Tag Archives: senator

This Week In: Bleeps — From Hearings to Hissyfits

There's nothing like a little censorship. This week's most interest and outrageous bleeps include a taste of all walks of life, from political figures like Senator Carl Levin to infamous reality royalty like Khloe Kardashian. infoMania is a half-hour satirical news show that airs on Current TV. The show puts a comedic spin on the 24-hour chaos and information overload brought about by the constant bombardment of the media. Hosted by Conor Knighton and co-starring Brett Erlich, Sarah Haskins, Ben Hoffman, Bryan Safi and Sergio Cilli, the show airs on Thursdays at 10 pm Eastern and Pacific Times and can be found online at http://current.com/infomania/ or on Current TV. added by: infoMania

John McCain’s MySpace Picture

John McCain has made it onto the Guys With iPhones site. It's only a matter of time before we get a cock shot! The Best Links: Via Towerload View

Rachel Maddow’s Full Page Ad In The Boston Globe

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown recently sent a fund-raising letter claiming that Rachel Maddow would be running against him in 2012, and he needs every dime he can get to make sure she doesn't win. The only problem is, Maddow has no plans to run, and has never stated that she does. The Best Links: Via The Maddow Blog View

Rielle Hunter: All About John Edwards' Mistress PHOTOS, VIDEO …

Hunter , National, month, which, prominent, several, Democrats, urging, quoted, former, Charlotte, mainstream, ignored, media, today’s, Senator, Observer, confront, surprisingly, Nightline, Hunter , Rielle , Edwards, affair, Quinn, … Continue reading

The Scandalous Scott Brown Lawsuit that No One Told You About [Exclusive]

Did you know that Scott Brown —the new star Republican Senator—was accused of harassing a female campaign worker in 1998? We have the documents to prove it. Did the Democrats blow an opportunity to keep their 60th Senate seat? In 2000, Scott Brown was a freshman state representative in Massachusetts. A few years earlier, he’d served on the Wrentham, Mass. Board of Selectmen. Jennifer Firth , a local mortgage banker who was elected to the Board of Selectmen in 1999, filed a civil defamation suit against Brown in July of 2000, alleging that he had harassed her when she worked on his campaign in 1998, and then tried to smear her reputation around town with forged letters and emails. According to Firth’s complaint, Brown engaged in “offensive” conduct that caused her to quit his campaign; he then tried to “defame and humiliate” her by spreading rumors to her colleagues that she “had made sexual advances” towards him during his campaign. She also alleged that Brown told several people that he’d had an “intimate relationship” with her and that he had a stack of sexually explicit letters that Firth had sent him. In her suit, Firth says that she’d never been sexually intimate with Brown, nor did she ever send him the aforementioned letters. A 2000 article in the local paper , the Sun Chronicle , reported that Brown had denied the charges; for her part, Firth said she felt that filing the suit was “the only way I could stop this.” The case then took a strange turn. Two days after the lawsuit was filed, Jennifer Firth’s lawyer, Harvey Schwartz , filed a motion to withdraw as her counsel, saying that “to the best of [Schwartz’s] knowledge, information and belief, the above allegations [by Firth] are not supported by ‘good grounds.'” The next day, Jennifer Firth withdrew her suit . It was dismissed with prejudice, which means it can never be re-filed. Brown told a local newspaper that her lawyer had decided to withdraw after he was presented with letters and e-mail messages that proved she’d been harassing Brown. The day after she dropped her suit, Firth claimed she’d done so because “her lawyer told her she was unlikely to win it.” Firth’s story is certainly an odd one. Why would she have gone to the trouble of filing a suit against Brown only to drop the case so soon afterward? And if Brown had any evidence to support his claim that it was Firth who had been harassing him, why did he never release it publicly? To be sure, it’s possible there was no merit to Firth’s case. And it’s worth noting that Firth has had other brushes with controversy in her county. But why did Democrats and members of the national press fail to even bring up the fact that Scott Brown had once been accused of sexual harassment and defamation in the myriad stories about him prior to Massachusetts’ special election in January? Google it. The entire incident is conspicuously absent. Consider the political stakes. Coakley’s loss cost Democrats their 60th Senate seat, endangering a long list of President Obama’s political objectives such as health care reform. Yet Martha Coakley, the state’s Democratic attorney general who ran against Brown, never mentioned the issue on the campaign trail, as far as we can tell. Did the Coakley campaign look into the case and decide Firth’s claims were baseless? Did they miss it entirely? The Democratic leadership in Washington did not, as far as we can tell, raise the harassment claim at any point during the election, even though it could have been used to raise doubts about Brown in the lead up to what was a very close election. Firth’s charges may have been baseless. But many politicians have seen their political prospects damaged by far less than allegations contained in an actual lawsuit. Why didn’t White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel feed this to liberal media outlets in an effort to discredit Brown? Clearly, if the situation were reversed and it had it been a Democrat in a high-profile special election who had a harassment and defamation suit in his past, the story would have been a talking point on Fox News for weeks. We’ve left messages for Senator Brown, Jennifer Firth, and her former lawyer Harvey Schwartz. We’ve yet to hear back from any of them. DOCUMENTS: Firth’s complaint, her lawyer’s withdrawal, and the subsequent dismissal of the case. [ Photos of Brown and Coakley via Getty Images ]

Continue reading here:
The Scandalous Scott Brown Lawsuit that No One Told You About [Exclusive]

Assembly member Harriet Drummond just sent the posse after Dan "the desperado" Sullivan to retrieve the money he stole from our city’s treasury.

This is Resolution AR No. 2010-91, which Harriet Drummond, this liberal bloggers favorite Anchorage Assembly member, just submitted for consideratin on March 23. ANCHORAGE, ALASKA AR NO. 2010–91 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANCHORAGE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY TO AUTHORIZE ENGAGING THE SERVICES OF INDEPENDENT LEGAL COUNSEL TO REVIEW AND REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY ON THE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, IF ANY, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE ASSEMBLY, IF ANY, REGARDING PAYMENT OF $193,000 IN MUNICIPAL FUNDS TO THE GEORGE M. SULLIVAN IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST, AND PROVIDING FOR AN APPROPRIATION. WHEREAS, pursuant to Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010, the Assembly was requested by and on behalf of the Mayor to appropriate One Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($193,000.00) from the Areawide General Fund (Fund 101) for disbursement to the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust; and WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 declared that disbursement would be made under a life insurance contract; and WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 did not disclose that the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust was administered by the Mayor in his private capacity as the son of George M. Sullivan and Trustee of the life insurance trust; and WHEREAS, Assembly Memorandum No. AM 76-2010 did not disclose that no life insurance policy was in place and no written life insurance contract existed; and WHEREAS, AR 2010-33 was passed and approved by the Assembly, on February 16, 2010, authorizing disbursement subject to receipt of proper documentation from the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust; and WHEREAS, the full circumstances purporting to legally obligate the Municipality to make a payout of $193,000.00 in public funds are more complicated than provided in the summary under AM 76-2010; and WHEREAS, the payout of $193,000.00 in public funds for life insurance without a life insurance policy in place has raised many concerns in the mind of the public and one or more Assembly Members, including these questions: • What is the legal basis for asserting the existence of a life insurance policy or contract? • What is the legal basis for asserting a contractual obligation in the absence of a written contract? • What is the legal authority of the Salary and Emoluments Commission to authorize an employee benefit after employment has terminated? • Were the legal requirements, procedures and process under Charter Section 5.08 (c) properly followed? • What, if any, is the extent of a municipal obligation to make payment of $193,000 in life insurance without a life insurance policy? • What is the current Assembly’s authority to approve or disapprove a life insurance payment in the absence of a life insurance policy? • Is this disbursement recognized in the FY 2010 General Government Operating Budget? • What process should be used under the Ethics Code to ensure that an elected public official does not sit on both sides of a municipal transaction? • Under what public purpose are public funds being disbursed as life insurance? and WHEREAS, the current Mayor is also actively serving as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, creating a situation in which he serves on both sides of a significant financial transaction involving public funds; and WHEREAS, as Mayor, the incumbent is required to represent and act in the Municipality’s best interests; and WHEREAS, as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Life Insurance Trust, the Trustee has a fiduciary duty to the Trust to represent and act in the best interests of the Trust and its beneficiaries; NOW, THEREFORE, the Anchorage Assembly resolves: 1. Because the events surrounding the creation and administration of a special benefit for the Honorable George M. Sullivan occurred after he was no longer in office and over the course of several mayoral successions without a full and public review before the Assembly, the Assembly authorizes an independent legal review to include the following: • The authority of the Salary and Emoluments Commission, after the mayor or other elected official has left elected office, to authorize a special life insurance benefit; • Whether a special life insurance benefit was legally effectuated for George M. Sullivan, when, and by whom or under what actions; • The legal obligations and risks to the Municipality concerning the special life insurance benefit (prior to payment); • The authority of the Mayor to request an appropriation when the Mayor also currently serves as Trustee of the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust, without disclosure of the potential for conflict of interest; • The public purpose under which disbursement of public funds is allowed as life insurance proceeds, without a fair market life insurance policy or premium payments. • The authority of the Anchorage Assembly to approve an appropriation of public funds for this purpose. 2. The services of independent legal counsel shall be selected by the Internal Auditor, the Municipal Clerk and Assembly Counsel under a small procurement contract not to exceed [$5,000 – $10,000], and an appropriation of [$ 10,000] for this purpose is approved. 3. Until the Assembly is assured by independent legal counsel that payment of $193,000.00 in public funds is legally appropriate, the Mayor, in his private capacity as Trustee for the George M. Sullivan Irrevocable Trust, is respectfully requested to return any funds disbursed under AR 2010-33 to a special account to be held by the Municipality. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Anchorage Assembly this ______day of ____________, 2010. ______________________________ Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Municipal Clerk Damn! It is about time SOMEBODY took Sullivan to task for emptying the city’s cash reserves while cutting services to its citizens! If you are late to the party and a little confused by this resolution just go here , here , and here and you will soon know why Anchorage residents are so angry. By the way, is it too early to draft Harriet Drummons to run for mayor of Anchorage? State Senator? How about Lisa’s job? (H/T to my friend, and fellow Alaskan blogger Phil Munger )

Continue reading here:
Assembly member Harriet Drummond just sent the posse after Dan "the desperado" Sullivan to retrieve the money he stole from our city’s treasury.

My very own Senator, Mark Begich, is the 50th Senator open to using reconciliation to pass Health Care Reform in this country. Can we get excited yet?

I KNOW that Mark wants to pass this very badly. I spoke to him about that very subject several months ago and he expressed his desire to get the bill passed. He is being very careful, which is called for in the crazy political times we are living in, but he is definitely NOT going to balk if the other 49 senators are ready to do this thing. Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. The reconciliation process is a budgetary tool used to address spending and deficit issues with a simple majority vote. The budget reconciliation process has been used 22 times by both parties since 1980. Action to clean up the health reform bill will further reduce the deficit. Comprehensive health care reform has already passed the Senate with 60 votes. If the House passes the Senate bill, the President could sign that version of comprehensive reform into law. I believe reconciliation would only be used as a tool to take out special backroom deals and to eliminate concerns raised by many Alaskans I’ve talked with. The President has proposed narrow changes which I support, including completely closing the coverage gap for seniors’ prescription drugs, eliminating the special Nebraska funding provision, providing additional federal financing to all states to help pay for the expansion of Medicaid, and strengthening the Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse provisions. Again, thank you for contacting me. As the 111th Congress moves forward, please continue to be in touch with your thoughts and concerns. Sincerely, Mark Begich U.S. Senator You can read more by clicking the title and visiting Shannyn’s blog. And by the way speaking of Shannyn, I need to give her a lot of credit for pushing Senator Begich on this issue and repeatedly asking him, both on the radio and in private, what he is going to do. Without Shannyn’s persistence we may still have no idea how Begich was planning to vote. Thank you Shannyn.

More here:
My very own Senator, Mark Begich, is the 50th Senator open to using reconciliation to pass Health Care Reform in this country. Can we get excited yet?

Old Person Replaces Sick Person as Corrupt Person Steps Aside [Congress]

Nancy Pelosi has selected Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich) to “temporarily” replace Charlie Rangel as Chairman of the Ways and Means committee, while Rangel’s under investigation for being incredibly corrupt. Sorry, crazy Pete Stark . The guy who was supposed to be next-in-line was crazy California Congressman Pete Stark, who is very old and who has been suffering from a mysterious illness lately that he won’t tell anyone about. Stark is actually kind of awesome— he is the only avowed atheist in Congress and he’s a founding member of the Progressive caucus and generally we love the guy—but the head of a committee as important as Ways and Means should not be missing a quarter of all floor votes because this weird sickness that he won’t tell anyone about. One of the big problems with congressional Democrats is their fanatical devotion to the seniority system, which is how you end up with dudes like Max Baucus in charge of the Senate Finance Committee and Kent Conrad in charge of the Budget Committee. The Democrats should be thrilled to have those gentlemen in their caucus—but committee chairmanships should actually go to people who actually do toe the party line, which is not such a bad thing if your party line is generally full of good ideas. Let your “moderate” members from conservative states and districts take their symbolic votes against things, but do not let them chair powerful committees, you idiots. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer are generally much better at this sort of thing than Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. But while Sander Levin is a better choice than Pete Stark, as he is not suffering from a mysterious illness, he is also still 78 years old. He is the older brother of Senator Carl Levin, in fact. Seniority is just another of the incredibly stupid things about our way of governing ourselves that the Founders invented because God told them to.

Read more:
Old Person Replaces Sick Person as Corrupt Person Steps Aside [Congress]

Jon Stewart demonstrates dismay that the Senate Democrats lack the balls to stand up to one cantankerous old GOP fart.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c Senate After Dark http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Reform I hate to be all petty and partisan, but am I the only one who thinks Senator Jim Bunning is a giant dick? And does anybody really believe he is a “stand alone dick”? Because I am pretty sure he emerged from some smoke filled Senate backroom where Republicans get together to decide how to slow down the Democratic agenda at every turn after being told that since he was on his way out of the Senate he needed to “take one for the team” and act like a complete asshole while his GOP comrades acted all innocent and confused. “What? Senator Bunning is blocking this vote? Why, whatever would possess him to do such a thing? I swear I cannot imagine.”

See the original post here:
Jon Stewart demonstrates dismay that the Senate Democrats lack the balls to stand up to one cantankerous old GOP fart.

‘Heroes’ Star Pleads Not Guilty to DUI

Adrian Pasdar — the flying Senator in “Heroes” — plead not guilty to one misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence today.Pasdar — who’s married to Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines — was arrested on January 27 after cops pulled him over … Permalink

Read the original here:
‘Heroes’ Star Pleads Not Guilty to DUI