Well, It May Deserve an Award in Something : CJR

The Kicker — November 20, 2009 02:12 PM

Well, It May Deserve an Award in Something

One Page
Print
Email
Comments
Digg Facebook Twitter Reddit StumbleUpon Delicious

Memo to Sean Hannity, who is calling for James O’Keefe, Hannah Giles, and Andrew Breitbart to get a “journalism award” for their video sting of ACORN: Generally, when in possession of what one believes to be newsworthy information, the journalistic thing to do is get it out to the public—not attempt to blackmail the attorney general.

In an exchange that begins around the 4:30 mark, Breitbart says:

Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Italics are original to the transcript at Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, where the post featuring this clip bears the headline, “Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election.”

Comments Post a Comment

Woodward/Bernstein were ahead of the Watergate investigators and then they used the material found by those intrpid reporters during a Republican Admin to go after the corruptness of Nixon.

As I said to CJR months ago 9and have yet to be refuted, look at last weeks Newsweek and 60 Minutes):

THERE ARE NO WOORDWARD AND BERNSTEINS DURING DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS OR INVESTIGATIONS INTO DEMOCRATIC PARTY RUN CONGRESS'

Who is holding navasky accountable for fundraising at The nation using CJR masthead?

#1 Posted by JSF, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 05:03 PM

another journalistic thing to do would be to seek to disclose why the attorney general would not investigate obvious wrongdoing by an agency with ties to the president. If you look at it generically, it actually seems pretty blockbuster.

#2 Posted by roger rainey, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 07:10 PM

Usually, "blackmail" is when you try to get someone to do something they really, really don't want to do. Holder, in this case, really, really doesn't want to investigate ACORN. It's a shame he doesn't have the integrity to follow through the duties he is sworn to perform. In particular, RICO is triggered should automatically be triggered here - human trafficking, etc. - but we haven't heard of any investigation.

In terms of "journalism", to the extent it exists anymore, why isn't the CJR reviewing the antique media for its failure to follow up on these stories? Instead, we get the NYT admitting to papering over ACORN's lies....

#3 Posted by JWW, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 07:14 PM

Wonderful!

I have an idea. How about Greg Marx investigates why people in government aren't investigating an organization that continuously facilitates the creation of an underage brothel.

Once is a single instance. Twice is a fluke. Three times is suspicious. Four times is devastating. Five times is a smoking gun. Six-ten times is a dead guy in the room that someone should investigate.

But, I guess they don't teach real journalism where you attend Greg.

#4 Posted by LD, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 07:19 PM

My younger brother is a MoJo grad (these jerks here at CJR will get that), and I always ask him what it's like to be part of a profession that currently has no integrity. You're pathetic.

So. What's it like, CJR, to have absolutely no integrity?

#5 Posted by Patrick Bateman, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 08:20 PM

To quote a commenter on Patterico's blog:

What Breitbart is engaged in is exactly the opposite of extortion — a demand to be given that to which one is not entitled — in that Breitbart (as well as everyone else) is fully entitled to have a public official do his job, or face the consequences of having been seen to willfully fail to do his job.

Of course, Holder et al will see this as worse than extortion. After all, you can pay off a blackmailer with money — but the only coin Breitbart will accept is a showing of honor and integrity in office from the man who previously worked to pardon Mark Rich. Talk about a low blow…

#6 Posted by Evil Pundit, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 08:25 PM

I remember when journalists used to report stories, rather than shill for particular political parties.

#7 Posted by Brenda Starr, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 08:25 PM

Geez, and I thought the attorney general investigated the hell out of acorn for eight years, and fired his attorneys for not finding prosecutable evidence and not bringing charges in violation of election law.

But that was the Bush Administration and people like to pretend that never happened.
This is what people like to pretend happened:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-gop-base-thinks-obama-didnt-actually-win-2008-election----acorn-stole-it.php
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35174_Hoffman-_ACORN_Stole_the_Election!
These people are stupid.

#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 08:28 PM

Memo to CJR, get a clue and stop playing the part of an all mighty.

#9 Posted by Leeta, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 09:34 PM

Good grief, how is demanding the AG actually do his job or be exposed as a fraud blackmail? Maybe if the press followed your statement of "strong press, strong democracy" these 'amateurs' wouldn't have expose these ridiculous organizations for the frauds that they are.

Your time would be better spent on investigatin why an organization that received government funds is advocating not only brothels, but UNDERAGE brothels. Hey, but Fox is the real evil here. Nothing bad can possibly come from importing young teenage girls from other countries and forcing them into prostitution. Do you have any sense of proportion or morales?

#10 Posted by isaac, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 09:46 PM

Wow everybody but one clod thinks CJR sucks - I cannot disagree.

Hey how is that whole global warming thing going? Didn't Al Gore say there would be a twenty foot increase in the sea level? Hmmm, I wonder why then did he just buy a waterfront condo in Fisherman's Wharf in San Fran for 4 million dollars?
Mmmmmm, mmmmmmm, mmmmmmmm.

BTW CJR sucks.

#11 Posted by Armando, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 10:08 PM

When is the media going to get the message that they are clearly on the wrong side of this arguement?
Newspapers are losing money, major TV is losing viewers. The only way to get the truth now is by searching on the internet.
Both Republican and Democrat Parties are not receiving near the donations they did in the past but rather people are going straight to the candidate.
Let's just sit back and think about all this CJR , maybe you need to get your house in order

#12 Posted by Holly, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 10:33 PM

@Thimble
The AG sometimes investigates mob activity for over 8 years before they get a RICO charge. Only a lemming would continue to defend Acorn after so much evidence of malfeasance is revealed.

@CJR
I suppose next you will be assigning a crack team of 11 so called investigative journalist to investigate Breitbart.

Is it not amazing that every other day or so we hear Breitbart getting slammed in the 4th estate but never a word about Acorns corruption. Fortunately the 4th estates strategy to kill the messenger is NOT working.

#13 Posted by Jupiter, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 10:41 PM

Breitbart made available the first videos demonstrating certain offices of ACORN is corrupt months ago. In one of his early interviews after the first tape was released, he said he wanted to release them in stages because he believed if they were all dumped on a NYT or WaPo at one time, the "Democrat Media Complex" would do one buried story on them and move on and nothing would happen.

Surprise!! You dopes have stepped on your dicks exactly as he expected you would do. Neither you nor the authorities have investigated. How does it feel to be owned by a self proclaimed "C" student from Tulane? I guess ivy league journalism is more about rapping idiotic songs about how bad Fox News is than it is about real investigation and reporting.

The nations is screwed.

#14 Posted by Scott, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 11:11 PM

For an organization that claims to critique the media, you just made a fool of yourself.

Telling someone they should do their job is not blackmail.

Telling people elected and paid for by your taxpayer money that they should do their job is definitely not blackmail.

Telling them to do their job or you will show the public how poor a job you are doing is the most American thing we can do.

Shame on you CJR. It is a sad day.

#15 Posted by kdj, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 11:19 PM

Talk about a crime or several years of crime. American journalists are neck deep in government crime and not only ignoring all of it, but actively assisting the criminals.

Not just somebody should go directly to jail. But hundreds of journalists should go directly to jail. If for no other reason than- TREASON to our Republic. For which they should be protecting, instead of aiding and abetting the ones that are destroying her.

Think I'm a nut for saying this. Well, all my personal friends and thousands if not millions of Americans and others across the globe feel the same way.

Ignorance and politics will be your undoing.

Papa Ray
Central Texas

#16 Posted by Papa Ray, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 11:19 PM

Thimbles, you are everything that is wrong with this country.

You constantly defend based on what was done in previous administrations, when the vast majority of conservatives didn't like how the govt. was run then either.

Your points are meaningless. Every argument you make is basically "well you did it first!" rather than fix the problem.

Most here aren't defending Congress over the past 8 years, they're standing up for our rights right now. Give up your obsession with how the media treated Bush and comment on the facts of the current issues.

Defending idiotic policy and horrible journalism in the name of the idiotic policy and horrible journalism that preceded it just makes you... idiotic

#17 Posted by kdj, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 11:32 PM

Mr. Marx,

Your reflexive reaction to shoot the messenger make you an excellent candidate for a career at the New York Times. I suggest you hurry up and graduate before the job disappears, as The Times is headed for the dustbin of history (due in no small part to its sickeningly Leftist partisan advocacy).

#18 Posted by Paul, CJR on Fri 20 Nov 2009 at 11:33 PM

CJR, you & your MSM brothers are worthless and happily irrelevant. That is why there is a Breitbart, Giles & O'Keefe, they are filling the vacuum you created. POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

#19 Posted by J. Rearden, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 12:26 AM

The journalistic thing to do would be for CJR to advocate the investigation of ACORN and do it.

Is there any doubt that if ACORN were a Christian or GOP organization caught on tape facilitating crimes instead of a Democrat organization with ties to the President, that the CJR would be cheerleading?

#20 Posted by Good Lt., CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 12:35 AM

The government has been blackmailing Breitbart this whole time, even threatening to criminally prosecute him for daring to expose child sex slavery in ACORN.

So why shouldn't he blackmail the government back? For that matter, why don't people like him wiretap the government back? Oh yeah, seams like some Russian is ahead on that:)

#21 Posted by anon, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 12:48 AM

The government has been blackmailing Breitbart this whole time, even threatening to criminally prosecute him for daring to expose child sex slavery in ACORN.

Jesus. The stupid. It burns.
If breitbart has evidence of actual crimes he should produce it and ask for an investigation based on the evidence produced.
People don't do investigations based blogosphere rumors, you have to submit evidence of a crime.
Breitbart is an attention whore.
Speaking of which, since we're all talking about crimes and investigations, want to talk about prosecuting torture and unlawful detainment? How about the misbehavior of military contractors? I mean, we have evidence of that and a documentary record that goes up to the ex-vice president. That shouldn't be prosecuted?
I think it would be really cool if somebody threatened to release suppressed evidence or blow up a building if they didn't prosecute past administration crimes. All you anti-ACORN folks can get behind that, surely.

#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 01:14 AM

CJR obviously do not get what it is all about! Pay attention!
This whole thing was almost MORE about how the MSM squash stories to protect Obama in the hope no one will hear about the situation. That is the whole reason the tapes have been released a little at a time. The story that WON"T GO AWAY Quietly! What a bunch of pathetic morons.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Blackmail?? Maybe if the AG did his JOB they would not have to say they will release more of their tapes at a critical time!
It is about time!! Someone needs to put a flame under some butts to get them to do THEIR JOB!! I wonder if Holder will ACTUALLY DO HIS JOB? or will he protect Obamas Pals?? Can't wait till 2010 elections to see the tapes! Or will Obama send in some sort of "Justice Dept." to hassle Andrew and destroy the tapes to protect his corrupt pals?? Hmmm, we will see. Make many many copies Andrew and distribute to friends with instructions!

With the journalist today licking Obamas a$$ to try to make him look good and forgetting how to investigate criminal behavior to protect him and just about any Lib. It is amazing that anyone even listens to any of them these days.
Got to love someone ACTUALLY investigating and Reporting real corruption. Maybe the new kids coming up can learn what reporters USED TO DO from these guys. . . . . . Getting popcorn for this one!

#23 Posted by momo, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 02:19 AM

Every comment that Thimbles writes shows how s/he is a meber of good standing of the Outer party of INGSOC.

Every comment, he promotes the need for n Emmanuel Goldtsein who is not a Democrat or he promotes the next Two Minute hate.

Even though Democrats run every Federal office, Thimbles just loves Big Brother.

#24 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 02:25 AM

Oh great. In a thread about Andrew Breitbart, I'm the one supposedly promoting the two minute hate.

Good to know.
(The stupid, it's so immense. A ball of burning stupid surrounded by millions of little dittoheads, each swirling about in its own little universe lit by the giant burning ball. Breathtaking)

#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 04:15 AM

See, this is why Thimbles is great with the Two Minute Hate.

Whereas most people belive the Fourth estate should take an adverserial relationship whoever IS IN POWER AT THE TIME (Democrats in the WH for the next Four to Eight means they are in Power), Thimbles (who I'm sure would put any member of the Right in Room 101) wants the press to focus on the LAST Administration.

Why? Because we on the Right are his Emmanuel Goldsteins. He needs to look down upon the Proles and say "Don't look at the corruption under Democrats, look at the last 8 years!"

Pretty soon he will go around CJR and ask for the One Week Hate. When you read Thimbles, remember, he has no concept of the Two Party system. Thimbles wants INGSOC, I mean Democrats, to rule forever.

O'Brian would love this guy!

#26 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 05:00 AM

See, this is why you're orbiting a blazing ball of stupid. I do critique the Obama administration and I've critiqued him since he emerged from the dlc ranks under Joe Lieberman's wing as a presidential candidate. I critique his economic policy which is led by a team of wall street crooks and incompetents, notably Larry Summers. I critiqued his deals with big pharma and his Harry and Louise campaign against Clinton's mandates (which he has since adopted). I critiqued his weak stimulus with the emphasis on tax cuts and not jobs. I critique his continuation of Bush policy in the area of secrecy in the guise of national security and military tribunals. There are a lot of things I disagree with Obama on and his weakness and hedging on domestic issues so he can say the right things and do the wrong has really left a really bad taste in my mouth. The fact that he's letting DLC operatives, like Rahm Emmanuel, and wall street guys implement his cynical policies while he speaks of uncynical ideals to his progressive base is repulsive. He's marginalized the most progressive of his cabinet, which is anyone to the left of Paul Volcker (including Paul Volcker) and embraced people like Dashale, Giethner, Lieberman (after the backstab in 2008), and even Dana Perino, Where past presidents cleared out the lawyers of past administrations' justice department, Obama kept Bush's laywers knowing they were corrupt as sin since the Bush administration liked to purge its own team, never mind those of the opposite side.

So I do get right pissed at the leadership of your country, but there's a difference between what I get pissed off at and what you get pissed off at.
You get pissed off at stupid stuff, and it's stuff that never bothered you under your team's administration though it took place at a level way WAY beyond what has happened in the last 9 months.

Which is why I find it funny that you use the Orwell on me when you've got the double think going on. I find it hilarious that you and all the right wingers are yelping about Emmanuel ACORN when Goldman Sachs has been the bipartisan bloodsucker of billions and a prime orchestrant of the current crisis. Which is of course why you people defend their salaries and bonuses, made from taxpayer capital, which is an imposition upon the private sector. "Government shouldn't be setting salaries!!" you rant, as the government has been paying them. "Government is spending too much and paying too little!" You are double thinking.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/04/14/americas-peasant-mentality/
Try just thinking instead for once, because goddamn if the country doesn't need its people to think these days.
Orbiting the big ball of conservative stupid does not promote thinking, it promotes group thinking, it promotes unthinking, and it's the unthinking mass that elected GW Bush twice and then forgot about a single thing he did, discovering the joys of limited government philosophy and fiscal responsibility only when the democrat is running things and has been left a cratering global economy and two wars by the last president and his departing frat party.
It's not that you have issues to protest over which bothers me, it's that your reasons are insincere and, for the most part, made up. You love what Mother Rushia tells you to love and hate what Brother Breitbart tells you to hate. The emotions come first, the reasons come later, if at all.
It's like dealing with a lobotomy patient where all the rational parts of the brain have been excised.
"The NEA is giving propaganda for the Obama administration policies" RAGE!

"The Bush Administration planted government VNR's into actual news, enabled paid pentagon hacks to act as independent media consultants, paid pundits (one of which is the head of the GOP) taxpayer dollars to shill policies in their columns, made th

#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 06:44 AM

Seems to me that you aren't getting the kind of reactions you expected from your clambake garbage about someone extorting the Federal Government. Maybe you like the rest of us should expect "our" government officials to do the job they were sworn to do? Seems to me that instead of Protecting the Constitution of the United States they are dismantling it and using it as paper in their executive toilets. Stop trying to create the news and start demanding those in charge uphold their friggin Oaths of Office.

#28 Posted by Laziter, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 06:57 AM

Thanks to Breitbart, it is getting tougher and tougher for "journalists" to protect their team. Hey Columbia Journalism Review: your field is full of liars and cheats who skew the "news" to fit their point of view. This is as inevitable as the sun rising in the East and as obvious. You are being revealed for just who you are. Your high and mighty position here is LAUGHABLE. Don't you see that the only way Breitbart can get you to cover ACORN's corruption is to do sensational things like this? The dishonest media's chickens are coming home to roost.

#29 Posted by Yo Landa, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:41 AM

You know things are getting hot when Bush gets dragged in the conversation. Even when the topic has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bush, the Republicans or Wall Street.

Speaking of Wall Street, Thimbles might want to check out DeFazio's comment yesterday about the embarrassing number of Dems identified to Wall Street. Oopsie.

As to the topic at hand, I think it was a brilliant maneuver on Breitbart's part. It proves, with crystal clarity, the absolute genius of our founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution......and gave the power to the people rather than to a central government.

#30 Posted by Petunia, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:04 AM

Go Breitbart! Finally someone with the balls and the brains to take on the Democratice-Media complex

#31 Posted by Dan Freeman, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:08 AM

Here's a clue. If you want to talk about real corruption, stop looking at silly little community groups.

It's a party. Look at who's paying the bills for the parties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html
Those are real issues. When people like Dick Durbin complain they can't get legislation that forces banks to accept cramdown mortgage renegotiations on their crap, often fraudulent loans, while the banks themselves are being bailed out by the taxpayers they are throwing to the streets:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/cramdown-vote-banks-bough_n_193674.html
pt 2 in a second

#32 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:25 AM

When Chuck Schumer has to couch his demands to rein in obscene bonuses so that it's "non-vindictive"
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/64633-schumer-reining-in-pay-in-non-vidictive-way-is-essential

It shows your government is taken over. It was ran completely under the Bush Administration by corporate suits from Enron, Goldman, and Haliburton and - though there are small changes in rhetoric and action, the same people rule.

This isn't about dumb ACORN. This is about a government that lost the philosophy of governing to Milton Friedman's ideology and has lost it's ability to represent people unless those people are part of the corporations who pay for the party.
http://www.truthout.org/1111099
Pt 3 coming

#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:41 AM

And it's a bipartisan problem, which is the problem with bipartisan politics. When your choice of parties is from the completely captured and the mostly captured you don't have a representative politics which represents you.
You have a representative politics which represents them. The John Galt types
http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/randy-conservatives
These American Psychos who treat your pensions as their bonuses. Treat your medicine as their gold mine. Treat your low wages as their good news. They fund the politics while the politics funds them.
And they made of the same people. People like Dashale and Summers flow in and out of the government and the private sector all the time. They are the dependable agents and go betweens for government and business. The become the lobbyists and think tank personnel who shape the public and political debates.

And you guys still want to talk about ACORN? They aren't in the same league.
Either get serious about your politics or shut up, because if all you want to do is rah rah for your team, your country is going to lose as it is stripped by the Neutron Jack Welshes and the "700 billion! Hand it over!" Hank Paulsons and the "Nice electricity you have there. Shame if something were to happen to it" Kenny Boy Lays.
There are no shortages of real villains to examine and punish.
The only question is are you going to let yourselves be distracted by Acorn pinatas or are you going to care enough to really find out what's wrong with your country? Because things have gotten way too serious for these dumb distractions anymore. It's inexcusable.

#34 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:57 AM

Good for Mr. Breitbart. It's about time someone calls these people to task in regards to ACORN. Our current government and the idiots that are running it are a national disgrace, Mr. Holder being in the top 3.

#35 Posted by Mike_in_Ohio, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 09:21 AM

Strong Press, Strong Democracy

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

#36 Posted by Lee, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:13 AM

Strong Press, Strong Democracy

#37 Posted by Lee, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:14 AM

Breitbart is the only journalist left in America. Columbia hasn't produced one in years. MoJo is MOre JOke, If you applied 1/10th the journalistic energy that you applied to the Bush administration the Obamanation would be desolation.

#38 Posted by aloysiusmiller, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:30 AM

Greg,
Did you say "blackmail" I and my 647 fellow rainbow coaltion members find that offensive!

You, sir, are a racist!

#39 Posted by Reverend Jesse Jackson, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:32 AM

I'll start by clarifying that the only reason I'm even on your site is because Breitbart left a link. You should probably send a thank you note.

'Generally, when in possession of what one believes to be newsworthy information, the journalistic thing to do is get it out to the public—not attempt to blackmail the attorney general.'

Did you do that, by any chance? Did you investigate an organization that has been accused of registration & voter fraud, racketeering and tax evasion? Can you identify the difference between blackmail and a challenge? No? Then I guess you're really not bringing anything to the table, are you?

And Thimble, until you realize that ACORN is of the same political bent as the people you mentioned, that they act as an oppurtunistic strongarm - you don't get to lecture anybody on what's important. And they're funded by the country they're attacking. The Carter/Clinton admin's gave them the legislation they needed to leverage banks and those policies eventually toppled Wall Street, with cover from politicians that are just as willing to protect ACORN as this author seems to be.

#40 Posted by Recon, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:58 AM

Greg, since when is it blackmail to ask a public official to do his job, and freely offer all the evidence to do it? I suppose a writ of mandamus might do the same, but it's easier if the AG just does his job like he's supposed to do.

#41 Posted by anon, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 11:09 AM

When the Attorney General is corrupt, it is not "blackmail" to insist on an investigation by further exposing the AG's own poltical machine's misbehavior.

It is simply giving the AG a last chance to do his job.

If there is no dirt there he has nothing to fear.

#42 Posted by C.R. Coughlin, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 11:10 AM

It's Bush's fault. It's BUSH's fault! IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!!!!!!!!

#43 Posted by JAY, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 11:28 AM

Perhaps Chairman Navasky will give you a dog bone for your faithful service to CJR, aka The Nation, Jr.

#44 Posted by Bradley J. Fikes, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 11:49 AM

And Thimble, until you realize that ACORN is of the same political bent as the people you mentioned, that they act as an oppurtunistic strongarm - you don't get to lecture anybody on what's important.

Yes ACORN and Goldman Sachs, ACORN and KBR, ACORN and Countrywide, it's all the same thing. Big ball keeps on burning. Dittoheads keep on turning.

Breitbart should release all his tapes, unedited, to the public. He wants to leak it slow, because he's a whore and he's stroking his audience, hoping he can keep their attention, hoping he can be just like his buddy Drudge.

All of them talking about sex and trivia, leaking little bits at a time and always implying they got more.

Problem is, though what they got is embarrassing for ACORN, it is not a crime. It is not a crime to talk about an act or to even say you will assist with the legal aspects of an illegal act. It's the going through with the act that matters and the Breitbart crew haven't shown that in their sting yet.

If you got it Breit, show it. Investigations aren't done based on innuendo, they are done based on the evidence of a crime.
As I have said elsewhere

it’s been pathetic to see the “liberal media” outlets like cjr, the new york times, and the post go full sackcloth and ashes because they missed a media story that would not have existed had the “journalist” not walked in and made the story. Acorn doesn’t have a history of giving advice to pimps about their child sex operations since not a lot of white pimps with silly ass suits, fur jackets, and ski goggles that make one look like a mid morph brundle fly walk into Acorn offices and ask for financial advice.

Breitbart and O'Keefe made the criminals that walked into those offices. Unless you can demonstrate that criminals walk in for financial advice on their crimes as a common occurrence, you don't have evidence for a crime, you have evidence of a ratf*ck.

If you've got evidence of ACORN carrying out a criminal act, it is your duty to hand it to the authorities so it can be investigated and prosecuted. Crimes must be prosecuted. Evidence must be revealed. If you got it, don't tease us.
But if you've got just more evidence about acorn talking about an act, well, I'll let Eugene Volokh take it:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf
These are not incitement cases: The speech isn’t persuading or inspiring some readers to commit bad acts. Rather, the speech is giving people information that helps them commit bad acts—acts that they likely already want to commit. When should such speech be constitutionally unprotected? Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never squarely confronted this issue, and lower courts and commentators have only recently begun to seriously face it...

No Supreme Court case squarely deals with crime-facilitating speech. As Justice Stevens recently noted, referring to speech that instructed people about how to commit a crime, “Our cases have not yet considered whether, and if so to what extent, the First Amendment protects such instructional speech...

Several federal circuit cases have held that speech that intentionally facilitates tax evasion, illegal immigration, drugmaking, and contract killing is constitutionally unprotected. Three federal circuit cases have held that speech that knowingly facilitates bomb-making, bookmaking, or illegal circumvention of copy protection is constitutionally unprotected. Two federal district court cases have similarly held that speech that knowingly (or perhaps even
negligently) facilitates copyright infringement is civilly actionable, though they haven’t confronted the First Amendment issue.... But two federal appellate cases have applied the much more speech-protective Brandenburg v. Ohio incitement test to speech that facilitated tax evasion and gang activity, conc

#45 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 01:08 PM

All this self-righteous blather from the clearly corrupt MSM is getting tiresome.

#46 Posted by Engineer, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 01:16 PM

Again, Thimbles rants happily miss the point.

Who has been running the US Congress since 2007? Democrats

Who has the power in the WH? Democrats

Who does Thimble want the press to investigate? Republicans and the last administration!

When Thimbles advocates for a press to look into corruption of Democrats (and stops yelling "Bush/Cheney [i.e. his Emanuel Goldsteins that he can direct the Proles to look at]," every time a Democrat needs to be investigated), then we'll take his word.

For now, all Thimbles wants is for INGSOC, I mean Democrats to be the Party in power forever with no Fourth estate investigations. Or investigations from the DOJ.

#47 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 01:41 PM

Using leverage by refraining from doing something you are legally entilted to refrain from doing and conditioning your decision to forego that right on the government doing its job is not blackmail. It is leverage. If you can't walk across to the law school at Columbia and find that out your journalism is even less professional than I thought it was. In any case, your clumsy statement accuses Breitbart of a felony, which is libelous if false, which it clearly is. It would serve you right to get sued by him though I'm sure he has better things to do.

#48 Posted by lazlo toth, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 02:30 PM

Wow, this guy from CJR is a real joker. No one from the NY Slimes or PMSNBC has attempted to investigate an obvious corrupt and dangerous organization such as ACORN. All the folks in the MSM has done, which includes this moron Greg Marx character. He obviously does not even understand what "blackmail" means. He is an example of why most journalist are individuals with low IQs because if folks such as Marx can be a voice for the CJR then any liberal moron can be.

#49 Posted by Mike Jackson, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 06:04 PM

Back when I was studying Journalism:
* Manual typewriters were our "blogging" tools
* Journalism stood for ethics in the pursuit of Truth
* CJR seemed a lot more in line with those ethics

CJR's tagline is "Strong Press, Strong Democracy." We have neither. And if this post is an indication of CJR's current spin, then CJR stands for neither a free press, nor a true Democracy.

#50 Posted by Liberty Patriot - Scott, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:31 PM

When mainstream journalists refuse to be watchdogs of government, those who are willing to be watchdogs must take action. Breitbart's actions are no less nefarious than a lack of action by media outlets that see wrongdoing and report nothing. I thought that newspapers sprung forth out of the necessity to keep government honest...regardless of which party was in charge.

#51 Posted by Stub Bioge, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:32 PM

If Breitbart were to release all his evidence now it would just tell the AG exactly what kind of coverup to manufacture. By witholding his evidence, he forces Holder to do the job right for fear of being caught doing a coverup. Breitbart doesn't trust Holder to do his job because Holder is already not doing it by not looking into the crimes O'Keef and Giles uncovered in DC (a federal jurisdiction).

You know, it would help CJR's reputation no end if your version of speaking truth to power wasn't "Oh, thank you Sir!"

#52 Posted by PersonFromPorlock, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:36 PM

Greg Marx is a d-bag. Eric Holder will go down as the Worst Attorney General ever. Even worse than John Mitchell.

#53 Posted by Al Gibson, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:39 PM

"Generally, when in possession of what one believes to be newsworthy information, the journalistic thing to do is get it out to the public"

Except, of course, when that information hurts Democrats.

Sort of like when newspapers had evidence that President Clinton was having sex with Lewinsky, thus perjuring himself in a court of law, and those newspapers sat on the info.

#54 Posted by hahahaha, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:51 PM

WOW!!
I bet you didn't expect this much Greg Marx-ist, did you?!?
It goes to show us how "tunnel-visioned" left-wing journalists really are! Expressing outrage about an investigation, that CLEARLY the majority of Americans want.
Nobody is asking for a 'firing-squad', they are only for an "investigation"!
Why don't you do YOUR job and look into the story and not into the messengers?

#55 Posted by tbryson, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:52 PM

(Ooops)
I bet you didn't expect this much "Backlash", did you?!?

#56 Posted by tbryson, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 07:55 PM

Trying to influence Holder? Yes.

"Politics?" Yes, in a way.

"Blackmail?" You just show your ignorance.

#57 Posted by Marty, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:12 PM

Who does Thimble want the press to investigate? Republicans and the last administration!

Yeah, I'm the type of guy who, when a murder has been committed, wants to investigate the murders and murderers and not the jaywalkers a block down.

You guys are morons and bad for democracy. When real problems are going on in real organizations who are working with numbers in the billions, you want to quote Orwell and play with the lint in your belly button. Enjoy your fleeting fame, McCarthyites.

It's time to learn Chinese.

#58 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:25 PM

Thimbles needs his Emmanuel Goldsteins.

Thimbles (who is not even American) wants to follow the path of the Roman Senate and Pompey against Caeser in Gaul to criminilize the differences.

Remeber Thimbles wants to stand by Saddam Hussain rather then an American President. Why? because he is not of the Left.

And Thimbles does not want the press or DOJ to LOOK at the current Administration.

BB Loves Thimbles!

#59 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:34 PM

Let's remember:

Thimbles does not want any investigations of Democrats and the current administration whatsoever.

No investigations from the press.
No investigations from DOJ.

Thimbles does not want the Right to speak or participate, instead Thimbles wants to criminilize all of the Right.

I challange anyone coming here to read anything Thimbles wrote in the past 6 months to show s/he wants the Left found guilty of ANYTHING.

Hint: Nope.

Even though here in America, Democrats run evrything, Thimbles wants the press to be blind when it comes to the Left.

When Thimbles stops needing to say "Bush/Cheney/palin are my Emmanuel Goldsteins," then he is worthy of being listened too by the Right.

For now, Obama is a Democrat; Pelosi is a democrat, and Reid is a democrat and neither CJR or the major media want to investigate corruption.

And Thimbles, who is not an American, is happy with that.

#60 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 08:55 PM

Memo to Greg Marx, you can't really be ignorant of the meaning of blackmail, so I'll just assume you were educated at Columbia. Such a typical "attack the messenger" approach to journalism.

Here's a thought, get off your ass and find out why ACORN is such dirty organization.

Good luck!

TPAINE

#61 Posted by TPaine, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 09:11 PM

Marxy baby,

Your parents must be proud. And crying for all of that wasted tuition money.

#62 Posted by YO, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 09:21 PM

Well, it looks like their are three kinds of nectar of the Gods

White wine
Red wine
Marxist Whine

#63 Posted by Mama, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 09:25 PM

"Blackmail" ? Get you're dictionary out Marx and look it up -or do you only have the DNC-approved PRAVDA version. What a first-rate putz -perfect for today's brand of "journalizm".
Keep up the good work of destroying yourself and what remains of your "profession" (not prostitution -the other one).
Oh and return any and all tax-payer funding for your "school", this website, and all other benefits thereby derived for your "news organ".

#64 Posted by Bliadbudu, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 09:37 PM

"..Generally, when in possession of what one believes to be newsworthy information..." When has this ever been the case with you people. Your topmasts are afire, and may you burn to the waterline.

#65 Posted by Kerry, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:03 PM

CJR has become a complete joke at this point. With "journalism" reviews attacking muckrakers and protecting malefactors, 1984 has arrived.

#66 Posted by j.a.m., CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:10 PM

If Attorney General Holder decides to use his legal discretion not to investigate what is at the very least prima facie evidence of federal crimes, it would be contrary to normal journalistic practice to just volunteer unreleased material to the government. An independent press is not usually an irregular investigating arm of the state, especially where the impartiality of justice in Eric Holder's America is one of the questions under discussion.

The government has a good idea what's going on. They've been given the opportunity for further evidence. If they do not avail themselves of that, the normal process is to release (print, broadcast, whatever) at the convenience of the journalistic institution. In this case, Breitbart thinks his purposes (commercial, political, whatever) are best advanced as a pre-election matter. That's his option. His unsolicited offer of full disclosure when a normal investigation is undertaken should be recognized for what it is, a reporter stepping out from behind any shield law or customary deference that journalists usually have and stepping up to do the right thing.

The government can access all unreleased materials by starting a genuine investigation. Government obtaining unreleased journalistic material without a warrant or any sort of official investigation is usually called a fishing expedition or worse.

The media and CJR usually don't like government fishing expeditions. It's odd that CJR at least is turning pro-fishing expedition in this instance. Why is that? Somebody should investigate this unusual conduct.

#67 Posted by TMLutas, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:21 PM

Blah blah blah blah blah.
I have suggested where to look to pressure democrats and to seek democrat corruption, and it happens to overlap with republican corruption so you want to ignore it.
Just like you ignored the last 8 years. Just like you ignored the real worst attorney general ever, Alberto Gonzales, the guy who made John Ashcroft cringe in his hospital bed for going to far.

We're going to pretend the world began in 2009 and everything that has happened since then is unprecedented and not a carry over from the momentum of past crookery.

Why won't you pressure the government to open the records on its warrantless wiretaping (the kind Cass Sunstein supports), torture, and secrecy? . You know, to confirm it has stopped.

Why don't you pressure the government to bring back Glass Steagal and to re-regulate wall street? Why aren't you demanding that they overhaul the failed regulatory agencies so that they do their jobs instead of dine with their regulatees? Why don't you pressure the government to fire Geithner?!

Why? I assume it's because you'd rather watch videos of minorities behaving badly. You'd rather watch Breitbart pimp out his video stars.

If I am wrong then you tell me, why don't you care about the amok finance industry, military contract industry, energy industries, and the corrupt officials like Timmy Geithner who's remained in place in spite of all his botched work under the Bush Administration? Why do you care about the National Endowment for the Arts when it's the Treasury that's being emptied?

What makes you people fixate on the trivial to the exclusion of all else? Are you going to answer or just rant about "stupid Thimbles" and Orwell?

#68 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:36 PM

Who wrote this blog? I think your professor should not only give you an F, the dean should kick you out of school for monumental stupidity and incompetence.

#69 Posted by aloysiusmiller, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 10:37 PM

Because we in America do not prosecute the Administration before it.

Obama is in charge and if there is corruption, follow that.

If you want to follow Pompey, fine, live with the public outcry as well.

And all those things you mentioned, speak to the DEMOCRATIC controlled Congress to pass.

You are a Political hack -- one rule for the Left and criminilize the Right.

Wake me up when you defend the Two party system and the Fourth estate's Right to investigate whoever is CURRENTLY in charge.

You won't. You Hate your Emmanuel Goldsteins too much.

#70 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sat 21 Nov 2009 at 11:37 PM

And Thimbles, in case you don't understand....

The Founding Fathers understood what destroyed the Roman republic so they added this law,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1toc_user.html

Article I -- Table of Contents
Section 9,
Clause 3. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.[p.347]

Bills of Attainder

“Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . . In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not. In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.”1701 The phrase “bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder.1702

The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept.1703 The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .”1704 That the Court has applied the clause dynamically is revealed by a consideration of the three cases in which acts of Congress have been struck down as violating it.1705 In Ex parte Garland,1706 the Court struck down a statute that required attorneys to take an oath that they had taken no part in the Confederate rebellion against the United States before they could practice in federal courts. The statute, and a state constitutional amendment requiring a similar oath of per[p.348]sons before they could practice certain professions,1707 were struck down as legislative acts inflicting punishment on a specific group the members of which had taken part in the rebellion and therefore could not truthfully take the oath. The clause then lay unused until 1946 when the Court utilized it to strike down a rider to an appropriations bill forbidding the use of money appropriated therein to pay the salaries of three named persons whom the House of Representatives wished discharged because they were deemed to be “subversive.”1708

Then, in United States v. Brown,1709 a sharply divided Court held void as a bill of attainder a statute making it a crime for a member of the Communist Party to serve as an officer or as an employee of a labor union. Congress could, Chief Justice Warren wrote for the majority, under its commerce power, protect the economy from harm by enacting a prohibition generally applicable to any person who commits certain acts or possesses certain characteristics making him likely in Congress’ view to initiate political strikes or other harmful deeds and leaving it to the courts to determine whether a particular person committed the specified acts or possessed the specified characteristics; it was impermissible, however, for Congress to designate a class of persons—members of the Communist Party—as being forbidden

#71 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 12:09 AM

Ok, so if it's "blackmail," then an equally valid argument could be made that the MSM/lib. 4th estate is one big RICO violation as they coordinate their coverage and opinion pieces to facilitate criminal conduct, i.e. ACORN, Murtha, Dodd, Black Panthers, Resko, etc.

This is so pathetic. Why has the journalism "profession" become so weak? How did it go from reporting facts to skewing them? Must be all the stuff they learn in bullshit schools like Columbia.

#72 Posted by Mitchell, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 12:18 AM

I seem to remember CJR taking the same kind of "blame the messenger" approach to "Rathergate." It's apparent that journalists only earn their keep when Republicans are in office. Eager investigations are undertaken only against the ideological enemy: conservatives.

Petty stories involving conservative politicians and administrations are "telling," and point toward greater truths. Didn't the Larry Craig thing suggest some moral hypocrisy? Of course. And, sure, nailing Scooter Libby for some obscure connection to the "outing" of an "undercover" FBI desk jockey was pointless, but wasn't it FUN to see if we could chase the trail all the way to Cheney and Bush? And didn't it just kind of "ring true" that the Bushies would be up to something secretive and evil? Yet, when Democrats and liberals are in office, journalists use their pointy heads to justify why a story isn't a story. It's a distraction. It's petty. It's "just sex." It's incongruous with the narrative of the noble, honest liberal. It doesn't ring true. And most of all it's just not fun to investigate the misdeeds of your heroes.

So, the job of investigating liberal regimes has to come from someone other than the established media. It's falling to the Army of Davids and a few brave private individuals who know that they risk BECOMING the media story every time they find a liberal scandal. It's a largely thankless job, made more difficult by "journalists" and CJR. So, for what it's worth, thank you, Brieitbart.

#73 Posted by ss, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 01:09 AM

Get me make a few things clear to the troglodytes.

1. I support investigations of Acorn when there is evidence of a crime. So produce the evidence and I will look forward to seeing the investigations.
Things like this
http://www.pelicaninstitute.org/main/page.php?page_id=34
if they are true, I want to see investigated and according to this:
http://www.pelicaninstitute.org/main/page.php?page_id=35
they are, by a democratic attorney general.
So if there is evidence, hand it over. Being on embarrassing video tapes is not a crime. Embezzlement and failures to deliver on paid for contracts are. Investigations are being done. Breitbart is crying for attention.

And the reason why he's crying is, apart from the video drama, the acorn story is not a big deal. It's not electrified soldiers shocked in shoddy million dollar showers, it's not gang rape by people on the taxpayer dime, it's not lies spread by dishonest people to the public to start a war of leisure.

It's a crappy little community group that got 5 million a year in federal funds and did voter drives.
You want to believe that is the end of the world and worship Breitbart for his investigation of one story. pt2 coming

#74 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 04:51 AM

Here are some people who do real journalism, good journalism, meaningful journalism and do not get half the attention that Breitbart, Drudge, and Fox foist upon the country with their ACORN conspiracies:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/
pt 3 coming

#75 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 04:55 AM

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/
Breitbart and Drudge are just partisan rumor mongers who want the story to be about themselves and their politics than the truth.

But these days people need the truth.
Part 4 coming

#76 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 05:02 AM

And my hope is that there is truth to this:
http://www.cjr.org/feature/drudge_has_lost_his_touch.php

Good day retards.

#77 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 05:03 AM

Ladies and gentleman, Thimbles!

A perfect representation of the Modern Liberal. He hates the Right. He hates the Elected officals of the Right (or non-elected officals as they are all out of office) such as FORMER President Bush and FORMER Vice President Cheney and FORMER Governor Palin.

When proven wrong or that he is spinning his wheels against the Right, does he say "I'm sorry. Now I understand."

Nope.

Thimbles, our modern Liberal pouts and screams and curses the people he despises.

Thus, Thimbles, the Modern Liberal shows Liberals truly love to Hate.

Thank you and good night!

Remember, tip your waiters and the Fourth estate should ALWAYS investigate WHOMEVER is in power (that means the White House to you foreign folks, so go on NYT, LAT and CJR, go investigate!)!

#78 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 05:21 AM

Hey JSF, you've made your point, a dumb point, 3 or 4 times now. The past is months old, we can all forget it. Message loud and clear.
(Unless it's Clinton, who everybody knows was REALLY responsible for the failures of 9-11, and not the sainted GW Bush.)

Go play in the sandbox with the other droolers until you have something new to say.

#79 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 06:23 AM

Thimbles, thanks for the laugh. You'd make a perfect parody of a whiney liberal if you we're for real.

#80 Posted by Stan, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 08:30 AM

Thimbles, thanks for the laugh. You'd make a perfect parody of a whiney liberal if you weren't for real.

#81 Posted by Stan, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 08:31 AM

Thank you Andrew Breitbart for doing the job that most journalists do not. You are an asset to this great nation and an ally in the fight to remain free.

#82 Posted by Journalism 101, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 09:57 AM

Great argument Stan. Haven't heard that one before. You must be so pleased with yourself to come up with something so original and deep.

Now can anyone argue where I am wrong? I want to learn so much from your wisdom. Tell me how I am incorrect, and try not to use the ever popular "You're a liberal" argument and I'll try not to use the "You're a douchebag" argument in kind.
Maybe we can be friends.

#83 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 10:05 AM

Interesting advertisement Mr. Marx. I had never heard of CJR until I clicked on the link from biggovernment.com.

#84 Posted by Joe, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 10:07 AM

Stick a fork in CJR, it's done.

#85 Posted by Mason88, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 10:35 AM

You know what cracks me up? The name, Big Government is the name for a "I hate acorn" blog. Do you see any reports on the Federal Reserve? No. Do you see any posts on the trillions unaccounted military industrial complex? No. Do you see any posts on NASA's waste and ineptitude of late? Maybe if there's an opportunity to ridicule James Hansen. Does it talk about the bailouts and the stimulus?
Well it sure talks about the stimulus, since it gives Breitbart the opportunity to lie about 8.5 billion dollars of it:
http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/acorns_family_tree.php
But yeah, for a blog about BIG GOVERNMENT it seems to to focus a lot more on sex tapes and community groups that serve minorities, Oh and a bunch of innuendo about the ebil democrats.
It's like opening up the cover of a scientific American and seeing the content of the National Enquirer.
It's an f'in joke.
And it's a recent joke.
You people were up front accusing your betters of BDS- Bush Derangement Syndrome. You were okay with the republic when it demanded loyalty oaths in order to join the town hall meets with the president and you accused us of being moon bat crazy when we groused about insane tax cuts to the upper brackets, unbelievably bad policy on both foreign and domestic fronts, and police state tactics used on protesters - terrorists - and citizens. We said he was incompetent and you said we had a mental disorder - BDS.
And now you are the opposite of the "serve your government" types you were under Bush (again, don't deny it. We experienced it up until 2006 when things began to sour.) You have ODS. You're sick. You have a specialized version of political apophenia.

There there. It's not that you're bad people, it's just that you hate your country. Maybe I should say it differently, less vindictively, but no - you've never extended that courtesy in your time in power. You hate your country, or at least the majority of it which is different from you. Hate, a big burning ball of hate.

And so you tea bag - now. You make big government blogs - now. You rant about waste and spending and deficits - now.
In spite of the fact that according to many, including Bruce Bartlett, the majority of what we are seeing now was caused by the momentum of past policy from a time you want to pretend doesn't exist:
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1200/why-economy-needs-spending-not-tax-cuts
(Oh, surprise me with yet another Goldstein reference, JSDFAS. Never mind the reality, just play the orwell game (there ought to be a godwin ammendment to cover Orwellian misuse of Orwell))
Pt 2 coming

#86 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 11:39 AM

Glen Greenwald and other progressives haven't changed since Bush. They demand the same things under Obama as they did under Bush, they critique power the same which often makes the some of the people who read them, who have fallen under the Obama personality cult, wince.
But your guys are new. You're part of the anti-personality cult.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/10/07/the-anti-cult-of-personality/
You've got ODS, and it's very unbecoming.

#87 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 11:41 AM

Thimbles, showing less underatanding of Americans, American politics and the two party system more then ever!

After Clinton left office, no one, I repreat: no one, gave a damn about prosocuting him. [Art I, sec 9, Clause 15].

In fact, he joined a very exclusive club with certain protocals. Even Nixon had them too.

Guess what it was?

If the press looks for corruption or the DOJ to prosecute, it deals with the CURRENT Administrations. If nothing is found when they are in office, guess what Thimbles?

Unlike you, Americans don't hate -- we actually look towards the future and measure the job performence of the present.

Meanwhile Thimbles, you're gonna get an ulcer with all that Hate.

#88 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 01:55 PM

Unfortunately for all of us...

Holder = Obama = Acorn = Seiu = CJR = G. Marx = RICO = MSM, at the very least - yes they are All guilty of treason and thanks to Andrew... the truth will out...

I can hardly wait for the 2010 elections... and the massive fireworks to follow.

#89 Posted by Paul Revere, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 04:28 PM

" Generally, when in possession of what one believes to be newsworthy information, the journalistic thing to do is get it out to the public"

You obviously are completely clueless as to the nature of journalism today.

I am sure that CJR had absolutely NO problem with "journalists" withholding information that might have damaged Obama's prospects during the presidential campaign. Once again,liberals demand conservatives obey rules that they will not abide by themselves.

#90 Posted by malclave, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 05:24 PM

Clinton didn't torture. Clinton didn't detain people for half a decade based on no evidence. Clinton didn't bomb Al"Jazzera twice. Clinton didn't lie to the American people (Okay, that one he did do, but nobody died because of it and it was investigated TO DEATH.)

If you believe people shouldn't be investigated, let alone prosecuted, then you believe in a class of people that are above the law.
At the very least, the many crimes should be investigated so that people are aware of what was done in their names and future presidents know that there will be some account for doing evil.

But you don't believr in people being aware, you don't believe in people being held to account, unless it's acorn.

When law ceases to apply to everyone, law ceases to be law. Groups like the ACLU (whom you guys hate even though their goal is to limit government, bi-partisanly) seek to reveal what was done not t hate but to prevent.
It's sad that you don't believe in transparent government nor government under the law, unless it happens to be democrat.

But at least we now know where you and Obama agree and support one another. Neither of you believes the public needs to know.

PS. Did you call for investigations and justice during the Bush administration? I mean now you have your precious bill of attainder, which applies to everyone but acorn, but did you say anything back then when it really could have mattered? You protest now for your principles, what principles did you protest for then? What did you say and do under who will likely be the worst president in our lifetimes?

#91 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 08:40 PM

Like I said earlier in this thread, and it bears repeating.

"Not just somebody should go directly to jail. But hundreds of journalists should go directly to jail. If for no other reason than- TREASON to our Republic. For which they should be protecting, instead of aiding and abetting the ones that are destroying her."

Papa Ray

#92 Posted by Papa Ray, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 09:04 PM

Thimbles, beating a dead horse.

Have you ever read how the Roman Republic became an Empire? No, of course not or you would have said "Thank you for showing me what the Founding fathers did,"

Instead, from Thimbles: Never investigate Democrats or "ooh! Look at squirrel!"

At the end of the Roman Republic, Marius, Consul, criminilized Sulla's supporters. When Marius dies, Sulla did the same to Marius' (Pompey supprted Sulla, Caeser, Marius) supporters.

And later, Pompey criminilized Caeser and his supporters and then they crossed the Rubicon.

The Republic fell.

It's been fun Thimbles but when you stop Hating and understanding that unless you have a TARDIS and lobby Congress to impeach President Bush, the story is about Obama and his allies are under fire, the media refused to investigate, neither did the DOJ.

And if you persist in playing Pompey, I'm going to guess it has nothing to do with "justice," and more to do with "hatred,"

And if you think Clinton never did what Bush did:

http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm - Clinton Admin listening in

Clinton and Extraordinary rendition --
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition

December 6, 2005
Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

So, Thimbles, unless you can be civil and realize we are talking about Democrats and Obama, please kindly fuck off.

#93 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 09:52 PM

And unlike you, I support investigating that because I don't care whether it was under Clinton or Bush. If the policy was wrong, it was wrong.

And, as for your talk of investigation and (Godforbid) prosecution of past behavior bringing down the republic I submit to you that during the Bush Administration, the most corrupt in our lifetime, politically motivated prosecutions of democrats were at least 7 times more likely than republicans.

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/opinion/09krugman.html

Some of whom, like Don Siegelman, were kept in jail for 7 years under corrupt charges that should never have been brought.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/iokiyar-and-iaciyad/

This is the kind of justice department people like Breitbart and you miss. The kind that only harrasses and detains Democrats while slapping republicans on the wrists when their crimes are too brazen to ignore. Pt 2 coming

#94 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 10:56 PM

If you really care about the republic, about the rule of law, about impartial justice for every citizen under the flag, you would demand disclosure of all that occurred under the banner of your president. You could at least say "I disapprove of what happened, though it was past and now is not the time to dig it up".

But you don't disapprove of it. You didn't protest it then and you don't protest it now. You don't give a damn about your republic, you just want your team to own it. You're mad about the nothings of the current administration and dismissive of the past, even as the past is largely responsible for the things you rage against now. Back in 2001-02 it was Clinton's mistakes, Clinton's recession, Clinton's failure to stop terrorism, Clinton Clinton Clinton.

Now it's all Obama Obama Obama. Can't say a bad word about the past. Doublethink.

What the Bush Administration did sets a terrible precedent for future administrations and it cannot stand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html

But you people want the empire, you supported the unitary executive after all. You don't get to lecture me on the republic after your party used the constitution as a kleenex to wipe its ass. I won't let you talk about the trivial while the important gathers dust from neglect. I won't let you put the focus on blow jobs while Osama bin Laden is treated as a "Wag the Dog " distraction. You had your chance to drive the debate and you made it into a circus to amuse the public while the emperor pillaged the empire.

You don't get to do that anymore, asshole. Too bad for you free speech is two way.

#95 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 11:04 PM

Ahhh...isn't Thimbles fun! Seriously, he is not even American and he is telling everyone the founding fathers were wrong!

Wow! Thimbles is smarter then the Founding Fathers!

And speaking of Free Speech, has Thimbles shown any support of Free Speech of his opponents? Just go around CJR and look at his past work and the answer is NO.

Thimbles does not want a Democracy, because that means investigating THE PARTY IN POWER RIGHT NOW IF THERE IS CORRUPTION. Thimbles wants the Left to rule, forever.

Thimbles thinks Pompey is smarter then these people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

And as far First Amendment Rights, the Founders gave that -- what have you, Thimbles done for it lately?

This has been fun, and I love seeing how Hatred motivates people. Orwell was Right about the Left, look at Thimble.

#96 Posted by JSF, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 11:14 PM

What idiots run this "news" organization?

I guess next thing Columbia Journalism Review is going to say that telling a politician, President, Senator, Congressman that if they do not do their job they will be voted out by the citizens is also blackmail!

These young fools running this "news" paper are probably being directed by a 1960s hippie who believed back then that Mao Tsung was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The professor probably still carries his Little Red book.

#97 Posted by CJ, CJR on Sun 22 Nov 2009 at 11:38 PM

And Obama continues a tradition! Obama wiretaps!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/168502/obama_administration_defends_bush_wiretapping.html

And another one! Obama continues Extraordinary rendition!

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/01/nation/na-rendition1

Arrest that man!

#98 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 12:24 AM

I agree with you Thimbles. The attempt by Breitbart to influence the 2010 elections just seems downright un-American an illegal. Release all the tapes, unedited, and let the chips fall where they may. Why upset the electoral process to get what you want? Those tapes are almost comedic with two "actors" dressed in halloween outfits talking about opening a whorehouse. Really? Was anyone supposed to fall for this act? If anything Giles and whats his name should be prosecuted for bad acting.

#99 Posted by pilotx, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 01:20 AM

Dear* Mr. Marx:

In reading your post, and educated and experienced person can come to only one conclusion: you require both before you should again be allowed out to speak again. So here's how to get a crash course in both. Contact Sarah Palin and see if you can tag along on her book tour. If she's willing to put up with you for a while, you might even be able to get your prof to let you do it as a special project. If not, withdraw for the semester and do it anyway. Now, here's the important part or it will all be wasted:

1) For the first week on the tour, listen to what the people visiting her have to say. They come from the heartland, and speak from their hearts. This will clearly be a new experience for you, and it will be quite jarring, but it is important to remember to keep your mouth shut except when eating for that whole week.
2) During the second week, the shock should be diminishing. You should now be able to ask questions meant to elicit information. Remember, your job isn't to prosecute or persecute, it is to gather knowledge.
3) At the start of the third week, post an article on the blog again. If you've made sufficient progress in getting your education, we'll give you the okay to start engaging in debate, as well as new instructions. If not you'll need to repeat at least one of the earlier steps.

Thanks,
The Gadfly

*Well, not "dear" really, but I'm told that is the correct form of greeting.

#100 Posted by The_Gadfly, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 07:45 AM

Curious that you are reporting on AB and friends and not on the thousands of jouralists who missed or ignored the story. I sure hope that this doesn't represent agenda driven journalism on your part.

#101 Posted by SeekingRationalThought, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 11:04 AM

And Obama continues a tradition! Obama wiretaps! And another one! Obama continues Extraordinary rendition! Arrest that man!

You see, now you are starting to get it. Republics don't sink or swim upon the actions of dumb community organizers, just like they don't sink or swim based on a little mafia or a little drug dealing or a little prostitution. They sink or swim based on the rights and limits they recognize.

And when those linits get violated, it damages the republic. And when those rights get violated it damages the republic. The relationship between government and citizen gets out of balance and the result is a government that holds secrets from you and holds no secrets about you from itself. If you want to talk about the dangers of Big Government, the centerpiece of any honest conversation would be the arbitrary violation of recognized human rights when it comes to baring access to legal process and using methods that constitute torture.

In a free republic we do not tolerate Ministries of Truth. We do not disappear people and bar anyone from reviewing the reasons for/evidence of why. We do not violate citizen's rights to privacy.

Citizens must demand a relationship with their government which respects the limits of government power, because when those limits cease to function, all good people are in danger.

The relationship deteriorated under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton because of the Drug War.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html
In an honest conversation about Big Government, we would be talking about this.

Over 10% of the black population are in jail at a time. These people, many of them guilty o non-violent drug infractions are "black"listed, pardon the expression, from participating in elections in many states because convicts and ex-convicts loose their enfranchisement upon conviction. Your name is purged from the polls if you were a convict. What is so free about a society which imprisons much of its population and purges their right to partake in the political process?

The relationship further deteriorated under Bush II partly in reaction to 9-11, partly because of the election of an Administration that did not believe in the government's role in economics, environment, or in simple resource allocation. They let business run the government and fought letting people know how every step of the way. They kept their energy task force minutes secret, their EPA assessments in the wake of 9-11 secret, they edited reports to understake the science of global warming, they put industry lobbyists in regulatory positions of the industries they were paid by. And they cut taxes for the rich, giving hundreds of billions in retroactive tax rebates to corporations who paid them under the Alternative minimum tax they didn't believe in.
Pt 2 comming

#102 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 11:04 AM

Thimbles, in everything that you have written -- I don't hear you say the press should follow Obama considering Art I, Sec 9, clause 15, says you cannot go after former pervayors of the same thing.

I don't hear you say "Investigate Obama,"

I don't hear you're anger at Obama for doing what Bush and Clinton did.

If you want to make an example (and follow the Founding fathers) will you lobby and make Obama the example or will you just spew attacks upon the Right?

#103 Posted by JSF, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 11:09 AM

What happened under the Bush Administration is what started happening under previous admins, the industries wrote the legislation, made recommendations of who should police them, and made the case for friendly policy by letting them know they can be their friend and cradle them unto the grave through corporate favors. The Bush people were from that world- the millionaire cabinet

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1321078/Multi-millionaires-make-Bushs-team-richest-in-history.html

Bush himself was a creature weaned on these favors and would have remained an unpromising C student without them. The service of these people is not defined by personal ideals, but by patronage (another republic killer).

And the superbanks that were created out of Rubin's and Gramm's legislative push were excellent patrons.

A conversation about Big Government should talk about these really big patrons and the people who revolve back and forth in these circles.

The banks were allowed to go crazy with the global capital that was pouring in because of the promise of safe and high returns. These investments were rated high after all, they promised to be safe, and if it turned out not to be safe you could buy unregulated insurance that pays out when they default. It was a safe profitable system, safe as houses.

As Bush was busy busting the GSE's Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae, and the banks were cutting deep into their markets, the Bush Administration allowed a new classification for superbanks, Consolidated Supervised Entities. This classification allowed banks to leverage themselves up to 40 to 1, meaning they could owe 40 dollars for every 1 dollar they had.

But they were supervised. And that was a problem. The Bush Administration replaced the industry guy they had, Donaldson, with an even more industry friendly guy and general idiot hack, Chris Cox.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/wapo_circles_back_on_coxs_sec.php

This was the agency who missed Madoff even though it was given the evidence by concerned brokers and was forced to investigate him twice. This was the agency given the responsibility of supervising the 5 CSE's: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch.

A Big Government blog should really talk about that.

PT 3 in a bit

#104 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 11:49 AM

Fascinating exchanges between JSF and Thimbles. Frankly, I appreciate the points and arguments both sides are making--I wish there were more people willing to engage intellectually like this rather than the typical shoot and duck for cover approaches most on both sides of the political spectrum tend to do.

Some of my takeaways from these (and the other) posts are that the right tends to be inconsistent by latching onto certain issues at the expense of bigger fish that need to be fried. The media has to prioritize where to focus its resources and there are issues both in current and past administrations that simply outweigh the mischief and misdemeanors of a community organizing group. The right tends to come across as self-righteous (pardon the pun) and a bit overboard in their rhetoric. "Liberal" is an ugly word to them and they can't comprehend how anyone patriotic could possibly have those views.

On the other hand, the left draws the line of distinction between the left and right a bit further to the left of where it probably truly lies if there were a way to assess the political inclinations of the total population of U.S. citizens. The media then bases their claims of fairness and objectivity in reporting on this artificial and inaccurate line and subsequently wonders why all the pushback, then dismisses it as the right-wing fringe--just a bunch of uneducated hicks who don't know any better. They come across as arrogant and many of them do seem to despise the culture outside of their elite circles.

Both sides have a following of impressionable, clapping, barking seals who take pride in whatever clever comment they can come up with to show the other side what dunces they are.

I wish I had the knowledge and insight both Thimbles and JSF have. For now, my limited time for political issues is spent perusing sites on both sides of the spectrum looking for rational thinking--I've found that to be a rare commodity, but it is there to be found.

Thanks guys.

#105 Posted by hamaca, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 12:05 PM

Now we can go on talking about the myriad ways the government was taken over under Bush by Big Business and Big Banks - for instance the USDA going to war with creekstone farms over Creekstone's desire to test all of it's beef for mad cow and as it cut its own tests by 90% from 400,000 to 40,000, but that's history. It's essential context and necessary for determining responsibility, but Bush doesn't set the policy anymore.

Obama does.

And Obama's people aren't that different.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-28-cabinetfinances_N.htm

There's a lot of millionaires in that cabinet. The crazy superbanks are not regulated, they are getting handouts and Geithner is constantly trying to engineer new ones to get the bad assets of their books. Wellpoint is writing senate policy.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/08/liz-fowlers-plan/
And Obama has turned away from his progressive base and towards advocacy for the security state.
pt 4 comming (I hate this two links per post system.)

#106 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 12:13 PM

You have to laugh at CJR's motto "Strong press, strong democracy". If the media was doing its job, folks like Andrew Breitbart wouldn't be so important. I recall great investigative pieces by "60 Minutes" and others, now the mainstream media wouldn't even look at a story if it could possibly hurt the Democratic party. ACORN is being brought to justice by Breitbart, and if not compelled to do so, Holder has already made it pretty clear that he will ignore the crimes of this corrupt organization! I didn't think that Hannah Giles was a believable prostitute, but she certainly looked and acted more like a hooker than Holder does an Attorney General, or the mainstream media does as watchdogs for the people!

#107 Posted by Steve from Wisconsin, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 12:34 PM

People should be demanding to know who is writing the policies that affect their lives, when is bank re-regulation going to take place - if ever, has the government stopped doing what it did under Bush, when is the government going to represent the people again - instead of their robbers - by raising taxes on the rich to appropriate past levels (like those under Reagan) to rebuild the schools bridges roads energy infrastructure etc that are desperately needed for both the opportunity they provide and the health of the nation which has decayed under tax cuts and neglect?

When are people going to ask serious questions of their representation?

That will be the day that idiots stop talking about stupid things like community groups and brothels. The guys like Breitbart and Dick Armey don't want serious questions being asked by the public. They want you focused on silly blowjobs so you can get robbed by their banks
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/consumer-populism-by-digby-i-honestly.html

Please people, prove to me you are smarter than that. It's the people like Breitbart and Armey who think you are the easily conned morons who will swallow anything their hand casts before you, like ducks at the pond swallowing draino laced bread.

My children and yours are the ones who will suffer because you can't turn away from the circus. The Global Rome we all live within is collapsing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8364926.stm
And, at such a time. we should not be debating ACORN.

#108 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 12:36 PM

Thanks guys.

No problem. Just wish the comment software would stop breaking my flow when I'm on a roll :D.

And yeah, what I'd like to do is discuss, but it's really hard to do so when your starting point with a community is that you're a indoctrinated traitor who's full of lies and Lenin.

And then they throw in comments like this for fun
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/strike_a_poserogue_rogue_rogue.php
"After all Thimbles will never defend the First Amendment Rights of the Right. That's why it's good to have allies who support the second Amendment when people like Thimble threaten."

I don't want to be a demon, but if I'm going to be demonized to start, then the fight's going to be on. I won't be an elitist non-confrontational guy who offers a handshake and a pat on the head when he's called hater and an idiot by people who are expressing irrational beliefs hatefully, We can all have a nice conversation or a nasty confrontation. With me the respect one shows is the respect one gets back.

And even in my passionate disagreements with Mark Richard, I still respect it when he makes a conversation instead of an accusation.

Oh well. Time to move on with the day.

#109 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 01:10 PM

Thimbles - you're "roll" is as transparent now as the MSM's "roll" when it comes to shutting down the investigative machinery when liberals and their ilk are in power.

Aside from a bunch of nonsense like "gang rape" on the taxpayer's dime (shock - a liberal blames the US military, who despite having 100,000+ soldiers over there has a crime rate that is infintesimal compared to any Democratic run city) and huffpo links your "roll" is exceedingly week and irrelevant to the topic.

#110 Posted by martine, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 01:52 PM

Oh, one more. Came across this and it just seemed to typify what I'm talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/business/19dimon.html July 18, 2009

Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, will hold a meeting of his board here in the nation’s capital for the first time on Monday, with a special guest expected: the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel...

The business of better influencing Washington, begun in late 2007, was jump-started just as the financial crisis hit and the capital displaced New York as the nation’s money center. Then Mr. Obama’s election brought to power Chicago Democrats well-known to Mr. Dimon from his recent years running a bank there...

Mr. Dimon and his company enjoy a prominence in the city’s K Street lobbying world that parallels their recent rise on Wall Street; JPMorgan went into the crisis stronger than most rivals and reported robust quarterly gains last week that confirmed its place at the top of the heap.

With the crisis, Mr. Dimon, a longtime Democratic donor, has become even more politically engaged, in the process becoming perhaps the most credible voice of a discredited industry. Other onetime giants like Citigroup and Bank of America find themselves muted as wards of the state.

JPMorgan gave back its bailout money quickly, though like all the country’s big banks it still benefits from government loan guarantees and lending facilities.

He is “one of the few Democratic C.E.O.’s in that line of work,” said Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House banking committee. “And look, he’s been less impaired by failure than some of the others, so that’s given him a kind of lead role.”...

Each week, his staff gives him the names of a half-dozen public officials to call.

“It’s got to be a regular thing. You’ve got to have a few relations where people know and trust you; you can be an honest broker,” Mr. Dimon said in an interview. “You can’t just fight everything.”

While he has been quick to criticize the administration, JPMorgan has chosen its fights carefully, viewing his activism as a good investment, particularly as the government considers a historic rewrite of financial rules...

Mr. Dimon helped persuade Mr. Frank and Congress to ease the terms for banks, allowing JPMorgan to repay $25 billion in bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. He did so by complaining publicly and privately that JPMorgan only reluctantly took the money last year from the Bush administration to avoid stigmatizing more needy banks, and now was being hit with new limits — on hiring skilled foreigners, executive pay and more.

JPMorgan and the industry lost when a pro-consumer credit card bill became law. But it beat back a proposal to allow bankruptcy judges to lower the amount homeowners owe on mortgages. That victory came with a cost: JPMorgan angered Republicans by negotiating with Democrats and then enraged some Democrats when those talks collapsed.

But Mr. Dimon and JPMorgan are willing to bear such defeats if it translates into victory on the broader financial regulation fight that is just beginning.

A centerpiece of that effort involves regulating the market for derivatives, which Mr. Dimon’s firm dominates. While JPMorgan favors new reporting requirements for the complex financial instruments, it opposes the administration proposal to force trades onto public exchanges; doing so would likely cut into the firm’s lucrative business of selling clients custom-made instruments. Like other banks, it also opposes a new consumer agency for financial products.

Meanwhile, the company’s reputation could be tarnished by investigations into the crisis. Among them, JPMorgan is under scrutiny from the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possi

#111 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 02:00 PM

So you aren't bothered by the content of what Breitbart has revealed but the method he's used to reveal it? What's interesting, is that Breitbart's offering up a story that's so juicy so tantalizing - but the MSM isn't biting out of fear that unsavory details might be revealed about an organization that supports leftist causes. Why is the MSM so wedded to these people that it won't sharpen their pencils and dig in? I have to laugh at the subtitle for the Columbia Review - "Strong Press Strong Democracy". What a joke - the press is more of a doormat! There's nothing couageous about Mr. Marx's comments.

#112 Posted by crikey, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 03:05 PM

Good info once again Thimbles. You have given out factual information that should be followed up but we are being distracted by the shiny object that is ACORN. I have had occasion to see firsthand the good work ACORN has done in my community, getting teens jobs and voter registration, and I have not seen any of the illegal activity Breitbart alleges. The thing is before the two kids went in to set worker up in a "sting" there were no problems with the organization pushing whorehouses filled with underaged prostitutes. I could be wrong and if anyone can link me to this info I'd be grateful. This is getting ridiculous, there is no story here except Breitbart's threat to influence an election.

#113 Posted by pilotx, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 05:45 PM

I respect the military. Most of the military officers and individuals I've met are good people and good thinkers.

They aren't the people who I'm talking about. The people who I'm talking about are the contrators who many soldiers think are overpaid cowboys or incompetent suits who are making a lot of bucks doing shoddy work with slave labor and that's if they finish the contract they were paid for.
These were the guys I was talking about when it comes to gang rape:
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/woman-receives-3m-kbr-assault-case/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/houppert

These are also the guys who built the shocking showers and fed rotten food and tainted water to troops in the field.
That's a story for Big Government.

#114 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 07:41 PM

What's interesting, is that Breitbart's offering up a story that's so juicy so tantalizing - but the MSM isn't biting out of fear that unsavory details might be revealed about an organization that supports leftist causes.

What are you talking about? The media has given the story plenty of attention and apologized for missing the story gained by sending a conservative Slim Shady - who hated ACORN because they got people to vote who voted for Democrats - into their offices.

So now the conservatives are going to get their own NYTimes editor to monitor their opinion media so they can be up and front with the latest kenyan birth certificate controversies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27pubed.html
Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

The Washington Post did the same,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091802639.html

Dishonest jerk John Fund gets to pontificate his mostly made up crap about voter registration fraud on a regular basis on places ranging from Bill Maher to NPR.

What do you want?

Do you know how hard liberals had to work to get media in America to report the internationally well reported story of the Downing Street Memo?
Or that the New York Times spiked the warrantless surveillance story before the 2004 election because the Bush administration and Jane Harman asked them not to?

Talking Points Memo has busted several better stories than Breitbart's gonzo crew and do they get apologies in editorials and special editors who monitor leftist blogs?

No, for the right there is never enough attention. It's not enough that Drudge runs the media world. It's not enough that they have the Fox News megaphone to yell in all the time. They got to have it all. "We got sex and minorities on video! Look at me! Look at me!"

This is the journalism you're proud of?

It's a joke.

#115 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 08:12 PM

Good info once again Thimbles. You have given out factual information that should be followed up but we are being distracted by the shiny object that is ACORN.

Thanks for the kind words. I know I put in a lot of links and not all have the time to follow them, but if they're getting some appreciation, I'm happy.

#116 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 23 Nov 2009 at 08:18 PM

Cll off your sockpuppet and call the Waaahbulence Thimbles, because again, in your hate, you got it wrong.

I cited the Constitutional reason why you couldn't "go after Bush,"

Then you had your 4 hate filled rants, then I went over and wrote on the Rouge piece.

Were you civil before I wrote it? No, you just wanted to hate.

Were you civil after I showed where IN THE CONSTITUTION your crusade was wrong? Again, nope. You bask in your hate.

So, here is a suggestion: Stop Hating, unless you want us partisans to parade your Hate on the campaign trail.

All you had to do was say "thank you," but that's a bridge too far without your sockpuppet and your Waaaahbulence.

#117 Posted by JSF, CJR on Tue 24 Nov 2009 at 11:20 PM

What in the fuck are you talking about?

I post at http://thecrossedpond.com/
I am nobody's sock puppet.

PS. Nothing bars the government from censure and disclosure of past history, but the non-condemnation of past abuse ensures it will take place again.

Speaking of which, you never answered my question of what you protested against under Bush.
Anything?

PPS. Bills of attainder apply to a congress passing a law against behavior that, in effect, prosecutes a specific party.

It does not relate to an attorney general investigating a violation of law. The attorney general is part of the executive branch and is in charge of enforcing the laws on books, investigating possible violations, and prosecuting them. The attorney general does not write the laws you address. The legislative branch commits legislative acts.

In other words, you're talking about congress.

If the Bush Administration and its contractors and cronies violated the law, it is within the scope of the attorney general to investigate and prosecute and only the informal desire for comity prevents it.

But I understand. You object to the prosecution of the past so, hypothetically speaking, were Bush in charge today would you not agree that the instances where his administration violated the law deserve to be investigated and prosecuted?

#118 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 12:16 AM

Thimbles,

If President Bush was President in 2009, then yes, look into it.

But what I notice is you don't want to even "follow the money," [Old Woodward and Bernstein term, look it up] right now.

That's where I object. The press lays down for Democrats (i.e. why were the press caught with their pants when Gov. Blago of Il and Gov. Spitzer were both found in trouble?). That's where I object [I also object too to allowing Navasky using a neutral paper as "CJR' as a means of funding The Nation -- Conflict of Interest. That's where I object.]

Let me know when you want to investigate the folks who are in power TODAY. Last I checked, Democrats run DC.

1) Do the Democrats in power (in 2009) deserve to be investigated or not?
2) Should the Press "Follow the Money," when Democrats are in power or not?

[Cue Jepordy theme]

#119 Posted by JSF, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 01:12 AM

What exactly should our current president and other dems be investigated for? If they have broken any laws then yes there should be an investigation but we must also look into past crimes and if they involve the previous administration then so be it. Illegal acts are illegal acts. The part that annoys me is the fact that conervatives are supposed to be the party of law and order and liberty but the past administration broke numerous laws and violated the constitution. So do we not look into past crimes? Do we only go after Dems or all illegal activity?

#120 Posted by pilotx, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 01:55 AM

That's what the Fourth estate is for: to keep in check whomever is in power at the time. Period.

last I checked, Bush is back in TX and Cheney lives in Northern Virginia. Obama is running things now -- are Democrats afraid of the people asking Cui Bono?

#121 Posted by JSF, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 02:03 AM

If President Bush was President in 2009, then yes, look into it.

What specifically? I want to know what acts he did that you think would be worthy of investigation were he still the president now.

But what I notice is you don't want to even "follow the money," [Old Woodward and Bernstein term, look it up] right now.

Q: Jesus Christ. Did you not read any of the posts above where I talk about
who's paying for the party?

why were the press caught with their pants when Gov. Blago of Il and Gov. Spitzer were both found in trouble?

What are you talking about? The press were ALL over those stories as the facts were confirmed. Sex is like catnip to the press. Spitzer is a household word (and everything he said about the Bush administration using Federal Jurisdiction to prevent the States from enforcing their own laws against predatory lending while refusing its own responsibility to regulate, which was a major cause of the financial crisis - not the CRA and ACORN http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/spitzers_ghost.php ) and so is Blago. Guys like Mike Duvall and Vitter last a news cycle and they're not talked about again. Hilary can't pursue anything without the press trying to smoke out details about the old stained blue dress http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=4482242 Sometimes a republican or a democrat catch a break but when details come out even half confirming a story, like Drudge's snafu about the Kerry intern, they get bleated all over the media.
What is life like on your Bizzaro world?

1) Do the Democrats in power (in 2009) deserve to be investigated or not? 2) Should the Press "Follow the Money," when Democrats are in power or not?[Cue Jepordy theme]

A: No, you're not reading my posts AT ALL. I guess just saying HATE all the time is easier than reading what a person says and thinking about it long enough to understand what he's saying.

Yes, investigate the Dems in power when they appropriate tax payer money for crooked bankers and for when they break the law. Yes, investigate acorn for when they break the law. Yes, if you have evidence of a crime, make it as public as you possibly can so that people can act upon it and punish the wicked.
I don't have a problem with breaking up corruption where ever it is found. I have a problem with whiny little babies who feel they aren't getting enough attention and want to blow an ACORN story into an indictment of all democrats and leftists while trying to tie all the problems of the world around ACORN's neck. The significance of the ACORN story is minimal at best. By warping the audience's perspective to make ACORN look like the end aall be all of corruption in Washington is doing a giant disservice to the country and the world.
Should they be investigated? If they've broken the law, then yes. If not, then no. If you've got evidence then share. These are simple concepts, Is it my choice of font that's making them hard to read?
IF THERE IS A CRIME, INVESTIGATE.

IF THERE IS EVIDENCE OF A CRIME, INVESTIGATE.

IF IT IS A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN, INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE GUILTY.

last I checked, Bush is back in TX and Cheney lives in Northern Virginia.

Which is not where they should be i they violated the law. The president swore an oath to protect the constitution. If the past administration violated the constitution by invading privacy, by detaining people and suspending habeus corpus, by acts of torture against the accused - not proven guilty, the current president and his attorney general are obligated to prosecute the perpetrators to restore the constitution to what it was and to protect it from future violation.
Do you not believe in protecting the constitu

#122 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 03:37 AM

As a right winger, I would like to go on record to say that yes, we have a double standard when it comes to whether bad things are done by republicans or emocrats. Republicans represent 95% of the real American qualities, and if we have to step on some toes to keep the number that high, then that is a small price to pay. We are in the midst of coup, and when that has been exposed and thwarted, we willl return to make USA a heaven for all you deluded ingrates.

#123 Posted by Coinan, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 08:33 AM

Thimbles does have it bad for going after Bush. BUSH IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE.

Let me help you with some American History:

http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Start-Watergate-Victor-Lasky/dp/0803738579/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

JFK and LBJ wiretapped the WH and sicced the IRS on their Political enemies. When Nixon and his "Third rate Burglery," was investigated by Woodward/Bernstein, they investigated (Get ready) THE PARTY IN POWER, which was Nixon. So did the Watergate Committee.

Did it matter that LBJ and JFK did the same exact things? No, as you mentioned earlier, the desire for comity is what keeps the United States "united,"

You are saying ACORN is nothing but you don't want the press to follow where it leads -- either you are naive or a blind partisan.

I will not allow you to bait and trash my partisans when you are spending every comment on CJR defending yours.

Obama is in office now. Should the press follow where it leads? You claim yes, but then you say "Look at Bush,"

Bush and the Republicans are not in office -- they paid for their malfecense by losing. But if you still want to go after them, I hope you go after FDR too for imprisoning the Japanese Americans.

Oh, heck, why not come out and say it Thimbles: Every American President should be in jail, isn't that what you want or only the Republican ones?

#124 Posted by JSF, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 02:44 PM

@ coinan, you say Republicans represent 95% of real American qualities. What exactly are these qualities? I submit lefties such as myself represent good old fashioned American qualities such as hard woek, discipline, love of nation and respect for the law.
@JSF, Nixon broke several laws and was rightly prosecuted for them. There are things called statutes of limitations, if one commits a crime there is a period of time on which that person can be prosecuted for that crime. In essence, if people in the previous administration committed a crime(s) there is a certain amout of time that person can be held accountable. It's not like in basketball when the clock runs out the game is over. It's the same thing that happened to Nixon and Agnew, they resigned but they were still held responsible for their crimes, Gerald Ford had to pardon them. Same thing if Cheney killed a person while in office, the charges will follow him. He couldn't get away just because he left office. BTW, JFK and LBJ are dead so yes they will probably get away with whatever it is they did.
@ Thimbles, the BBC is investigating Britain's role in the Iraq war. If I get more info I'll post and link it.

#125 Posted by pilotx, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 05:07 PM

You are saying ACORN is nothing but you don't want the press to follow where it leads -- either you are naive or a blind partisan.

No I'm saying I could care less when you have the FDIC 8 billion dollars in the red, because of massive fraud in the finance industry and because the banks avoided paying their premiums for ten years,
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/11/fdic_in_the_red.html
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/11/now_needy_fdic_collected_little_in_premiums/
and you have the Federal Reserve, which is committing itself to trillions of dollars in liability to protect the superbanks, because of massive fraud in the finance industry.

If it was me, and I was interested in Big Government, I'd be more interested in the finance industry fraud, especially when you consider the fraudsters are still running their institutions financed by tax payer coin.

But that's me, and I focus on important things. I'm biased that way.

Did it matter that LBJ and JFK did the same exact things? No, as you mentioned earlier, the desire for comity is what keeps the United States "united,"

Oh, but I thought it was the bill of attainder, Mr. Professor.</sarcasm>

Thimbles, the BBC is investigating Britain's role in the Iraq war. If I get more info I'll post and link it.

I don't know if you want to do that. It might distract from the ACORN discussion. :D

#126 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 10:45 PM

Aw geez.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/175285-will-obama-replace-geithner-with-dimon
According to rumors, President Obama will soon replace his treasury secretary Timothy Geithner with JP Morgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon.

I hate being right about crappy things. How about that revolving door investigation? Still want to focus on a community group?

#127 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 11:05 PM

@pilotx. I notice that you are picking and choosing from a wide range of corrupt American politicians. Maybe you think politicians are the end-all of how a country acts. But one of the key republican qualities you were asking for, is the knowledge that at the end of politics there is a private individual, not another politician. If republican politicians seem more corupt to you, it is because you have been brainwashed to follow and because you demand others to be followers. Republicans know the wide space of freedom, you know only the limitations of the law. The kind of corruption we observe is your allegiance to socialism.

#128 Posted by Coinan, CJR on Thu 26 Nov 2009 at 09:18 AM

If republican politicians seem more corupt to you, it is because you have been brainwashed to follow and because you demand others to be followers. Republicans know the wide space of freedom, you know only the limitations of the law. The kind of corruption we observe is your allegiance to socialism.

So where does the support for torture, invasion of privacy without judicial oversight, and the suspension of habeus corpus fit into all that freedom, Mr Republican?

#129 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 26 Nov 2009 at 11:44 AM

Abenteuer Reisen Blog

Abenteuer Reisen Expeditionen

#130 Posted by Reise Abenteuer, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 02:35 AM

Big Government.

Watch

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10302009/profile3.html

or Read:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10302009/transcript5.html

and Discuss.

#131 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 10:08 AM

@ coinan. First off you did not answer my question about why Republicans are more patriotic than Democrats but I'll await that answer. Secondly I never said Republicans are more corrupt than Dems but there was a specific question asked about JFK and LBJ so I just offered an opinion. Don't read too much into my answer as I said previously anyone who breaks the law should be punished for whatever offense they committed so your assertation about my allegiance is wrong. I will also disagree with the assertion that Republicans are more knowledgable about freedom because it is Republicans mainly who want to restrict a woman's right to choose when she starts a family and gay rights. If you read the GOP party platform it is full of legal restrictions and limitations so I strongly disagree with your opinion conservatives are more interested in freedom. I feel it is un American to restrict a citizen's freedom based on gender or sexual orientation. Let's see who believes in liberty more.

#132 Posted by pilotx, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 06:02 PM

Sorry coinky, I can't let pilotx twist in the wind.

Coink is a guy I know on another board from Denmark and is more lefty than Marx, Greg or otherwise. He's playing a joke on us.

Bad little viking. Bad!

#133 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 10:28 PM

Oh dear, did I screw up? Denmark is the vikings and not the huns, right?
No maybe it's huns. I get my Europe confused.

Naughty Hun! Naughty!

#134 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 10:32 PM

Hey, Big Gov folks. Any info on this?
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/24/blackwaters_secret_war_in_pakistan_jeremy

If Blackwater, you know... the company that actually murders people versus talks about it and has gotten many millions in contracts versus 5 or or a year, is operating in Pakistan under an American banner but without American purview, we ought to find out more about that.

How about it Breitbart crew? Is the greatest journalist on earth up to looking at that story now that they are working for Obama?

#135 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 28 Nov 2009 at 03:17 AM

At last, thimble's limitless lefty lunacy exposed for all to see. I rest my case. @Pilotx, I hope I meet you in a less insanity prone environment.

#136 Posted by Coinan, CJR on Sat 28 Nov 2009 at 05:59 AM

Like the asylum?
(You are such a jokester)

#137 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 28 Nov 2009 at 09:21 AM

Look forward to it.

#138 Posted by pilotx, CJR on Sat 28 Nov 2009 at 04:24 PM

Awful awful awful. The what:

http://townhall.com/news/business/2009/11/16/us_justice_department_opposes_siegelman_appeal
The Obama administration is opposing former Gov. Don Siegelman's appeal of his felony corruption conviction before the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that federal prosecutors presented enough evidence to prove bribery. Siegelman, a Democrat like the president, and former HealthSouth Corp. CEO Richard Scrushy claim their case raises broad questions about how much evidence is needed to prove that bribery occurred. They contend the conduct in question was routine politics. The Justice Department filed papers late Friday contending the law lets jurors infer criminal conduct even if there was no explicit agreement of a bribery scheme.

The why:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/disappointed_siegelman_obama_doj_virtually_the_sam.php
"There's really been no substantial change in the heart of the Department of Justice from the Bush-Rove Department of Justice," Siegelman tells TPMmuckraker in an interview... While Solicitor General Elena Kagan was appointed by Obama, Siegelman says the DOJ staffers who are giving advice and making decisions on his case are the same people who were at the department under Bush. "The people who have been writing the briefs for the government are the same people who were involved in the prosecution," he says.

No, a year into the Obama Administration there is no excuse for Rove's political prosecutions to stand.

#139 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 02:30 AM

And remember, this is the same Eric Holder in charge who dropped charges against Ted Stevens and is now being asked by a bipartisan host of legal professionals to investigate the case, including judges and former attorney generals.
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/09/91-former-us-attorneys-general-support-siegelman-appeal/
You can watch the 60 minutes report on the guy here:
http://www.donsiegelman.org/

#140 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 29 Nov 2009 at 02:44 AM

Follow up, for what it's worth:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/acorn_report_finds_no_illegal_conduct.php

http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf
While some of the advice and counsel given by ACORN employees and volunteers was clearly inappropriate and unprofessional, we did not find a pattern of intentional, illegal conduct by ACORN staff; in fact, there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any ACORN employee on behalf of the videographers.

If Breitbart has evidence, he should know what to do.
Of course, the unedited videos may be evidence of more than just ACORN being stupid.

The unedited videos have never been made public. The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms.Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts2 to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions. To date, the videographers have declined or ignored our interview requests.

#141 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 9 Dec 2009 at 11:59 AM

Matt Taibbi wrote a piece in RS which has gotten the flies swarming. He attacks Obama for many of the things I mentioned above about Larry Summers and his economic team's connections to Wall Street.

It's quite good, in spite or because of its polemic. The part relevant to here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I approach a woman named Pat Defillipis from Toms River, New Jersey, and ask her why she's here. "To protest health care," she answers. "And then amnesty. You know, immigration amnesty."

I ask her if she's aware that there's a big hearing going on in the House today, where Barney Frank's committee is marking up a bill to reform the financial regulatory system. She recognizes Frank's name, wincing, but the rest of my question leaves her staring at me like I'm an alien.

"Do you care at all about economic regulation?" I ask. "There was sort of a big economic collapse last year. Do you have any ideas about how that whole deal should be fixed?"

"We got to slow down on spending," she says. "We can't afford it."

"But what do we do about the rules governing Wall Street . . ."

She walks away. She doesn't give a fuck. People like Pat aren't aware of it, but they're the best friends Obama has. They hate him, sure, but they don't hate him for any reasons that make sense. When it comes down to it, most of them hate the president for all the usual reasons they hate "liberals" — because he uses big words, doesn't believe in hell and doesn't flip out at the sight of gay people holding hands. Additionally, of course, he's black, and wasn't born in America, and is married to a woman who secretly hates our country.

These are the kinds of voters whom Obama's gang of Wall Street advisers is counting on: idiots. People whose votes depend not on whether the party in power delivers them jobs or protects them from economic villains, but on what cultural markers the candidate flashes on TV. Finance reform has become to Obama what Iraq War coffins were to Bush: something to be tucked safely out of sight.

Around the same time that finance reform was being watered down in Congress at the behest of his Treasury secretary, Obama was making a pit stop to raise money from Wall Street. On October 20th, the president went to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in New York and addressed some 200 financiers and business moguls, each of whom paid the maximum allowable contribution of $30,400 to the Democratic Party. But an organizer of the event, Daniel Fass, announced in advance that support for the president might be lighter than expected — bailed-out firms like JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs were expected to contribute a meager $91,000 to the event — because bankers were tired of being lectured about their misdeeds.

"The investment community feels very put-upon," Fass explained. "They feel there is no reason why they shouldn't earn $1 million to $200 million a year, and they don't want to be held responsible for the global financial meltdown."

Which makes sense. Shit, who could blame the investment community for the meltdown? What kind of assholes are we to put any of this on them?

This is the kind of person who is working for the Obama administration, which makes it unsurprising that we're getting no real reform of the finance industry. There's no other way to say it: Barack Obama, a once-in-a-generation political talent whose graceful conquest of America's racial dragons en route to the White House inspired the entire world, has for some reason allowed his presidency to be hijacked by sniveling, low-rent shitheads. Instead of reining in Wall Street, Obama has allowed himself to be seduced by it, leaving even his erstwhile campaign adviser, ex-Fed chief Paul Volcker, concerned about a "moral hazard" creeping over his administration.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

#142 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 13 Dec 2009 at 10:21 AM

"Thimbles, thanks for the laugh. You'd make a perfect parody of a whiny liberal, it would be really funny if you weren't for real." Well said, Stan...

Thimbles, you keep saying goodnight and good day, but you just won't leave!
I think your anger, whining, verbal attacks, the personal insults and your pouting are based upon your subconscious' guilt over the remarks your mouth spews; when in your heart and soul know you are just plain wrong, yes wrong! And it makes you angry that you just can't come clean and say, "I was mistaken."
Yelling, screaming and repetition of the same remarks over and over, doesn't make it the truth...
LISTEN to the 98% o the people responding on a liberal website that say that you are wrong!! There is NOTHING wrong with having an investigation and, if that doesn't happen... Put it on the news!!! That's what it's for!
So, just shut up....

#143 Posted by tbryson, CJR on Thu 17 Dec 2009 at 10:18 PM

Yeeowch.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/acorn-broke-no-laws/

---------------------------------------------

The controversial community organizing group Acorn has not broken any laws in the last five years, according to a Congrssional Research Service report released Tuesday evening.

The report, requested by Representative John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, said that federal agencies, mainly the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, have awarded money to the group 48 times since 2005. But, in none of those instances did Acorn violate the terms of their funding, the report said.

Since the 2008 elections, the group, which works primarily to expand voter registration and affordable housing, has become a key Republican target. A series of scandals brought to light by conservative activists led to multiple Congressional hearings and repeated attempts to deny it taxpayer funding...

The report also said that a sting-style effort to publicize the group’s allegedly illegal activities, may have broken state laws. Two conservative activists set off a firestorm in September when they posed as a pimp and a prostitute seeking financial advice and secretly videotaped Acorn employees offering advice on how the couple could hide their illicit activities and avoid paying taxes.

Also on Tuesday, a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, rejected the administration’s request to reconsider its ruling that a House resolution barring the group from receiving federal funding was unconstitutional. Earlier this month a judge ruled that the law constituted a “bill of attainder,” legislation intended to punish specific people or groups.

In November the Justice Department also concluded that the Obama administration can legally pay the group.

---------------------------------------------
Gotta hurt the Breitbart crowd.

#144 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 24 Dec 2009 at 11:07 AM

About the Author

Greg Marx is a CJR staff writer.

Desks

The Audit Business

The Observatory Science

Campaign Desk Politics & Policy

Behind the News The Media

Receive a FREE Issue

of Columbia Journalism Review

If you like the magazine, get the rest of the year for just $19.95 (6 issues in all).
If not, simply write cancel on the bill and return it. You will owe nothing.

The Kicker — November 20, 2009 02:12 PM