “They hate us, but they are terrified of us too.” “But whether the Republicans want us to or not, we are going to influence the primaries next year.” American Majority’s Ryun says he expects a few high-profile Republicans may be beaten in primaries next year. But the Tea Party is expected to find easier targets among the freshmen of 2010. After two years their name recognition will not be that high and many of them are in marginal seats. Even if challenges for high-profile establishment figures prove unsuccessful, they will get the attention of others. “It would send a message to all other Republicans,” the University of Virginia’s Sabato said. “If it could happen to someone as powerful as, say, Eric Cantor, it could certainly happen to you.” WINNING THE PARTY’S SOUL How that plays out in the general election is an open question. While the Tea Party will have an out-sized impact on Republican primaries, its success in November 2012 will depend on how acceptable its candidates are to the broader electorate. The fierce battles going on at the state level over collective bargaining rights or spending cuts are also a factor to watch, as, thanks in part to the Tea Party, those fights are further to the right than the debate in Washington. “There is very little doubt in my mind that establishment Republicans are very worried,” said James Henson, a politics professor at the University of Texas. “They are having to watch their right flank and may end up leveraged in the middle.” “A lot of people are thinking in the abstract that cutting taxes and spending is good,” he added. “But the question is what challenges the reality poses for the Republicans.” Henson also says “divisions the Tea Party has created within the Republican Party have already complicated the party’s presidential race,” as some candidates will wait until the battle for the party’s soul has been decided. That leaves what almost every Tea Party activist interviewed described essentially as a lackluster field. Conservative New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s name was the only one mentioned consistently with any excitement in informal polling for this article, even though he says he will not run. Another candidate who has raised some interest is Herman Cain, a political outsider and former pizza chain CEO. Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has courted the Tea Party actively, but her name was barely mentioned. In one small survey of 68 Tea Party leaders in Ohio conducted in April by the Ohio Liberty Council, in which respondents were asked who they wanted for president, Christie won with 15 votes. Bachmann got four votes, level with real estate tycoon Donald Trump, who said on Monday he would not run. At the back of the pack, alongside former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Barack Obama, was former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney with zero votes. In general polls, Romney currently leads the Republican pack, but the health reform he passed in office — dubbed “Romneycare” — is despised by conservatives for its similarities to Obama’s health reform. “Romneycare is the kiss of death for his campaign,” said Christen Varley of the Greater Boston Tea Party. Just how bad is the divide between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment? “Could the Tea Party harm the Republicans?” said Stuart Rothenberg of the Rothenberg Political Report. “If it pushes too hard then it could fracture the Republican Party.” For some people on the ground like Colleen Conley of the Rhode Island Tea Party, a bit of party fracturing might not be a bad idea. “If the Republicans can’t come through on their promises,” she said, “maybe the party needs to be blown up.” (Additional reporting by David Morgan, Corrie MacLaggan and James B. Kelleher; Editing by Jim Impoco and Claudia Parsons) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Continue reading …
Shh! Networks Don’t Want to Talk About Obamacare Waivers for Wealthy Pelosi Liberals

According to the three major networks, the granting of numerous waivers to Barack Obama's health care law, including 38 in April alone to wealthy, entertainment businesses in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district, isn't of much interest. ABC and CBS have completely ignored waivers, while NBC only included a general mention from a Republican senator. As the Daily Caller's Matthew Boyle reported, 1300 waivers have been granted and while that information is online, “it has not made public which companies and other entities have been denied waivers and why they were denied.” 20 percent went to Pelosi's district. Appearing on the January 2, 2011 Meet the Press, Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out, “…But the Obama health care is a real burden to small businesses and large businesses. There's been 200 and something waivers.” Chuck Todd made a reference to a future waiver program on May 1. Those two were the only instances of waivers even being referred to on NBC. However, while ABC ignored waivers, Good Morning America, for example, found time to promote the obstacle course game show Wipeout and other pressing topics. Here's what the networks haven't been telling you about waivers in general, as explained by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin : Seattle-based REI. The trendy Pacific Northwest outdoor equipment retailer's progressive CEO and Democratic campaign donor, Sally Jewell, appeared with President Obama in 2009 to tout White House health care reform initiatives. Two years later, REI snagged a waiver to protect the health benefits of a whopping 1,180 workers from the very tentacles of the big government bureaucrats Jewell embraced at Obama's roundtable. The Daily Caller's Boyle also noted , “Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.” The New York Times covered waivers only in relation to comments made by Mitt Romney that he would grant them for all 50 states.

Continue reading …
Football Association will abstain in election for Fifa president

• FA board agrees to reject both Blatter and Bin Hammam • Decision taken due to ‘a well-reported range of issues’ The Football Association’s board has decided to abstain in the vote for the presidency of Fifa, citing “a well-reported range of issues”. The decision to support neither Sepp Blatter nor his Qatari challenger Mohamed bin Hammam in the vote on 1 June had been expected following the recent allegations of bribery surrounding Qatar’s successful bid for the 2022 World Cup. Bin Hammam, central to the Qatar bid, denies any wrongdoing. The FA chairman David Bernstein said: “There are a well-reported range of issues both recent and current which, in the view of the FA board, make it difficult to support either candidate. “The FA values its relationships with its international football partners extremely highly. We are determined to play an active and influential role through our representation within both Uefa and Fifa. “We will continue to work hard to bring about any changes we think would benefit all of international football.” Bernstein had previously admitted that “it wouldn’t go down very well” with the public if the FA board decided to vote for the 75-year-old Blatter. He said: “We will look at the recent events and take that on board. There are two candidates and three possible decisions, the other being that we will abstain.” One of the board members from the amateur game is Roger Burden, who withdrew his application to become FA chairman after the World Cup vote in December, saying he would have to work with Fifa and “I am not prepared to deal with people whom I cannot trust”. The Premier League members may have argued in favour of Bin Hammam – they have developed close links with the head of the Asian confederation – but evidently did not win a majority. The FA Fifa Sepp Blatter Mohamed bin Hammam David Bernstein guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Football Association will abstain in election for Fifa president

• FA board agrees to reject both Blatter and Bin Hammam • Decision taken due to ‘a well-reported range of issues’ The Football Association’s board has decided to abstain in the vote for the presidency of Fifa, citing “a well-reported range of issues”. The decision to support neither Sepp Blatter nor his Qatari challenger Mohamed bin Hammam in the vote on 1 June had been expected following the recent allegations of bribery surrounding Qatar’s successful bid for the 2022 World Cup. Bin Hammam, central to the Qatar bid, denies any wrongdoing. The FA chairman David Bernstein said: “There are a well-reported range of issues both recent and current which, in the view of the FA board, make it difficult to support either candidate. “The FA values its relationships with its international football partners extremely highly. We are determined to play an active and influential role through our representation within both Uefa and Fifa. “We will continue to work hard to bring about any changes we think would benefit all of international football.” Bernstein had previously admitted that “it wouldn’t go down very well” with the public if the FA board decided to vote for the 75-year-old Blatter. He said: “We will look at the recent events and take that on board. There are two candidates and three possible decisions, the other being that we will abstain.” One of the board members from the amateur game is Roger Burden, who withdrew his application to become FA chairman after the World Cup vote in December, saying he would have to work with Fifa and “I am not prepared to deal with people whom I cannot trust”. The Premier League members may have argued in favour of Bin Hammam – they have developed close links with the head of the Asian confederation – but evidently did not win a majority. The FA Fifa Sepp Blatter Mohamed bin Hammam David Bernstein guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Sir Fred Goodwin gagging order partially lifted by high court

Move comes after peer uses parliamentary privilege to discuss former RBS chief’s injunction in Lords The high court has partially lifted a gagging order brought by Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, just hours after details of his alleged extra-marital affair were made public in the House of Lords. Mr Justice Tugendhat varied the injunction to allow publication of Goodwin’s name, but not details of the alleged relationship and the name of the woman said to be involved. Goodwin obtained the wide-ranging injunction against the Sun newspaper in March. News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that publishes the Sun, went to the high court on Thursday afternoon seeking to get the injunction lifted. However, by that point Goodwin had already informed the high court “that he did not wish to persuade the court to continue the anonymity,” according to his lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson QC. Tugendhat then amended the wide-ranging injunction to allow Goodwin to be named, but to prevent reporting of the detail of his alleged “sexual relationship” with a colleague. Tugendhat said: “The main point is that this is an injunction relating to a sexual relationship. The existing order of Mrs Justice Sharp prohibits the naming of the other person to the relationship and prohibits the publication of any details. That remains in force.” The injunction – which even prevented Goodwin from being identified as a banker – was raised by Lord Stoneham, a Liberal Democrat peer, earlier on Thursday during a debate in the upper house. Stoneham’s comments are protected by parliamentary privilege. Stoneham, speaking on behalf of fellow Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott, said during the debate: “Would [the speaker] accept that every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland? “So how can it be right for a injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague? If true it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would know about it.” Following the Lords claims on Thursday morning, Lord McNally, the minister of state for justice and deputy leader of the Lords, revealed that the Ministry of Justice does not know how many superinjunctions presently exist. The ability of MPs and peers to bypass gagging orders issued against the media is likely to feature in a report on superinjunctions by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, on Friday. However, the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on Thursday ruled out new legislation to deal specifically with the issue of balancing privacy and freedom of speech, saying that a privacy law was “not the way forward”. He added: “We’re not minded to have a new privacy law but we’re not ruling out the need for legislative changes.” •

Continue reading …
Sir Fred Goodwin gagging order partially lifted by high court

Move comes after peer uses parliamentary privilege to discuss former RBS chief’s injunction in Lords The high court has partially lifted a gagging order brought by Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, just hours after details of his alleged extra-marital affair were made public in the House of Lords. Mr Justice Tugendhat varied the injunction to allow publication of Goodwin’s name, but not details of the alleged relationship and the name of the woman said to be involved. Goodwin obtained the wide-ranging injunction against the Sun newspaper in March. News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that publishes the Sun, went to the high court on Thursday afternoon seeking to get the injunction lifted. However, by that point Goodwin had already informed the high court “that he did not wish to persuade the court to continue the anonymity,” according to his lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson QC. Tugendhat then amended the wide-ranging injunction to allow Goodwin to be named, but to prevent reporting of the detail of his alleged “sexual relationship” with a colleague. Tugendhat said: “The main point is that this is an injunction relating to a sexual relationship. The existing order of Mrs Justice Sharp prohibits the naming of the other person to the relationship and prohibits the publication of any details. That remains in force.” The injunction – which even prevented Goodwin from being identified as a banker – was raised by Lord Stoneham, a Liberal Democrat peer, earlier on Thursday during a debate in the upper house. Stoneham’s comments are protected by parliamentary privilege. Stoneham, speaking on behalf of fellow Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott, said during the debate: “Would [the speaker] accept that every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland? “So how can it be right for a injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague? If true it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would know about it.” Following the Lords claims on Thursday morning, Lord McNally, the minister of state for justice and deputy leader of the Lords, revealed that the Ministry of Justice does not know how many superinjunctions presently exist. The ability of MPs and peers to bypass gagging orders issued against the media is likely to feature in a report on superinjunctions by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, on Friday. However, the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on Thursday ruled out new legislation to deal specifically with the issue of balancing privacy and freedom of speech, saying that a privacy law was “not the way forward”. He added: “We’re not minded to have a new privacy law but we’re not ruling out the need for legislative changes.” •

Continue reading …

As the GOP field of candidates crumbles,The Politico revs up the spin machine for Mitch Daniels with a typical fawning profile: GOP elite see Mitch Daniels as 2012 savior Top Republicans are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement to the slow-starting nomination race . It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost. But interviews this week with longtime party activists and strategists made clear that many in the Republican establishment are unnerved by a field led by Mitt Romney, who could have trouble confronting Obama on health reform ; Tim Pawlenty, who has yet to ignite excitement; Jon Huntsman, who may be too moderate to get the nomination; and Newt Gingrich, weighed down by personal baggage and a sense that he is a polarizing figure from the 1990s. Despairing Republican lobbyists say their colleagues don’t ask, “Who do you like?” but instead, “Who do we back?” “It’s not that they’re up in arms,” said a central player in the GOP money machine. “It’s just that they’re depressed.” It’s a very weird article because it’s not about how great Daniels is and how fired up the Republicans elite are over his possible candidacy, but rather how weak the rest of the GOP field is. There really isn’t much about Daniels at all in the article that’s supposedly about him. The headline doesn’t match the substance of the piece itself, but I guess they want links from bloggers like me. The MSM began lining up behind Mitch Daniels in May because he’s a conservative governor, as Ed Kilgore explains in TNR: “The conservative establishment’s hopeless infatuation with Mitch Daniels” Later he expanded on this here: Mitch Daniels and the Gravitas Lobby Which leads Digby to write: The Villagers’ New Heartthrob Daniels also has some baggage I don’t think the Villagers realize is poison among just about everyone — he was a member of George W. Bush’s economic team. Now, Republicans don’t really care about that but they have gone to a great deal of trouble to distance themselves from Bush’s epic failure by robotically claiming that they didn’t support Bush’s spending either. Daniels is going to have a bit of trouble making that argument and you can bet his primary rivals will hang Bush’s effigy around his neck and set it afire. The mere idea that a Bush economic advisor has “gravitas” would be astonishing if we weren’t living in bizarroworld. So out came stories about his Daniels’ wife. As Doug J at Balloon Juice writes: Oh Cheri, all alone I think Daniels is a weak primary candidate for a variety of reasons, but there’s no doubt Daniels will be establishment media’s favored candidate in both the primary and, if he gets there, the general. He’s the new John McCain. So his personal life will not be explored. Funny how this never happens with Democratic candidates. What was the top news story of last week? Obviously Bin Laden’s demise. CNN’s Reliable Sources TV show focuses on how the media covers the most important stories that drive the news for the past week. After Bin Laden was killed, the right wing then tried to shift the debate to justify torture so it became a two pronged lead in a sense. What story did Reliable Sources begin their show with? The wives of GOP candidates running for President in 2012. And one of those wives who was featured was Cheri Daniels . HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Running for public office these days means subjecting your family to a whole lot of journalist scrutiny. From Bill Clinton’s marriage, to Sarah Palin’s kids, to the pain of Elizabeth Edwards, the media glare can be harsh, as we saw again this week. Should Newt Gingrich’s third wife — you know, the one he had the affair with — be on the front page of “The New York Times”? What about Mitch Daniels divorcing and then remarrying his wife? Front page news? Should Arnold Schwarzenegger split with Maria Shriver be all over the airwaves? Are journalists trying to probe our political leaders or just play the gossip game? — I’m Howard Kurtz, and this is RELIABLE SOURCES. One day before he jumped into the presidential race, Newt Gingrich was greeted by a front-page picture of his wife Callista. She is, according to “The New York Times,” perhaps best remembered for the six-year affair that contributed to her husband’s downfall, when he was speaker of the House, of course, and pushing to impeach Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair. But now, says the paper, he is counting on the third Mrs. Gingrich for his political redemption. Another page one story in The Times this week zeroed in on Mitch Daniels’ wife Cheri, who divorced him in the ’90s, married another man, and then remarried Daniels. And the Indiana governor hasn’t decided even whether to run for president. The “Los Angeles Times” reported this week that it had approached Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver about their deteriorating marriage and gotten a statement saying the movie-star-turned-governor and his wife had separated. Given their star power, the coverage quickly exploded.

Continue reading …

As the U.S. taps out its credit limit and the debt ceiling vote approaches, you can tell Paul Krugman is approaching a state of chronic hopelessness over Obama’s strategy: So hitting the debt ceiling would be a very bad thing. Unfortunately, it may be unavoidable. Why? Because this is a hostage situation. If the president and his allies operate on the principle that failure to raise the debt ceiling is an unthinkable outcome, to be avoided at all cost, then they have ceded all power to those willing to bring that outcome about. In effect, they will have ripped up the Constitution and given control over America’s government to a party that only controls one house of Congress, but claims to be willing to bring down the economy unless it gets what it wants. Now, there are good reasons to believe that the G.O.P. isn’t nearly as willing to burn the house down as it claims. Business interests have made it clear that they’re horrified at the prospect of hitting the debt ceiling. Even the virulently anti-Obama U.S. Chamber of Commerce has urged Congress to raise the ceiling “as expeditiously as possible.” And a confrontation over spending would only highlight the fact that Republicans won big last year largely by promising to protect Medicare, then promptly voted to dismantle the program. But the president can’t call the extortionists’ bluff unless he’s willing to confront them, and accept the associated risks. According to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, Mr. Obama has told Democrats not to draw any “line in the sand” in debt negotiations. Well, count me among those who find this strategy completely baffling. At some point — and sooner rather than later — the president has to draw a line. Otherwise, he might as well move out of the White House, and hand the keys over to the Tea Party. Like Digby, I don’t believe the Republicans will do it. They’ve already said they won’t do it, and if that’s true , Obama is merely using the debt ceiling crisis as cover for what he wants to do, anyway.

Continue reading …