Political News & Info

After three years of criticizing President Barack Obama’s anti-Israel policies, and a special election in New York last September during which he supported the Republican candidate , former Mayor Ed Koch has once again decided to be an advocate for Obama in the Jewish community–without any clear changes in Obama’s positions. This is not Koch’s first such reversal. During the 2008 Democratic Party primary season, Koch had worried that a Barack Obama would not be a friend to Israel : Hillary recently attempted to warn Iran that were it to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, the U.S. “would be able to totally obliterate them.” Hillary’s comments were totally in keeping with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which kept the Soviet Union at bay during the Cold War when it threatened its European neighbors and members of NATO. Instead of joining Hillary in a similar warning to Iran, Senator Obama on “Meet The Press” criticized Hillary stating, “It’s language reflective of George Bush…This kind of language is not helpful.” Koch concluded: We now know just how far Senator Obama is prepared to go to defend our friends and allies. It is not far enough. Just four months later, without any change in Obama’s positions ,  Koch endorsed Barack Obama . Then he went off to heavily Jewish states to convince American Jews that Israel should not be an issue in the campaign because Obama and McCain were equal in their support of Israel. Once Obama was elected and proved to be horrible for America and Israel, Ed Koch became a leading critic of the POTUS and his anti-Israel policies. In March 2010 he wrote a commentary for the progressive Huffington Post called “ Never Again Should We Be Silent “: Now, in my opinion, based on the actions and statements by President Obama and members of his administration, there is grave doubt among supporters of Israel that President Obama can be counted on to do what presidents before him did – protect our ally, Israel. The Arabs can lose countless wars and still come back because of their numbers. If Israel were to lose one, it would cease to exist. In April 2010 Koch doubled down, telling Neil Cavuto on Fox News; “I have been a supporter of President Obama and went to Florida for him, urged Jews all over the country to vote for him saying that he would be just as good as John McCain on the security of Israel. I don’t think it’s true anymore,” Koch told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu got a chilly reception at the White House last week after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 new apartments for Jews in East Jerusalem during a visit from Vice President Biden. The announcement drew sharp condemnations from Washington and calls to cancel the construction plans – requests that Netanyahu says he will not heed. Koch said he believes Obama “orchestrated” what happened in Israel. “What they did is they wanted to make Israel into a pariah,” he said. “It’s outrageous in my judgment. “ Koch said he’s shocked that Congress, which largely supports Israel hasn’t “stood up and said to the president, ‘you’re wrong on this, Mr. President.’” Koch went on to say the self-serving Chuck Schumer had explained to him he wouldn’t speak out against Obama’s Israel positions publicly because he was working behind the scenes to get Obama to change is policy (it didn’t work). The former mayor continued by saying Schumer promised to speak out against Obama publicly should he not change his policies (Schumer hasn’t). He concluded by saying: “I believe that the Obama administration is willing to throw Israel under the bus in order to please Muslim nations.” Just this past September, Koch was a big part of the GOP victory in the special election to replace Anthony Weiner in NY-9. Koch’s reason for supporting the Republican Bob Turner was to send a message to President Obama . If Jewish New Yorkers and others who support Israel were to turn away from the Democratic Party in that congressional election and elect the Republican candidate to Congress in 2011, it might very well cause President Obama to change his hostile position on the State of Israel and to reestablish the special relationship presidents before him had supported. His own reelection will be decided next year in 2012. The outcome of the 2011 congressional special election in the 9th Congressional District will certainly get his attention. The former Mayor made this political threat to the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave: But if he doesn’t read the tea leaves and change his position, you can be certain I will continue to bang my drum. I will campaign against him not only in New York , but in other parts of the country next year. I’ll be loud and clear about what I believe. There are many Floridians who are concerned about the Obama administration’s treatment of Israel, and Florida will be crucial to the President’s reelection. This week however, the once strong-minded Mayor made the same flip-flop he made in 2008 as he hosted an Obama fundraising event which raised a half a million dollars from 100 members of the Jewish community. Koch’s change of heart comes the same week as the release of multiple reports of the Obama administration warning Israel not to defend herself against Iran. President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons. Even though I disagreed with many of his positions, Ed Koch was one of my political heroes. He seemed to be a different kind of politician–one who put convictions in front of party affiliation. I should have known better.  Ed Koch is comfortable bashing Obama until he sees the election coming–and suddenly any backbone is replaced by a wet noodle. No voter should ever pick a President solely based on his position about Israel. I could understand if the former Mayor said that other issues were  much more important than Israel in the coming election. That is not what happened. In 2008 he reversed himself lying about Obama to Jewish voters; saying the future President was McCain’s equal on the issues of terrorism and Israel. Now he is trying to do it again, first promising “But if he doesn’t read the tea leaves and change his position, you can be certain I will continue to bang my drum,” then breaking his promise. Despite the fact that Obama has not budged in his anti-Israel positions, Ed Koch is trying to fool us once again and convince Jews that Obama is a Zionist. When Koch was mayor he used to walk around the NYC saying “How am I doing?” The answer today is…. lousy!

Read more:
Former Mayor Ed Koch Folds for Obama–Again

Just as Gov. Mitt Romney seems to be closing in on a win in the Republican primary, he seems to have adopted what Steve Benen calls a losing argument for the general election: “Two weeks into 2012, Romney has a new message: don’t give Obama credit for making the economy better….This isn’t just a tough sell; it’s an impossible one.” Given that Romney probably must win on Obama’s turf in 2012, it may be time to worry. I had dinner with several Democrats recently–some “leftist,” some moderate–and their views on the Republican primary left me feeling rather uneasy. The fact is that many Democrats are eager to face Mitt Romney in the fall, no matter what they might say in public . Gov. Mitt Romney (Photo source: Christian Science Monitor) Democrats are frustrated with Barack Obama, but most want him to win in November–and they are pleased Romney is emerging as the likely Republican nominee. Here’s why: 1. Romney hasn’t given voters a compelling reason to choose him over Obama. Obama is going to run on a version of “hope and change” again. It might sound absurd to Republican ears, but it’s a clear message: “We had to clean up a mess for the first four years. Things are getting better. Give me a chance to show you what we can really do.” Romney’s basic message is that he’s more competent than Obama. It’s weak stuff. Worse than that, Romney’s bought into Obama’s ideas: e.g. the economy’s getting better ; Obama’s bailouts were necessary; the “rich” don’t deserve capital gains tax cuts , but the “middle class” does; forcing everyone to buy health insurance enforces “responsibility”; it’s “ erratic ” to tell the truth about the Middle East or about the flaws of Social Security. Basically, Romney is reducing the race to a personalty contest–which Obama will win. 2. Democrats believe Romney’s become extreme, despite his moderate message. One person, from Massachusetts, said that today’s Romney is a completely different person from the one who governed from 2003 to 2007. Democrats know he’s not “Tea Party,” but they believe he’ll give into it. It’s likely they’d believe that of any Republican, but nothing in Romney’s record or rhetoric, moderate though they may be, has convinced them otherwise. 3. Democrats believe that Obama is a moderate who has not done nearly enough. Romney hopes to appeal to voters who believe Obama has taken America in a radical direction. But many Democrats believe that Obama is a compromiser who yields far too often. The fact that Republicans see him in opposite terms is a real surprise to them. Regardless, they won’t choose a new moderate over the moderate they have already. 4. Democrats don’t trust Romney because they believe conservatives don’t either. Though Democrats tell themselves Romney is extreme, they sense he lacks the full trust of the conservative base. Their explanation is not that Romney has taken positions to the left of his party, but that he is a “flip-flopper.” Right or wrong, the fact that conservatives seems to have doubts about Romney is seen as a point against him, not in his favor. 5. Many Democrats have no idea how the economy works, and enjoy class war. The Democrats I spoke to seem to believe that the economy is a big pile of money that Wall Street dispenses at its pleasure. They are delighted by the fact that Republicans are attacking Romney for his record at Bain Capital, because it reinforces the class war narrative to which many Democrats–whatever their material circumstances–subscribe. 6. Democrats believe they are winning on social issues and will continue to do so. Though they still see Republicans as the party of the religious right, the fact that no Republican candidate has captured social conservatives’ enthusiasm is a sign to Democrats that they can win in 2012 on cultural issues alone–so much so that the Republicans won’t dare to nominate a candidate who makes those issues a priority. To summarize: Romney is blamed for everything Democrats dislike about conservatives and receives credit for none of the ways in which he disagrees with conservatives. If he wants to win in November, Romney must summon the courage to draw distinctions with Obama on principle, not personality. If he won’t, or can’t, he’ll have to make the campaign a negative one that focuses on Obama’s weaknesses, rather than his own strengths. Either way, Romney’s prospects will be tough.

View post:
Dinner With Democrats: Romney’s Tough Prospects

Newt Gingrich has had his ups and downs lately in the Republican Presidential primary. Though much of the setback has been due to his own miscues, he recently hit the nail on the proverbial head when he proclaimed that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) should be defunded . There is no doubt that Obama’s recent recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were motivated by his desire to bring Big Labor on board for the 2012 Election run as recounted in last week’s blog Will the NLRB Decide the 2012 Presidential Election . Newt was correct in stating that defunding the NLRB is the right response to an imperialistic President who intentionally circumvented the spirit of the law for personal gain and philosophical ideology. Besides legal measures, the only current means to defeat The Cold War Within: The Fight for America’s Future is for the Republican dominated congress to utilize its budgetary power and defund the Rogue NLRB . Such action is even more imperative now, according to Phil Wilson in his latest issue of Union Bailout Update , where he expresses that the two new Democratic appointees, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, are even more radical than Craig Becker, which is unimaginable. Additionally, Mr. Wilson expressed that Board Chairman Mark Pearce is the true engine behind achieving Card Check , and that the recent appointments provide Pierce the radical majority he needs to achieve Obama’s and Big Labor’s coveted goal of an Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) style regulatory scheme, aka “ EFCA Through the Backdoor ,” in time to support Obama’s 2012 Presidential run. The goal is to implement new regulations such as the “Persuader Rule,” “quickie elections,” and the Posting Rule,  as described in Phil Wilson’s  2012 Predictions that will allow Big Labor to utilize the Persuasion of Power to prosecute brutal  Corporate Campaigns against employees and employers in time to raise money, register voters and put union foot soldiers on the ground for the 2012 Election. The frightening political machines behind them are recounted in my new book The Devil at Our Doorstep . Don’t believe that this administration and its Big Labor allies are that conniving and unethical? Read the following e-mail received from the Daily Kos supporting the President’s decision and re-election: Yesterday President Obama used recess appointments to name Richard Cordray the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and to fill the vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board. Please, send President Obama an email thanking him for this bold move. Without these appointments, The National Labor Relations Board would cease to function as a defender of workers’ rights. Without a director, the CFPB couldn’t fulfill its critical function as a watchdog working to stop the fraudulent practices of mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial interests that are bleeding Americans dry. Republicans are livid. Failing to grind consumer and worker protections to a halt at the request of their Wall Street masters, Republicans are now claiming these appointments are unconstitutional ( they’re not ). Within hours of announcement, they began setting up congressional hearings. This is a big effing deal , and credit should go where credit is due. Please send a thank you email to President Obama for making these recess appointments. Keep fighting, Chris Bowers Campaign Director, Daily Kos P.S. Please chip in $5 to help support Daily Kos . One must be naïve or in denial if this type of straightforward language isn’t bothersome!  This group insinuates the goal of the NLRB is only to protect workers from employers. In fact, the Act has recognized the risk posed by labor unions. Pursuant to the language of the Act, the NLRB has two primary functions: To conduct secret-ballot elections among employees to determine whether or not the employees wish to be represented by a union; and To prevent and remedy statutorily defined unfair labor practices by employers and unions . The implications are frightening if this administration, through the use of the NLRB, achieves its goal of neutering business and resurrecting the  Gasping Dinosaurs as it will surely be A Death Penalty for Employees and Employers ! It is time to become involved and contact your elected representatives and ask them to defund the NLRB before it is too late. Further, support Right to Work ! Newt Gingrich is right America, We are at War! Armageddon is at Hand! Please Wake up!

See original here:
Time to Defund the Rogue NLRB

President Obama has officially requested an increase to the statutory debt limit. The formal request gives both chambers 15 days to vote on whether to approve of the $1.2 trillion hike. The House plans to vote on this request on Jan. 18, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said. In a letter to House and Senate leaders sent Thursday, the president informed the Congress that the federal government had come within $100 billion of the existing limit and that another increase is “required to meet existing commitments.” The boost will be the third and final increase to the ceiling under the debt-limit deal struck in August, and is intended to cover the government’s borrowing through the 2012 elections. The United States reached the $15.194 trillion debt limit on Jan. 4, according to Treasury statements. Since that time, Treasury has employed the “extraordinary measure” of tapping into its Exchange Stabilization Fund to avoid exceeding the limit. Read more at The Hill .

Read the original:
Obama Requests a $1.2 Trillion Debt Ceiling Increase

For Harry Belafonte and other progressive blacks, the reality of the Obama Presidency is bitter pill to swallow, as he detailed his ongoing unhappiness with the administration. In a recent radio interview, Belafonte took the President to task and asked what his legacy would be in the wake of the opportunities he has been given. Mr. Belafonte’s criticism comes at a time when President Obama finds himself under increasing pressure for the far left wing of his Party, as they feel he has failed to deliver on his promises of hope and change. For months now, President Obama has been under pressure from members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and other black activists to start addressing those problems facing the most loyal voting bloc of the Democrat Party, yet the President and his advisers have pushed back against this, claiming they are concerned about the problems facing all Americans. Belafonte’s criticism and anger are understandable, as he and many like him thought that the Obama Presidency was going to lead to the fulfillment of all the progressive promises of the last 60 years, especially those promises made by Democrats and their sock puppet leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Belafonte and other black Democrat activists know full well that they will have a harder time turning out record numbers of black voters in any effort to reelect President Obama this time. In 2008, the narrative in the black community was that the election of Barack Obama was in part way the fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King’s Dream, but with more than 3 years under his belt, Belafonte and others would be hard pressed to find anyone in the black community who could claim they are better off today than they were 3 years ago. Even members of the Congressional Black Caucus are starting to feel the heat at the grassroots level as black activists, who are normal allies at election time, are threatening to challenge certain members of the caucus. Senior members of the caucus such as Maxine Waters have tried to blame the Tea Party for President Obama’s failures, but many blacks still remember that President Obama entered office with massive majorities in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate, and that narrative simply does not add up. President Obama, for his part, has felt the heat from other black elected officials and activists and lashed out against them this past summer at the Congressional Black Caucus annual gala when he stated that blacks need to “stop complainin’,” “put on your marching shoes,” and follow him into the battle for jobs and opportunity. Conservative blacks like myself and others have endured years of name calling from progressives such as Belafonte, the Congressional Black Caucus, and other black activists who have sold their souls to the Democrat Party, but now that one of their own is calling the shots, they still are complaining about the same issues and problems and it is all too clear now what we have been saying. Progressive ideas may look good on paper, but in the real world they simply don’t work. The only redeeming thing that President Obama can count on is that the Republican establishment might seem hell-bent on making former Governor Mitt Romney their nominee in 2012 and thus, it will make President Obama’s reelection effort that much easier as Governor Romney will find himself the victim of a unabated smear campaign from which he will not be able to defend himself from because he is a Mormon and black Democrat activists will play up the fact that blacks were not allowed to join the Mormon Church until the 1980s. The most redeeming quality about Belafonte’s comments for conservatives such as myself are that we knew all along that the Obama Presidency was going to be one mired in complete failure and chaos.

Continue reading here:
For Harry Belafonte and Other Progressive Blacks, the Reality of the Obama Presidency Is a Bitter Pill to Swallow

Apparently, “respecting the U.S. Constitution” didn’t make it onto President Obama’s 2012 New Year’s resolution list, as evidenced by his “recess” appointment of anti-business extremist Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Just an few hours later, Obama made three additional appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has become little more than a Big Labor battering ram under this president. Obama is terming his appointments “recess” appointments. They are nothing of the sort, because Congress is not in recess. Article I, Section 5, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days …” To prevent any recess appointment, the Republican-controlled House has refused to consent to Senate adjournment, resulting in the Senate coming into pro forma session every three days. But as Ed Meese, who served as Attorney General under Ronald Reagan, points out : these pro forma sessions aren’t gimmicks. The two-month extension of the payroll tax holiday was approved during a pro forma Senate session. But in an unprecedented power grab, Obama has decided that he can decide when Congress is or is not in session. Meese rightly calls it a “constitutional abuse of a high order.” If this abuse stands, the U.S. Senate’s constitutional role to advise and consent in the confirmation of key executive appointees, already undermined by Obama’s many czar appointments, could become moot. The response to these outrageous and unconstitutional appointments was swift and severe. The editors at Bloomberg immediately splashed an editorial on its website warning that the “ president is playing with fire ” and choosing “politics over principle” with these appointments. “He risks an election-year legal challenge that could hamstring the consumer bureau and several other financial regulators whose pending confirmations will probably now stall,” they warned. Any substantial actions by Obama’s pretend appointees at the CFPB or the NLRB would, it can seriously be argued, “ null and void .” Nonetheless, Barack Obama appears undeterred by such considerations. The Cordray appointment, in particular, earned the ire of Senate Republicans who filibustered this nomination in December 2011. According to The Washington Times : Defying Congress, President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a move Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab. The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — a move that breaks with at least three different precedents which have held that the Senate must be in recess for at least three days before a president can act… …The appointment in question is former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, whom Mr. Obama tapped to head the CFPB. The board was set up under the new Wall Street regulation bill Democrats powered through in 2010, just before losing their majority in the House. You may recall that the CFPB was created by the Dodd-Frank monstrosity and got its sea legs under its first head, Elizabeth Warren, another anti-business zealot now running for Senate in Massachusetts (you can read more about Warren’s troubled past here ). If Cordray is the “right man for the job,” as Barack Obama noted in his remarks, then why would the president need to resort to such extreme measures to get “his guy” in position at the CFPB? Because given Cordray’s controversial background and penchant for inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric, there is no chance he could survive the confirmation process — especially when you consider that Congress does not control the agency’s purse strings. The CFPB gets its funding from the Federal Reserve. Here’s what I mean by “inflammatory and irresponsible.” In a scathing editorial when Cordray was first nominated, The Wall Street Journal said that throughout his career, Cordray has demonstrated a “hostility toward business.” The Journal explains: [Cordray] sued Ally Financial’s GMAC Mortgage over its foreclosure practices—a lawsuit that helped spawn the national robo-signing uproar, which has mushroomed into an effort to force big banks to cough up billions for Democrats to redistribute. He sued rating agencies for grading mortgage-backed securities as safe investments. He sued Bank of America for purportedly hiding losses and bonuses prior to the Merrill Lynch merger. The list of cases is long. In an interview with the Journal, Cordray also compared employees of a financial services company to the “Nazis at Nuremberg” who said they were just following orders. And, as John Berlau points out in The American Spectator , “Cordray has long supported ESOP, formerly known as the East Side Organizing Project, an Ohio housing advocacy group that has distinguished itself by storming into banks and launching plastic ‘shark attacks’ on the lawns of private homes.” These are tactics that would make any Wall Street Occupier proud. But while Cordray was all too happy to spew venom at U.S. corporations, the then-Ohio attorney general showed little regard for one of his own constituents, including Ohio citizen and small businessman Joe Wurzelbacher, also known as “Joe the Plumber.” Cordray looked the other way while Ohio government officials (and Obama hacks) combed through Mr. Wurzelbacher’s private government files and attempted to dig up dirt and smear his name – all because Mr. Wurzelbacher had the gall to question then-candidate Barack Obama about his tax policies. Commenting on his decision to bypass Senate confirmation, the president explained, “I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people they were elected to serve.” The president said it was his “obligation” to ignore the Senate and simply install Cordray. And following through on his “obligation,” Obama moved quickly to install three more of his cronies over at the NLRB. Obama first announced these three NRLB nominees on December 15. They haven’t been filibustered, they haven’t had their background checks, and no hearings have been scheduled yet by the Democratic-controlled Senate. So Obama thinks it appropriate to install appointees in violation of the law of the land simply because he anticipates opposition? I understand this president fantasizes about being king, but this act shows that he is acting out his fantasy. According to The Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent, “The move, which is arguably as important as the Cordray appointment, will ratchet up opposition from Republicans and make this an even bigger fight, since they have been attacking the NLRB…” Sargent accurately points out that the president’s appointments will “help energize unions in advance of the 2012 election…” So, who is it exactly that is putting politics ahead of what’s best for the country? Barack Obama cannot toss enough bones to his friends in Big Labor. From Obamacare waivers to recess appointments to the NLRB’s controversial Boeing lawsuit , the president seems intent on paying Big Labor in advance for union votes coming his way in November. What is there to be done about Obama’s power grab? Short of impeachment (which, however extraordinary, for the first time in this presidency ought to be given serious discussion), Congress can make its displeasure known through the appropriations process and by holding up more nominees (which may not be any good given the president’s usurpations this week). For Judicial Watch’s part, our lawyers and investigators will endeavor to consider a variety of approaches to challenge and investigate this lawlessness. The Iowa caucuses results this week were newsworthy, but the transformation of our constitutional order by Barack Obama is the big news. Judicial Watch has the most comprehensive investigation of Obama’s czars currently available. Click here to read our recent report.

See the original post here:
Obama Starts Constitutional Crisis, Installs New Radical Czars

White House chief of staff William Daley is to step down and will be replaced by President Barack Obama’s budget chief Jacob Lew, a White House official said Monday. Obama will announce the staff shake-up, which follows frequent reports that Daley had failed to gel with the president’s inner circle since he was appointed a year ago, in a public statement later Monday. Original story at AFP .

Read the original post:
Bill Daley Out as WH Chief of Staff

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) Sunday’s debate began much the same way as Saturday night’s, with Gingrich saying Romney was a “relatively timid Massachusetts moderate” whose state ranked fourth from the bottom in job creation when he was governor. But confronted with one of his campaign leaflets declaring Romney to be unelectable against President Barack Obama, Gingrich hedged. “I think he’ll have a very hard time getting elected.” Romney said he had created more jobs in one state than Obama has in the entire country, adding that it was important to replace “a lifetime politician” like the president with a different type of leader. Santorum, too, took a swipe at Romney, asking why he hadn’t sought re-election as governor after one term. “Why did you bail out? And the bottom line is, I go fight the fight,” Santorum said, referring to his time in Congress in the House of Representatives from a blue-collar district. Romney jabbed back with a reference to Santorum’s lucrative career in the six years since he lost a re-election campaign in 2006. “I long for the day when instead of having people to go to Washington for 20 to 30 years, will get elected and then when they lose office, they stay there and make money as lobbyists or conducting their businesses. “I think it stinks,” Romney said. Moments later, Gingrich appeared irked and accused Romney of using more than his allotted time to respond. “I realize the red light doesn’t mean anything to you because you’re the front-runner.” “Could we drop a little bit of the pious baloney. The fact is you ran in `94 and lost (to Ted Kennedy). … You were running for president while you were governor. … You’ve been running consistently for years.” Read more at the Associated Press .

See original here:
GOP Challengers Go After Romney in Sunday Debate

From PJMedia : Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) caused a bit of a stir when he announced he was not seeking re-election. Frank, a high-visibility member of Congress for more than 30 years, is in one of the safest Democratic districts in the nation. Yet he is not alone: there are several other Barney Franks fleeing the 112th Congress. Eight other veteran House Democrats who reside in safe congressional seats are throwing in the towel. The problem isn’t merely in the House. Just this week, U.S. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska announced  he won’t seek re-election this coming November . Nelson is one of seven Senate Democrats who have decided to “voluntarily” retire ahead of the 2012 elections. This is a repeat of the 2010 elections when a flood of Democrats decided to retire rather than face certain defeat. The retirement of rank-and-file Democrats is an especially bad sign for the Democrats if they have any hope of retaking the U.S. House. The nine House retirements are even more notable because each ranks high in seniority for key House committees — if the House returned to Democratic rule, they would be in line to assume chairmanships. Chairmanships are great perks, offering hideaway offices in the Capitol building and less restrained power and authority. Voluntarily walking away from Hill leadership is uncommon: House members can sit for twenty years on the Hill and never get close to a chairmanship. To Democratic Party faithful, the nine retiring congressmen present a dramatic picture of the hostile environment Democrats are facing as the 2012 election begins. Some of the retirees had easily won re-election with 60-70% majorities. Their stampede for the exit is yet another admission that the Democrats face a potential “wave” election, and of course, it portends considerable trouble for Barack Obama. The accelerating House retirements come on the heels of last  September’s special election in New York , where an unknown Republican defeated a popular Queens Democrat to take Anthony Weiner’s seat. The New York congressional district was Democratic for 80 years — registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by a three-to-one margin. Barney Frank is, of course, the headliner of this group: he is one of the best-known and most powerful Democrats outside of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), serving 16 uninterrupted terms. When the Democrats held the House during the first two years of the Obama administration, the Massachusetts Democrat served as the undisputed power at the House Financial Services Committee, muscling through many regulations that pummeled banks. His name is on the Dodd-Frank law, which threatens to impose new regulations on all financial institutions. The law is so complicated that, two years after its enactment, administration regulators still have failed to issue rules for methods of enforcement. Including Frank, the departing group represents a wealth of experience that will not be easy to replace: The nine have served in office for a combined 172 years. Read more here . Is it any wonder Alexandra Pelosi believes her mother wants to leave Congress?

More:
Exodus: Already, Nine Veteran House Dems Have Announced Retirement

From The Washington Post : Since the failure of the company, Obama’s entire $80 billion clean- technology program has begun to look like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign. Meant to create jobs and cut reliance on foreign oil, Obama’s green-technology program was  infused with politics at every level, The Washington Post found in an analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal e-mails. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, Energy Department bureaucrats and White House officials. The records, some previously unreported, show that when warned that financial disaster might lie ahead, the administration remained  steadfast in its  support for Solyndra . The documents reviewed by The Post, which began examining the clean-technology program a year ago, provide a detailed look inside the day-to-day workings of the upper levels of the Obama administration. They also give an unprecedented glimpse into high-level maneuvering by politically connected clean-technology investors. They show that as Solyndra tottered, officials discussed the political fallout from its troubles, the “optics” in Washington and the impact that the company’s failure could have on the president’s prospects for a second term. Rarely, if ever, was there discussion of the impact that Solyndra’s collapse would have on laid-off workers or on the development of clean- energy technology. “What’s so troubling is that politics seems to be the dominant factor,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. “They’re not talking about what the taxpayers are losing; they’re not talking about the failure of the technology, whether we bet on the wrong horse. What they are talking about is ‘How are we going to manage this politically?’ ” The administration, which excluded lobbyists from policymaking positions, gave easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration, the records show. Many of those investors had given to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Some took jobs in the administration and helped manage the clean- energy program. Read more here .

See the article here:
Solyndra: Politics Dominated Obama Energy Programs