'The Daily Show' Host Quipped About Sanchez' Comments at a NYC Event
Jon Stewart had some advice Saturday night for Rick Sanchez, who was fired from his job as CNN anchor after he called Stewart a bigot and questioned whether Jews should be considered a minority.
"If you went on radio and said the Jews control the media ... you may want to hold on to your money," Stewart said at Comedy Central's "Night of Too Many Stars" at New York's Beacon Theater, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Later in the evening, Stewart said, "All he has to do is apologize to us, and we'll hire him back."
Fellow late night host David Letterman also put in an appearance at the event, which was a fundraiser for autism education, and made a reference to Sanchez' recent firing.
Letterman said he was in New York because he was "helping Rick Sanchez clean out his office."
Sanchez, the former host of CNN's "Rick's List," made the derogatory comments about Stewart and Jewish people Thursday on the radio show "Stand Up! With Pete Dominick" in reaction to a recent jab that Stewart made at him on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."
When Sanchez reported that he'd received a tweet from House Republican leader John Boehner, Stewart called it a case of "send a twit a tweet."
"He's upset that someone of my ilk is almost at his level," Sanchez said of Stewart in an interview with Dominick, adding that he feels that Stewart is bigoted toward "everybody else that's not like him."
Sanchez, who was born in Cuba, went on to say that Stewart "can't relate to what I grew up with," and said how, as he was growing up, his family was poor and his father was the victim of prejudice.
Dominick, who is also a CNN contributor and was once the warm-up comic for "The Daily Show," pointed out that Stewart, who is Jewish, comes from a minority group. Sanchez dismissed the notion.
"I'm telling you that everyone who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah," Sanchez said.
"I can't see someone not getting a job these days because they're Jewish," he added.
Dominick pressed Sanchez during the heated interview, and eventually Sanchez backed down on his use of the word bigot.
"OK. I'll take bigot back ... (Stewart is) prejudicial," Sanchez said. Stewart is "not just a comedian," he said. "He can make and break careers."
The details of the interview were posted on the news and opinion website Mediaite on Friday and quickly became a hot topic.
CNN issued the following statement late Friday: "Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well."
Sanchez had been with the network since 2004.
Sanchez did not return e-mails or calls made by The Associated Press, although it was unclear whether his CNN-issued phone is still active.
Stewart had no comment, according to a Comedy Central spokesman.
Sanchez has been a frequent target of Stewart's, who has mocked him for such things as his mispronunciation of the word "annals" in a piece on Vice President Joe Biden and his questioning of a reporter stationed in a California gay bar who was unable to find a person who doesn't support gay marriage.
During the interview with Dominick, Sanchez said that a CNN executive had compared him to Hispanic reporter John Quinones of ABC's "Primetime: What Would You Do."
"In his mind, I can't be an anchor," Sanchez told Dominick. "An anchor is what you give to high-profile white guys.
"Deep down, when they look at a guy like me they see a guy automatically who belongs in the second tier and not the top tier," Sanchez said.
He said he feels that racism exists "not just [from] the right," but also from "elite, Northeast establishment liberals," and that he is condescended to because of his Latino heritage.
Sanchez has worked at MSNBC and CNBC throughout his career. He spent a large part of his career as a reporter and anchor in Miami.
CNN has not announced a replacement for Sanchez and said that for the foreseeable future it will broadcast "CNN Newsroom" in the 3-5 p.m. time slot held by "Rick's List."
The Associated Press
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Left-Wing Crazies Take Their Turn
What's the antidote to Glenn Beck?
Probably not the showing of left-wing marchers who turned out for the One Nation rally yesterday. It fell far short of Beck's massive march in terms of numbers and enthusiasm, but it did mirror it in one key way: plenty of wingnuts, reports The Daily Beast's John Avlon.
The rally offered a snapshot of the fragile coalition that is the contemporary far left—a dizzying array of activist organizations and identity politics, with financial muscle provided by the labor unions who bused their members in.
Signs that read "Yes We Can...Bomb Civilians!" and "Jesus Christ is the Almighty Liberal" prove that wingnuts aren't limited to one side of the political spectrum, writes Avlon, author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America.
Read the rest of story in The Daily Beast
Probably not the showing of left-wing marchers who turned out for the One Nation rally yesterday. It fell far short of Beck's massive march in terms of numbers and enthusiasm, but it did mirror it in one key way: plenty of wingnuts, reports The Daily Beast's John Avlon.
The rally offered a snapshot of the fragile coalition that is the contemporary far left—a dizzying array of activist organizations and identity politics, with financial muscle provided by the labor unions who bused their members in.
Signs that read "Yes We Can...Bomb Civilians!" and "Jesus Christ is the Almighty Liberal" prove that wingnuts aren't limited to one side of the political spectrum, writes Avlon, author of Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe Is Hijacking America.
Read the rest of story in The Daily Beast
Saturday, October 02, 2010
ANOTHER CRAZY ANGER CANIDATE FOR OFFICE! What's wrong with the USA that such even get on a ballot? Oh I get it - IT's YOU THE VOTERS!! Hope is dead.
Candidate rage reshapes Cuomo campaign
In an election cycle where little has gone according to plan, New York was until recently thought to be the exception. Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, was expected to have a sleepy race for the job once held by his father, three-term governor Mario Cuomo, the culmination of a longstanding plan that included a stint as state attorney general and as President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
With Cuomo casting himself as an Albany reformer, political watchers braced for a clear glide-path to victory over former Republican Rep. Rick Lazio.
But instead of Lazio winning the nomination, it was brash, mad-as-hell, Buffalo developer Carl Paladino who emerged victorious by a wide margin in the Republican primary last month. He had support from some tea party groups, but more important, he harnessed a very raw anger among GOP primary voters, largely in economically ravaged western New York.
Cuomo — who’s stuck largely to a Rose Garden approach for most of the year — was clearly caught flat-footed by the outcome. And suddenly, the cautious pol who is known for calling reporters personally about stories he doesn’t like finds himself in an unsettling predicament: how to run against an angry, unpredictable guy who is willing to say and do almost anything.
“I have never seen, at this level [of major-party candidacy], such an unorthodox kind of campaign,” said Doug Muzzio, a Baruch College political science expert. “It’s almost as if [Paladino is] running for a cable TV show rather than running for governor. There’s a difference between mad-angry and mad-crazy. “
Cuomo, who careened from one strategy to another for the two weeks after the Sept. 14 primary, appears to have hit pay dirt this week in the form of his rival’s own mouth.
Paladino’s candidacy has been widely viewed as melting down since Wednesday, first drawing horrendous headlines after he claimed to POLITICO that Cuomo had paramours when he was married and alleged that he could prove it. He walked back his claims, but then asserted that he had the information in a box. He was unable to keep a consistent message about the issue, including during a single Fox News interview, on Friday.
That flap followed an interview with an Asian-American Fox-5 television reporter where Paladino asked the reporter if he was an illegal immigrant during a rhetorical exchange on policy — in a clip in which he also promised the race was about to get nastier. Most significantly, he starred in a viral video, which played repeatedly on cable TV, in which he argued with a longtime New York Post reporter who tried to push him on details of his claims, and he exploded that he would take you out if the paper tried to approach his daughter again.
For many New Yorkers, it’s the only thing they know about him.
Cuomo remains the overwhelming favorite, with a 15-percentage point lead in the latest Marist College poll, and a nearly $20 million war chest left. But he is dealing with an angry and unsteady electorate, an unmotivated Democratic base and, now, a politician’s least-favorite additive — the element of surprise.
Paladino has shot himself "in the foot and in some vital organs," said Muzzio. At the same time, Cuomo has also dramatically stepped up his advertising, mostly with spots aimed at driving up Paladino’s negatives by painting him as an Albany insider instead of the rage-against-the-machine, non-politician he claims to be. And in the last week, Cuomo started invoking Paladino by name for the first time.
Jimmy Siegel, the ad maker who produced the gauzy, black-and-white ads in Eliot Spitzer’s successful campaign for governor in 2006, said the task of defining Paladino as too-crazy-for-office is a delicate line to walk, especially in this volatile political climate.
“There’s always a question of, how far do you go in defining someone as loony or fringe or extremist? Where's the line? And how seriously do you take some of the things that he's done, and I think it's a tricky situation,” Siegel said. “I think you sort of ask yourself, ‘Do I attack him on character? Do I attack him on issues, or do I attack him on the fact that he's out of his mind?’”
Paladino campaign manager Michael Caputo insisted the characterization of the Upstate Republican as unhinged is way off the mark.
“The people of Buffalo realized long ago that those are just accusations from people that are opposed to him,” he said. “Carl Paladino's definitely not your average man ... (Cuomo) sees a man that stands his ground and he thinks it's nuts. His whole winning gambit is to convince people that he’s never been to Albany.”
For a time, Cuomo tried defining Paladino through a parade of surrogates, focusing on his down-the-line anti-abortion stand and the earlier revelation that he’d forwarded to hundreds of associates vulgar and racist e-mails featuring a woman having sex with a horse, President Obama and his wife dressed as a pimp and a prostitute, and one featuring the N-word.
Cuomo then started tacking back left toward a Democratic base he’d done little to energize over the past year in the hopes of wooing independents and moderate Republicans. And he started using the "E" word — "extreme" — to define Paladino.
Yet, the events of the past week have given Cuomo his surest footing — Paladino’s mouth is at risk of disqualifying him.
Paladino has seemed unable to stop talking about the claims he made about Cuomo in TV interviews. And the self-funder who has vowed to spend $10 million of his own money to win but has so far spent less than $4 million, isn’t on air with TV ads to repair the damage or define Cuomo. His campaign filing report filed Thursday afternoon show a limited amount raised — less than $200,000.
“Andrew Cuomo goes into this as a formidable candidate and solid front-runner because he’s built up a really strong record as an independent over the last four years,” said Democratic pollster Joel Benenson, who has worked for Mario Cuomo. “Watch Carl Paladino day in and day out — as this unfolds, he's going to do more damage to himself with every day. The more outrageous he gets, the more people see the videotape, the more he damages himself.”
There’s evidence that Paladino’s bombast, combined with Cuomo's ads, has taken a toll — the Marist survey showed his negative ratings at 48 percent, an astonishingly high figure for a newcomer and one that’s 14 points above his favorable number.
Yet Cuomo’s own approval numbers are creeping down, too. And while the outcome of a Cuomo win is predicted by almost all insiders, he had hoped for a mandate to help him govern. Now, in the event he wins, the margin of victory is an issue.
One veteran Republican strategist in New York said that the negative spots are a start, but that Cuomo needs to take Paladino down in full, with policy contrasts on specific pocketbook issues.
Paladino has a natural-born constituency that's going to be with him no matter who he slugs, what he says, or what e-mails he sends, the strategist explained, noting that the comparisons of Paladino to another wealthy New York political gadfly, Pierre Rinfret — who ran on the GOP line in 1990 against Mario Cuomo in his final win — are inapt.
Rinfret was an elitist, said the strategist, adding that the Canadian native also didn’t have the Conservative Party ballot line, a crucial fusion line for Republican candidates in New York. Paladino is on that line now thanks to Lazio’s recent decision to drop out of the race entirely after losing the GOP primary.
Many Democrats have privately said Cuomo needs to step up not just his appearances on the trail, but also stop holding back so he can define himself. For much of the year, as one Democratic insider put it, “he’s run Spitzer’s 2006 strategy except Eliot went up on TV early and was everywhere.”
The GOP strategist argued, “It’s a little late for Cuomo to be defining himself now. It would have been nice if he’d put some meat on the bones earlier, but now it’s about Paladino.”
Caputo, meanwhile, insisted the Marist poll was wrong, and that the campaign’s internal numbers, done by Republican survey-taker Tony Fabrizio, are showing favorable movement.
“We’ve gotten through this,” he said of the viral video flap.
“Andrew Cuomo's running his daddy's campaign for governor - it's about trashing your opponent with surrogates,” Caputo insisted. “It's about hiding behind a campaign message that has nothing to do with his record. To reach our voters, we’re not going to be playing by the regular rulebook.”
Clarification: This version has been updated to reflect that Carl Paladino's comments to an Asian-American reporter were made during a rhetorical exchange on immigration policy that was initiated by the reporter.
POLITICO
In an election cycle where little has gone according to plan, New York was until recently thought to be the exception. Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, was expected to have a sleepy race for the job once held by his father, three-term governor Mario Cuomo, the culmination of a longstanding plan that included a stint as state attorney general and as President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
With Cuomo casting himself as an Albany reformer, political watchers braced for a clear glide-path to victory over former Republican Rep. Rick Lazio.
But instead of Lazio winning the nomination, it was brash, mad-as-hell, Buffalo developer Carl Paladino who emerged victorious by a wide margin in the Republican primary last month. He had support from some tea party groups, but more important, he harnessed a very raw anger among GOP primary voters, largely in economically ravaged western New York.
Cuomo — who’s stuck largely to a Rose Garden approach for most of the year — was clearly caught flat-footed by the outcome. And suddenly, the cautious pol who is known for calling reporters personally about stories he doesn’t like finds himself in an unsettling predicament: how to run against an angry, unpredictable guy who is willing to say and do almost anything.
“I have never seen, at this level [of major-party candidacy], such an unorthodox kind of campaign,” said Doug Muzzio, a Baruch College political science expert. “It’s almost as if [Paladino is] running for a cable TV show rather than running for governor. There’s a difference between mad-angry and mad-crazy. “
Cuomo, who careened from one strategy to another for the two weeks after the Sept. 14 primary, appears to have hit pay dirt this week in the form of his rival’s own mouth.
Paladino’s candidacy has been widely viewed as melting down since Wednesday, first drawing horrendous headlines after he claimed to POLITICO that Cuomo had paramours when he was married and alleged that he could prove it. He walked back his claims, but then asserted that he had the information in a box. He was unable to keep a consistent message about the issue, including during a single Fox News interview, on Friday.
That flap followed an interview with an Asian-American Fox-5 television reporter where Paladino asked the reporter if he was an illegal immigrant during a rhetorical exchange on policy — in a clip in which he also promised the race was about to get nastier. Most significantly, he starred in a viral video, which played repeatedly on cable TV, in which he argued with a longtime New York Post reporter who tried to push him on details of his claims, and he exploded that he would take you out if the paper tried to approach his daughter again.
For many New Yorkers, it’s the only thing they know about him.
Cuomo remains the overwhelming favorite, with a 15-percentage point lead in the latest Marist College poll, and a nearly $20 million war chest left. But he is dealing with an angry and unsteady electorate, an unmotivated Democratic base and, now, a politician’s least-favorite additive — the element of surprise.
Paladino has shot himself "in the foot and in some vital organs," said Muzzio. At the same time, Cuomo has also dramatically stepped up his advertising, mostly with spots aimed at driving up Paladino’s negatives by painting him as an Albany insider instead of the rage-against-the-machine, non-politician he claims to be. And in the last week, Cuomo started invoking Paladino by name for the first time.
Jimmy Siegel, the ad maker who produced the gauzy, black-and-white ads in Eliot Spitzer’s successful campaign for governor in 2006, said the task of defining Paladino as too-crazy-for-office is a delicate line to walk, especially in this volatile political climate.
“There’s always a question of, how far do you go in defining someone as loony or fringe or extremist? Where's the line? And how seriously do you take some of the things that he's done, and I think it's a tricky situation,” Siegel said. “I think you sort of ask yourself, ‘Do I attack him on character? Do I attack him on issues, or do I attack him on the fact that he's out of his mind?’”
Paladino campaign manager Michael Caputo insisted the characterization of the Upstate Republican as unhinged is way off the mark.
“The people of Buffalo realized long ago that those are just accusations from people that are opposed to him,” he said. “Carl Paladino's definitely not your average man ... (Cuomo) sees a man that stands his ground and he thinks it's nuts. His whole winning gambit is to convince people that he’s never been to Albany.”
For a time, Cuomo tried defining Paladino through a parade of surrogates, focusing on his down-the-line anti-abortion stand and the earlier revelation that he’d forwarded to hundreds of associates vulgar and racist e-mails featuring a woman having sex with a horse, President Obama and his wife dressed as a pimp and a prostitute, and one featuring the N-word.
Cuomo then started tacking back left toward a Democratic base he’d done little to energize over the past year in the hopes of wooing independents and moderate Republicans. And he started using the "E" word — "extreme" — to define Paladino.
Yet, the events of the past week have given Cuomo his surest footing — Paladino’s mouth is at risk of disqualifying him.
Paladino has seemed unable to stop talking about the claims he made about Cuomo in TV interviews. And the self-funder who has vowed to spend $10 million of his own money to win but has so far spent less than $4 million, isn’t on air with TV ads to repair the damage or define Cuomo. His campaign filing report filed Thursday afternoon show a limited amount raised — less than $200,000.
“Andrew Cuomo goes into this as a formidable candidate and solid front-runner because he’s built up a really strong record as an independent over the last four years,” said Democratic pollster Joel Benenson, who has worked for Mario Cuomo. “Watch Carl Paladino day in and day out — as this unfolds, he's going to do more damage to himself with every day. The more outrageous he gets, the more people see the videotape, the more he damages himself.”
There’s evidence that Paladino’s bombast, combined with Cuomo's ads, has taken a toll — the Marist survey showed his negative ratings at 48 percent, an astonishingly high figure for a newcomer and one that’s 14 points above his favorable number.
Yet Cuomo’s own approval numbers are creeping down, too. And while the outcome of a Cuomo win is predicted by almost all insiders, he had hoped for a mandate to help him govern. Now, in the event he wins, the margin of victory is an issue.
One veteran Republican strategist in New York said that the negative spots are a start, but that Cuomo needs to take Paladino down in full, with policy contrasts on specific pocketbook issues.
Paladino has a natural-born constituency that's going to be with him no matter who he slugs, what he says, or what e-mails he sends, the strategist explained, noting that the comparisons of Paladino to another wealthy New York political gadfly, Pierre Rinfret — who ran on the GOP line in 1990 against Mario Cuomo in his final win — are inapt.
Rinfret was an elitist, said the strategist, adding that the Canadian native also didn’t have the Conservative Party ballot line, a crucial fusion line for Republican candidates in New York. Paladino is on that line now thanks to Lazio’s recent decision to drop out of the race entirely after losing the GOP primary.
Many Democrats have privately said Cuomo needs to step up not just his appearances on the trail, but also stop holding back so he can define himself. For much of the year, as one Democratic insider put it, “he’s run Spitzer’s 2006 strategy except Eliot went up on TV early and was everywhere.”
The GOP strategist argued, “It’s a little late for Cuomo to be defining himself now. It would have been nice if he’d put some meat on the bones earlier, but now it’s about Paladino.”
Caputo, meanwhile, insisted the Marist poll was wrong, and that the campaign’s internal numbers, done by Republican survey-taker Tony Fabrizio, are showing favorable movement.
“We’ve gotten through this,” he said of the viral video flap.
“Andrew Cuomo's running his daddy's campaign for governor - it's about trashing your opponent with surrogates,” Caputo insisted. “It's about hiding behind a campaign message that has nothing to do with his record. To reach our voters, we’re not going to be playing by the regular rulebook.”
Clarification: This version has been updated to reflect that Carl Paladino's comments to an Asian-American reporter were made during a rhetorical exchange on immigration policy that was initiated by the reporter.
POLITICO
What's wrong with USA politics is alot BUT these type of Canidates are NOT the answer! McMahon's WWE worked with 'Girls Gone WIld'
World Wrestling Entertainment, the company where Connecticut Republican Senate hopeful Linda McMahon served as CEO for years, once teamed up with the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ enterprise for a pay-per-view event featuring the raunchy, partly-nude show and some of the WWE’s wrestling personalities.
The 2003 event is another chapter in WWE’s checkered history that has raised eyebrows as McMahon has pursued her self-funded campaign against Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal, a contest that the latest polls have shown in a dead heat.
McMahon has cited her tenure as CEO of the company as one of her qualifiers for elected office, but has spent time answering questions about some of the more lurid aspects of the business she’s downplayed as a soap opera.
McMahon spokesman Ed Patru, asked for comment about the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ event, referred comment to the WWE, saying he doesn’t work for them.
WWE spokesman Robert Zimmerman told POLITICO that the event was a one-time occurrence, for mature audiences, and that the firm has since gone from a TV-14 rating to a TV-PG one.
He provided a statement explaining why the company made the switch.
“Like other Hollywood studios, WWE is a global brand that creates entertainment programming,” the statement says. “WWE continues to evolve and reinvent itself. As of June 2008, ALL of WWE’s programming became TV-PG, as rated by the Standards & Practices departments of our network partners. In the past, much like many other shows at the time, WWE engaged in what was known as sensationalized TV in a TV-14 environment. Since then, WWE has made a full transition to TV-PG content and storylines, while nearly half of all programming on television remains TV-14 between 9-11pm on general entertainment networks.”
At the time of the event, it was touted as an exciting cross-promotional endeavor.
“We have an incredible partnership with the WWE,” Joe Francis, who founded the production company behind Girls Gone Wild and who spent time in jail on charges that he and the company didn’t properly document the ages of some of the young girls who exposed themselves in their videos, was quoted saying in the Hollywood Reporter in February 2003. “They own the pay-per-view space, so there's no better people to be in business with.”
A WWE spokesman was also quoted in that story saying, "This would be the first time in a long time we are collaborating with a third party on a PPV event. We have experience to make sure this event takes shape."
There was an eye, by both outfits, toward reaching a younger male audience that had started to drift, according to published reports at the time.
The idea was to have a live special in March of that year, and a press release from Mantra Entertainment, the company behind Girls, issued a month before it was scheduled to occur said the WWE had already started using some storylines from the video series—which typically features young women exposing themselves—in its own programming.
Francis has said he he’d personally played a character on one of the WWE shows, Raw, along with McMahon’s husband, Vince.
“It's real girls and there's nothing else like it. I like girls and I really like them naked and I thought other guys would, too,” Francis was quoted telling the Monitor of South Texas.
The promoters were set to go to Panama City, Fla., and two other locations. But the mayor of Panama City, just before the event, threatened to arrest everyone involved if the pay-per-view extravaganza went on.
They ended up moving the festivities to South Padre Island, Texas, noting the controversy simply helped ratings.
The 2003 event is another chapter in WWE’s checkered history that has raised eyebrows as McMahon has pursued her self-funded campaign against Democratic nominee Richard Blumenthal, a contest that the latest polls have shown in a dead heat.
McMahon has cited her tenure as CEO of the company as one of her qualifiers for elected office, but has spent time answering questions about some of the more lurid aspects of the business she’s downplayed as a soap opera.
McMahon spokesman Ed Patru, asked for comment about the ‘Girls Gone Wild’ event, referred comment to the WWE, saying he doesn’t work for them.
WWE spokesman Robert Zimmerman told POLITICO that the event was a one-time occurrence, for mature audiences, and that the firm has since gone from a TV-14 rating to a TV-PG one.
He provided a statement explaining why the company made the switch.
“Like other Hollywood studios, WWE is a global brand that creates entertainment programming,” the statement says. “WWE continues to evolve and reinvent itself. As of June 2008, ALL of WWE’s programming became TV-PG, as rated by the Standards & Practices departments of our network partners. In the past, much like many other shows at the time, WWE engaged in what was known as sensationalized TV in a TV-14 environment. Since then, WWE has made a full transition to TV-PG content and storylines, while nearly half of all programming on television remains TV-14 between 9-11pm on general entertainment networks.”
At the time of the event, it was touted as an exciting cross-promotional endeavor.
“We have an incredible partnership with the WWE,” Joe Francis, who founded the production company behind Girls Gone Wild and who spent time in jail on charges that he and the company didn’t properly document the ages of some of the young girls who exposed themselves in their videos, was quoted saying in the Hollywood Reporter in February 2003. “They own the pay-per-view space, so there's no better people to be in business with.”
A WWE spokesman was also quoted in that story saying, "This would be the first time in a long time we are collaborating with a third party on a PPV event. We have experience to make sure this event takes shape."
There was an eye, by both outfits, toward reaching a younger male audience that had started to drift, according to published reports at the time.
The idea was to have a live special in March of that year, and a press release from Mantra Entertainment, the company behind Girls, issued a month before it was scheduled to occur said the WWE had already started using some storylines from the video series—which typically features young women exposing themselves—in its own programming.
Francis has said he he’d personally played a character on one of the WWE shows, Raw, along with McMahon’s husband, Vince.
“It's real girls and there's nothing else like it. I like girls and I really like them naked and I thought other guys would, too,” Francis was quoted telling the Monitor of South Texas.
The promoters were set to go to Panama City, Fla., and two other locations. But the mayor of Panama City, just before the event, threatened to arrest everyone involved if the pay-per-view extravaganza went on.
They ended up moving the festivities to South Padre Island, Texas, noting the controversy simply helped ratings.
JonBenet Ramsey - Police investigating the death AGAIN
* *
Editor note: I remeber being on the air at AM720KDWN LasVegas when this story broke the evening after Christmas 1996! Still a mystery. My feeling always was a parent did it for whatever reason.
* * * * *
Police Plan New Interviews in JonBenet Ramsey Case
Boulder police plan new round of interviews in JonBenet Ramsey case
Police investigating the death of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey are conducting a new round of interviews, based on recommendations from an advisory committee.
The committee, which included investigators from several state and federal agencies, met in 2009 after police took the lead in the case back from Boulder County prosecutors.
Members reviewed evidence in the death of 6-year-old JonBenet, whose body was found bludgeoned and strangled in her family's home in Boulder on Dec. 26, 1996. Former District Attorney Mary Lacy said in 2008 that evidence suggests the killer was an unknown stranger, not a family member.
Police Chief Mark Beckner wouldn't reveal details about the continuing investigation or who police want to interview now.
"We continue to work the Ramsey case and have tailored our investigation based on recommendations from our 2009 advisory committee," Beckner told the Camera newspaper. "This has included additional contacts and interviews with those who may have information pertinent to the case."
JonBenet's older brother Burke, who was 9 when JonBenet died, was contacted by police but hasn't been interviewed yet, Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood said.
"I understand that they met with Burke and gave him a card and said, 'If you want to talk to us, here's how you would contact me,'" Wood said. "But the police have not interviewed Burke."
JonBenet Ramsey's mother, Patsy, died of cancer in 2006. Her father, John, made a public plea last December for people to share any suspicions they had around the time JonBenet died.
"Whatever the reason for any type of approach with Burke, it would have nothing to do with the case other than with the reality that John and Burke could help the Boulder police as witnesses in the investigation," Wood said. "For all I know, they have gotten some tip and think Burke could give them some information."
Denver defense attorney and legal analyst Scott Robinson said it would be premature to assume that police have new information.
"But it would be absolutely accurate to say they're not letting this case lie," he said.
Associated Press
Editor note: I remeber being on the air at AM720KDWN LasVegas when this story broke the evening after Christmas 1996! Still a mystery. My feeling always was a parent did it for whatever reason.
* * * * *
Police Plan New Interviews in JonBenet Ramsey Case
Boulder police plan new round of interviews in JonBenet Ramsey case
Police investigating the death of child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey are conducting a new round of interviews, based on recommendations from an advisory committee.
The committee, which included investigators from several state and federal agencies, met in 2009 after police took the lead in the case back from Boulder County prosecutors.
Members reviewed evidence in the death of 6-year-old JonBenet, whose body was found bludgeoned and strangled in her family's home in Boulder on Dec. 26, 1996. Former District Attorney Mary Lacy said in 2008 that evidence suggests the killer was an unknown stranger, not a family member.
Police Chief Mark Beckner wouldn't reveal details about the continuing investigation or who police want to interview now.
"We continue to work the Ramsey case and have tailored our investigation based on recommendations from our 2009 advisory committee," Beckner told the Camera newspaper. "This has included additional contacts and interviews with those who may have information pertinent to the case."
JonBenet's older brother Burke, who was 9 when JonBenet died, was contacted by police but hasn't been interviewed yet, Ramsey family attorney Lin Wood said.
"I understand that they met with Burke and gave him a card and said, 'If you want to talk to us, here's how you would contact me,'" Wood said. "But the police have not interviewed Burke."
JonBenet Ramsey's mother, Patsy, died of cancer in 2006. Her father, John, made a public plea last December for people to share any suspicions they had around the time JonBenet died.
"Whatever the reason for any type of approach with Burke, it would have nothing to do with the case other than with the reality that John and Burke could help the Boulder police as witnesses in the investigation," Wood said. "For all I know, they have gotten some tip and think Burke could give them some information."
Denver defense attorney and legal analyst Scott Robinson said it would be premature to assume that police have new information.
"But it would be absolutely accurate to say they're not letting this case lie," he said.
Associated Press
California Reduces Pot Penalty
California is getting closer to legalizing marijuana.
A month before voters make the final decision, the state has approved a bill that will put possession of small amounts of pot on par with speeding on the freeway. Holding up to one ounce is punishable by a $100 fine. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has come out against legalizing the drug, argued that he signed the bill into law primarily as a budget measure. “In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket,” Schwarzenegger said.
Analysts say the change will be especially significant for black men, who were being arrested for possession at a far higher rate than white men. “It’s important because it ends an epidemic of race-based targeting of misdemeanor marijuana arrests in California,” one advocate said.
The New York Times
A month before voters make the final decision, the state has approved a bill that will put possession of small amounts of pot on par with speeding on the freeway. Holding up to one ounce is punishable by a $100 fine. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has come out against legalizing the drug, argued that he signed the bill into law primarily as a budget measure. “In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket,” Schwarzenegger said.
Analysts say the change will be especially significant for black men, who were being arrested for possession at a far higher rate than white men. “It’s important because it ends an epidemic of race-based targeting of misdemeanor marijuana arrests in California,” one advocate said.
The New York Times
Dems pounce as Murdoch goes live
Rupert Murdoch appeared before a House Judiciary Committee panel Thursday as just another businessman hoping to convince lawmakers that a broad immigration overhaul — including a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants — is good for the economy.
But Murdoch is not just any businessman. As the chairman and CEO of News Corp., Murdoch is in charge of the Democratic Party’s most powerful media nemesis — Fox News — and for Democrats on the committee, it was an opportunity they could not pass up.
Rep. Linda Sanchez of California asked Murdoch how he feels about the “anti-immigrant positions” promoted on Fox. Rep. Maxine Waters of California questioned why Murdoch hasn’t done more to promote his views through his various news outlets, which include The Wall Street Journal.
It took a Republican — Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas — to defend Fox, pointing to studies that reveal Americans perceive it as the “most fair” of all the television news networks.
Murdoch’s response to Waters and Sanchez was that Fox is simply misunderstood. “We are not anti-immigrant on Fox News,” Murdoch said, adding later that “I have no trouble in supporting what I’m saying here today on Fox News, nor would a great number of the commentators on Fox News.”
In fact, according to Michael Wolff, a frequent critic of Fox News and author of the Murdoch biography “The Man Who Owns the News,” the immigration issue, at times, creates tension between Murdoch and Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes.
“Rupert is an internationalist,” Wolff said. “His wife is Chinese, remember. I have actually heard Ailes say that this is one of Rupert’s issues and add, ‘because of the marital situation.’ And then scowl.”
Fox News, though, seems to have had a mixed approach to the immigration debate — at least by one measure.
“The term ‘illegals’ is used on Fox all the time,” said Ivan Roman, executive director of National Association of Hispanic Journalists. “It’s part of the rhetoric that is used by people who are anti-immigrant.”
Roman, whose group has argued against the use of “illegals” in the news media, said the term has appeared on many other news outlets, including on CNN in 2006 during the height of the immigration debate, but that Fox has been the most ready to give “a megaphone” to anti-immigrant voices.
Fox’s on-air talent also uses the preferred term “undocumented” on its broadcasts, though far less often than “illegal immigrant” or “illegal aliens.”
A spokesman for Fox declined to discuss Roman’s criticism, deferring to Murdoch’s testimony.
During the debate this summer over Arizona’s controversial immigration law, Fox News contributors, such as Steven Crowder and Mike Gallagher, supported the measure, while “Fox News Sunday” moderator Chris Wallace expressed concerns.
“I’m not sure I like the idea that law enforcement can go up to anybody and [say], ‘Show me your identity card,’” Wallace said on Gallagher’s program.
Also appearing with Murdoch before the House committee was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Earlier this year, the two billionaires launched Partnership for a New American Economy, a coalition of business and big-city mayors working to convince Congress that a vibrant economy is dependent on sweeping immigration reform.
Testifying together Thursday, Murdoch and Bloomberg made a similar argument — that immigrants are vital to the economy and comprehensive immigration reform is a critical component of shoring it up.
Bloomberg, an independent, told lawmakers that New York has weathered the recession, in large part, because of its immigrant community; 40 percent of its residents were born outside the U.S. And he said immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in benefits.
“Our broken system of immigration is undermining our economy, slowing our recovery and hurting millions of Americans,” Bloomberg said. “We believe that immigration reform needs to become a top national priority. We’re urging members of both parties to help us shift the debate away from emotions and towards economics, because the economics couldn’t be any clearer.”
Murdoch said he supports sealing the U.S. borders to illegal immigrants but also creating a path to citizenship for responsible, law-abiding immigrants who already live in the United States.
“It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people,” said Murdoch, who emigrated to the U.S. from Australia. “Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive.”
Murdoch cited a study that shows a path to legalization would contribute about $1.5 trillion to the gross domestic product over the next decade. And he argued that immigrants have produced some of the nation’s most productive scientists, entrepreneurs and educators.
But he also spoke of his own personal experience.
“As an immigrant, I chose to live in America because it is one of the freest and most vibrant nations in the world. And as an immigrant, I feel an obligation to speak up for immigration policies that will keep America the most economically robust, creative and freedom-loving nation in the world,” he said.
“Over the past four decades, I have enjoyed all the benefits of living, working and building a business in America.”
The hearing took place on a day when Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Patrick Leahy of Vermont rolled out a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a path to legalization, a temporary worker program, workplace and border enforcement measures and the DREAM Act, which failed to pass in the Senate last week.
The legislation, introduced early Thursday morning, just hours before Congress adjourned for the fall campaign, is seen by Republicans as a political stunt to drive Hispanics and the liberal base to the polls this November. Senate Democrats are short the 60 votes needed to advance the bill and are expected to lose seats in the midterm elections.
Scott Wong and Keach Hagey
POLITICO
But Murdoch is not just any businessman. As the chairman and CEO of News Corp., Murdoch is in charge of the Democratic Party’s most powerful media nemesis — Fox News — and for Democrats on the committee, it was an opportunity they could not pass up.
Rep. Linda Sanchez of California asked Murdoch how he feels about the “anti-immigrant positions” promoted on Fox. Rep. Maxine Waters of California questioned why Murdoch hasn’t done more to promote his views through his various news outlets, which include The Wall Street Journal.
It took a Republican — Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas — to defend Fox, pointing to studies that reveal Americans perceive it as the “most fair” of all the television news networks.
Murdoch’s response to Waters and Sanchez was that Fox is simply misunderstood. “We are not anti-immigrant on Fox News,” Murdoch said, adding later that “I have no trouble in supporting what I’m saying here today on Fox News, nor would a great number of the commentators on Fox News.”
In fact, according to Michael Wolff, a frequent critic of Fox News and author of the Murdoch biography “The Man Who Owns the News,” the immigration issue, at times, creates tension between Murdoch and Fox News Channel President Roger Ailes.
“Rupert is an internationalist,” Wolff said. “His wife is Chinese, remember. I have actually heard Ailes say that this is one of Rupert’s issues and add, ‘because of the marital situation.’ And then scowl.”
Fox News, though, seems to have had a mixed approach to the immigration debate — at least by one measure.
“The term ‘illegals’ is used on Fox all the time,” said Ivan Roman, executive director of National Association of Hispanic Journalists. “It’s part of the rhetoric that is used by people who are anti-immigrant.”
Roman, whose group has argued against the use of “illegals” in the news media, said the term has appeared on many other news outlets, including on CNN in 2006 during the height of the immigration debate, but that Fox has been the most ready to give “a megaphone” to anti-immigrant voices.
Fox’s on-air talent also uses the preferred term “undocumented” on its broadcasts, though far less often than “illegal immigrant” or “illegal aliens.”
A spokesman for Fox declined to discuss Roman’s criticism, deferring to Murdoch’s testimony.
During the debate this summer over Arizona’s controversial immigration law, Fox News contributors, such as Steven Crowder and Mike Gallagher, supported the measure, while “Fox News Sunday” moderator Chris Wallace expressed concerns.
“I’m not sure I like the idea that law enforcement can go up to anybody and [say], ‘Show me your identity card,’” Wallace said on Gallagher’s program.
Also appearing with Murdoch before the House committee was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Earlier this year, the two billionaires launched Partnership for a New American Economy, a coalition of business and big-city mayors working to convince Congress that a vibrant economy is dependent on sweeping immigration reform.
Testifying together Thursday, Murdoch and Bloomberg made a similar argument — that immigrants are vital to the economy and comprehensive immigration reform is a critical component of shoring it up.
Bloomberg, an independent, told lawmakers that New York has weathered the recession, in large part, because of its immigrant community; 40 percent of its residents were born outside the U.S. And he said immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in benefits.
“Our broken system of immigration is undermining our economy, slowing our recovery and hurting millions of Americans,” Bloomberg said. “We believe that immigration reform needs to become a top national priority. We’re urging members of both parties to help us shift the debate away from emotions and towards economics, because the economics couldn’t be any clearer.”
Murdoch said he supports sealing the U.S. borders to illegal immigrants but also creating a path to citizenship for responsible, law-abiding immigrants who already live in the United States.
“It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people,” said Murdoch, who emigrated to the U.S. from Australia. “Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive.”
Murdoch cited a study that shows a path to legalization would contribute about $1.5 trillion to the gross domestic product over the next decade. And he argued that immigrants have produced some of the nation’s most productive scientists, entrepreneurs and educators.
But he also spoke of his own personal experience.
“As an immigrant, I chose to live in America because it is one of the freest and most vibrant nations in the world. And as an immigrant, I feel an obligation to speak up for immigration policies that will keep America the most economically robust, creative and freedom-loving nation in the world,” he said.
“Over the past four decades, I have enjoyed all the benefits of living, working and building a business in America.”
The hearing took place on a day when Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Patrick Leahy of Vermont rolled out a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes a path to legalization, a temporary worker program, workplace and border enforcement measures and the DREAM Act, which failed to pass in the Senate last week.
The legislation, introduced early Thursday morning, just hours before Congress adjourned for the fall campaign, is seen by Republicans as a political stunt to drive Hispanics and the liberal base to the polls this November. Senate Democrats are short the 60 votes needed to advance the bill and are expected to lose seats in the midterm elections.
Scott Wong and Keach Hagey
POLITICO
News Corp. gave pro-GOP group $1M ( IF YOU DON'T THINK THIS is WRONG YOU HAVE NO CLUE) The Russians had a word "PROPAGANDA"
News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, contributed $1 million this summer to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business lobby that has been running an aggressive campaign in support of the Republican effort to retake Congress, a source close to the company told POLITICO.
It was the second $1 million contribution the company has made this election cycle to a GOP-aligned group. In late June it gave that amount to the Republican Governors Association.
The parent companies of other media companies such as Disney (which owns ABC) and General Electric (which owns NBC) have also made political contributions, but typically in far smaller chunks, and split between Democrats and Republicans.
In the past, News Corp. has also spread its donations between candidates of both parties. The huge gift to the RGA raised questions among some media critics about whether News Corp. had crossed over an inappropriate line for a media company. The second donation is likely to rekindle that debate – and to make both News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch and Fox News even more of a liberal target.
In the past, Murdoch’s political leanings were considered to be pragmatic rather than strictly ideological. Although known as a conservative, he turned his right-leaning British papers behind Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair and flirted with support for Senator Hillary Clinton when she was a Democratic presidential candidate. But his political giving have been sharply aligned with the Republican Party this year.
Spokesmen for News Corp. and for Fox declined to comment on the chamber contribution, or on whether Fox chief Roger Ailes, a former GOP political operative, had a role in it.
After the News Corp. donation to the RGA became known in August, the company denied that Ailes was involved, and a spokesman told POLITICO at the time that the contribution was made to support the Republican committee’s “pro-business agenda.”
A spokesman for the chamber, J.P. Fielder, declined to discuss or confirm a specific contribution – the chamber is fighting to continue to keep contributions secret — but responded to a question about the Fox donation by characterizing the chamber’s agenda.
“What I can tell you is that the chamber has been and will continue to be engaged in the issue debate in this election cycle, focusing our efforts on educating voters about where candidates stand on policies that create jobs,” Fielder said.
Specifically, the chamber has said it plans to spend $75 million in connection with the 2010 election, and has so far has directed substantial amounts to Republican Senate candidates. As of Sept. 15th, the group had spent $6,747,946 airing more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project.
That figure made the chamber the biggest spender on congressional races of any interest group, and the second biggest-spending national group after the RGA.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce operates a range of lobbying and advocacy programs, and News Corp. has in the past given even larger sums to it to support more general business advocacy, according to a second source close to the company.
Company officials wouldn’t comment directly on the purpose of this year’s contribution.
News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, contributed $1 million this summer to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business lobby that has been running an aggressive campaign in support of the Republican effort to retake Congress, a source close to the company told POLITICO.
It was the second $1 million contribution the company has made this election cycle to a GOP-aligned group. In late June it gave that amount to the Republican Governors Association.
The parent companies of other media companies such as Disney (which owns ABC) and General Electric (which owns NBC) have also made political contributions, but typically in far smaller chunks, and split between Democrats and Republicans.
In the past, News Corp. has also spread its donations between candidates of both parties. The huge gift to the RGA raised questions among some media critics about whether News Corp. had crossed over an inappropriate line for a media company. The second donation is likely to rekindle that debate – and to make both News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch and Fox News even more of a liberal target.
In the past, Murdoch’s political leanings were considered to be pragmatic rather than strictly ideological. Although known as a conservative, he turned his right-leaning British papers behind Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair and flirted with support for Senator Hillary Clinton when she was a Democratic presidential candidate. But his political giving have been sharply aligned with the Republican Party this year.
Spokesmen for News Corp. and for Fox declined to comment on the chamber contribution, or on whether Fox chief Roger Ailes, a former GOP political operative, had a role in it.
After the News Corp. donation to the RGA became known in August, the company denied that Ailes was involved, and a spokesman told POLITICO at the time that the contribution was made to support the Republican committee’s “pro-business agenda.”
A spokesman for the chamber, J.P. Fielder, declined to discuss or confirm a specific contribution – the chamber is fighting to continue to keep contributions secret — but responded to a question about the Fox donation by characterizing the chamber’s agenda.
“What I can tell you is that the chamber has been and will continue to be engaged in the issue debate in this election cycle, focusing our efforts on educating voters about where candidates stand on policies that create jobs,” Fielder said.
Specifically, the chamber has said it plans to spend $75 million in connection with the 2010 election, and has so far has directed substantial amounts to Republican Senate candidates. As of Sept. 15th, the group had spent $6,747,946 airing more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project.
That figure made the chamber the biggest spender on congressional races of any interest group, and the second biggest-spending national group after the RGA.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce operates a range of lobbying and advocacy programs, and News Corp. has in the past given even larger sums to it to support more general business advocacy, according to a second source close to the company.
Company officials wouldn’t comment directly on the purpose of this year’s contribution.
Ben Smith POLITICO
It was the second $1 million contribution the company has made this election cycle to a GOP-aligned group. In late June it gave that amount to the Republican Governors Association.
The parent companies of other media companies such as Disney (which owns ABC) and General Electric (which owns NBC) have also made political contributions, but typically in far smaller chunks, and split between Democrats and Republicans.
In the past, News Corp. has also spread its donations between candidates of both parties. The huge gift to the RGA raised questions among some media critics about whether News Corp. had crossed over an inappropriate line for a media company. The second donation is likely to rekindle that debate – and to make both News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch and Fox News even more of a liberal target.
In the past, Murdoch’s political leanings were considered to be pragmatic rather than strictly ideological. Although known as a conservative, he turned his right-leaning British papers behind Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair and flirted with support for Senator Hillary Clinton when she was a Democratic presidential candidate. But his political giving have been sharply aligned with the Republican Party this year.
Spokesmen for News Corp. and for Fox declined to comment on the chamber contribution, or on whether Fox chief Roger Ailes, a former GOP political operative, had a role in it.
After the News Corp. donation to the RGA became known in August, the company denied that Ailes was involved, and a spokesman told POLITICO at the time that the contribution was made to support the Republican committee’s “pro-business agenda.”
A spokesman for the chamber, J.P. Fielder, declined to discuss or confirm a specific contribution – the chamber is fighting to continue to keep contributions secret — but responded to a question about the Fox donation by characterizing the chamber’s agenda.
“What I can tell you is that the chamber has been and will continue to be engaged in the issue debate in this election cycle, focusing our efforts on educating voters about where candidates stand on policies that create jobs,” Fielder said.
Specifically, the chamber has said it plans to spend $75 million in connection with the 2010 election, and has so far has directed substantial amounts to Republican Senate candidates. As of Sept. 15th, the group had spent $6,747,946 airing more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project.
That figure made the chamber the biggest spender on congressional races of any interest group, and the second biggest-spending national group after the RGA.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce operates a range of lobbying and advocacy programs, and News Corp. has in the past given even larger sums to it to support more general business advocacy, according to a second source close to the company.
Company officials wouldn’t comment directly on the purpose of this year’s contribution.
News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, contributed $1 million this summer to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the business lobby that has been running an aggressive campaign in support of the Republican effort to retake Congress, a source close to the company told POLITICO.
It was the second $1 million contribution the company has made this election cycle to a GOP-aligned group. In late June it gave that amount to the Republican Governors Association.
The parent companies of other media companies such as Disney (which owns ABC) and General Electric (which owns NBC) have also made political contributions, but typically in far smaller chunks, and split between Democrats and Republicans.
In the past, News Corp. has also spread its donations between candidates of both parties. The huge gift to the RGA raised questions among some media critics about whether News Corp. had crossed over an inappropriate line for a media company. The second donation is likely to rekindle that debate – and to make both News Corp. Chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch and Fox News even more of a liberal target.
In the past, Murdoch’s political leanings were considered to be pragmatic rather than strictly ideological. Although known as a conservative, he turned his right-leaning British papers behind Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair and flirted with support for Senator Hillary Clinton when she was a Democratic presidential candidate. But his political giving have been sharply aligned with the Republican Party this year.
Spokesmen for News Corp. and for Fox declined to comment on the chamber contribution, or on whether Fox chief Roger Ailes, a former GOP political operative, had a role in it.
After the News Corp. donation to the RGA became known in August, the company denied that Ailes was involved, and a spokesman told POLITICO at the time that the contribution was made to support the Republican committee’s “pro-business agenda.”
A spokesman for the chamber, J.P. Fielder, declined to discuss or confirm a specific contribution – the chamber is fighting to continue to keep contributions secret — but responded to a question about the Fox donation by characterizing the chamber’s agenda.
“What I can tell you is that the chamber has been and will continue to be engaged in the issue debate in this election cycle, focusing our efforts on educating voters about where candidates stand on policies that create jobs,” Fielder said.
Specifically, the chamber has said it plans to spend $75 million in connection with the 2010 election, and has so far has directed substantial amounts to Republican Senate candidates. As of Sept. 15th, the group had spent $6,747,946 airing more than 8,000 ads on behalf of GOP Senate candidates, according to a study from the Wesleyan Media Project.
That figure made the chamber the biggest spender on congressional races of any interest group, and the second biggest-spending national group after the RGA.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce operates a range of lobbying and advocacy programs, and News Corp. has in the past given even larger sums to it to support more general business advocacy, according to a second source close to the company.
Company officials wouldn’t comment directly on the purpose of this year’s contribution.
Ben Smith POLITICO
Friday, October 01, 2010
USA Infected Guatemalans With Syphilis
US Apologizes for 1940s STD Study That Infected Guatemalans With Syphilis
President Obama Calls Guatemalan President to Offer Nation's Apology
In 1946, American researchers performed an appalling experiment, infecting unwitting Guatemalans with a potentially deadly disease in the name of public health.
In an effort to see if penicillin could prevent or treat syphilis, government scientists went to the impoverished Central American country to deliberately infect nearly 700 men and women -- including prisoners, inmates in insane asylums, and even some soldiers -- with the potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease.
The researchers used prostitutes to infect the men and hypodermic needles to infect the women.
Watch "World News" for more on this story tonight on ABC.
The experiments, which lasted from 1946 to 1949, were uncovered last year by Susan Reverby, a professor at Wellesley College, as she was researching a book.
When she came across the Guatemala study, her first reaction was, "Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh, my God," Reverby told ABC News today.
"The evidence is clear that [the subjects] didn't know. The authorities were told something, but the people didn't know," she said.
U.S. Officials Apologize for Guatemala Research
President Obama himself spoke with the president of Guatemala, Alvaro Colom, via phone today to express "deep regret" over the study, the White House said in a statement.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also issued a joint apology today in a written statement.
"Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened," the statement read.
A U.S. government official told ABC News today that the National Institutes of Health will launch two panels to examine the Guatemala study.
Guatemala's Ambassador to the United States, Francisco Villagran de León said today that he appreciated the decision for a full investigation.
"We don't even know if there is a list of these individuals. If there are any survivors, which is not likely, we should make sure that they should receive care," the ambassador said.
Guatemala Experiments Similar to Tuskegee Syphilis Study
The experiments are eerily similar to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments on African Americans, also run by the U.S. Public Health Service. Reverby was researching the case when she came across the records from Guatemala.
In the Tuskegee study, which ran from 1932 to 1972, the same American Public Health service researchers studied 400 poor black men in Alabama who already had syphilis. But the men never were told they were sick, and they never were treated for it. Some participants died from the disease.
The effects of the Tuskegee study continues to have a widespread effect on African Americans' confidence in the public health system. A 2008 study found that black Americans are less likely to participate in research studies than whites, a factor that researchers attributed to fears -- rooted in the Tuskegee tests -- that research participants could incur harm.
In the Guatemalan study, run by the same American Public Health Service doctor as Tuskegee, the subjects were given the antibiotic penicillin, though it's not clear whether they received enough and what exactly became of them.
ABC News' Dr. Richard Besser, a former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said both experiments were highly unethical.
"I think there's absolutely no difference between the Tuskegee experiment and what took place in Guatemala," Besser said. "You had two populations that were mistreated for the benefit of medical knowledge."
Although it was common practice to use unwitting subjects for medical experiments in those days, then-Surgeon General Thomas Parran said about the Guatemala study, "You know, we couldn't do this in this country."
"It used to be that the idea of informed consent -- asking permission -- was unheard of," said Besser. "Sixty years ago, there weren't ethical boards, there weren't institutional review boards reviewing studies determining what you could and couldn't do. It's a different world today."
President Obama Calls Guatemalan President to Offer Nation's Apology
In 1946, American researchers performed an appalling experiment, infecting unwitting Guatemalans with a potentially deadly disease in the name of public health.
In an effort to see if penicillin could prevent or treat syphilis, government scientists went to the impoverished Central American country to deliberately infect nearly 700 men and women -- including prisoners, inmates in insane asylums, and even some soldiers -- with the potentially fatal sexually transmitted disease.
The researchers used prostitutes to infect the men and hypodermic needles to infect the women.
Watch "World News" for more on this story tonight on ABC.
The experiments, which lasted from 1946 to 1949, were uncovered last year by Susan Reverby, a professor at Wellesley College, as she was researching a book.
When she came across the Guatemala study, her first reaction was, "Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh, my God," Reverby told ABC News today.
"The evidence is clear that [the subjects] didn't know. The authorities were told something, but the people didn't know," she said.
U.S. Officials Apologize for Guatemala Research
President Obama himself spoke with the president of Guatemala, Alvaro Colom, via phone today to express "deep regret" over the study, the White House said in a statement.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also issued a joint apology today in a written statement.
"Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened," the statement read.
A U.S. government official told ABC News today that the National Institutes of Health will launch two panels to examine the Guatemala study.
Guatemala's Ambassador to the United States, Francisco Villagran de León said today that he appreciated the decision for a full investigation.
"We don't even know if there is a list of these individuals. If there are any survivors, which is not likely, we should make sure that they should receive care," the ambassador said.
Guatemala Experiments Similar to Tuskegee Syphilis Study
The experiments are eerily similar to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments on African Americans, also run by the U.S. Public Health Service. Reverby was researching the case when she came across the records from Guatemala.
In the Tuskegee study, which ran from 1932 to 1972, the same American Public Health service researchers studied 400 poor black men in Alabama who already had syphilis. But the men never were told they were sick, and they never were treated for it. Some participants died from the disease.
The effects of the Tuskegee study continues to have a widespread effect on African Americans' confidence in the public health system. A 2008 study found that black Americans are less likely to participate in research studies than whites, a factor that researchers attributed to fears -- rooted in the Tuskegee tests -- that research participants could incur harm.
In the Guatemalan study, run by the same American Public Health Service doctor as Tuskegee, the subjects were given the antibiotic penicillin, though it's not clear whether they received enough and what exactly became of them.
ABC News' Dr. Richard Besser, a former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said both experiments were highly unethical.
"I think there's absolutely no difference between the Tuskegee experiment and what took place in Guatemala," Besser said. "You had two populations that were mistreated for the benefit of medical knowledge."
Although it was common practice to use unwitting subjects for medical experiments in those days, then-Surgeon General Thomas Parran said about the Guatemala study, "You know, we couldn't do this in this country."
"It used to be that the idea of informed consent -- asking permission -- was unheard of," said Besser. "Sixty years ago, there weren't ethical boards, there weren't institutional review boards reviewing studies determining what you could and couldn't do. It's a different world today."
stimulus package gets high marks dispite public dumbing down by GOP
The massive economic stimulus package President Obama pushed through Congress last year is coming in on time and under budget - and with strikingly few claims of fraud or abuse - according to a White House report to be released Friday.
Coming barely a month before November's midterm elections, which will determine whether Democrats retain control of Congress, the report challenges public perceptions of the stimulus aid as slow-moving and wasteful - an image that has fueled voter anger with the dominant party. Even some former skeptics who predicted that the money would lead to rampant abuse now acknowledge that the program could serve as a model for improving efficiency in government.
By the end of September, the administration had spent 70 percent of the act's original $787 billion, which met a White House goal of quickly pumping money into the nation's ravaged economy, the report says. The administration also met nearly a dozen deadlines set by Congress for getting money out the door.
Meanwhile, lower-than-anticipated costs for some projects have permitted the administration to stretch stimulus money further than expected, financing an additional 3,000 projects, according to the report.
Despite the speedy spending, the report says that stimulus contracts and grants have so far been relatively free of the fraud charges that plague more routine government spending programs. Complaints have been filed on less than 2 percent of awards under the program.
"Certainly, the fraud and waste element has been smaller than I think anything anybody anticipated," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. "You can certainly challenge some projects as questionable economically. But there haven't been the examples of outright fraud where the money is essentially lining somebody's pocket."
The report, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, is one in a series of assessments prepared by Vice President Biden, who was charged with overseeing implementation of the stimulus money, the largest effort in U.S. history to counteract the effects of a recession. The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated the package of tax cuts, state aid and direct federal spending would cost $787 billion over the next decade, a figure that has since been revised to $814 billion.
Biden delivered the report to Obama on Thursday during the president's daily economic briefing. In addition to assessing how the stimulus program has been carried out, the study restates the administration's case that the package has been effective economically, arguing that it staunched the worst bleeding in employment and led the economy to rebound late last year.
Many prominent economists agree with that assessment. The CBO has forecast that the package may be on track to meet the administration's goal of preserving 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
Congressional Republicans and many conservatives challenge those claims, arguing that the stimulus package led to record budget deficits while doing little to improve the economy. With the unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent, polls show that about two-thirds of voters agree with that view.
"The administration predicted that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8 percent if the trillion-dollar stimulus became law. We know how that turned out," Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Friday. "Unemployment, now at 9.6 percent, has hovered near double digits since the stimulus passed; we took on an additional trillion dollars in debt, and Americans' confidence in the administration's economic arguments never recovered."
Signed into law by Obama in February 2009, the package was designed to stimulate economic activity and preserve jobs at a time when private-sector activity had virtually collapsed and employers were shedding an average of 750,000 jobs a month. Speed was of paramount importance, and the administration vowed to get 70 percent of the money out the door within 18 months.
The report shows that the administration has met that target, spending $551 billion of the original $787 billion. That figure includes $242 billion in tax breaks to families and businesses and $232 billion in payments to states, unemployed workers and other victims of the recession, the report says. The administration has also written $77 billion in checks for thousands of public works projects, with an additional $127 billion unspent but committed, the report says.
Meeting the 70 percent goal "is an important accomplishment," said Jared Bernstein, Biden's chief economist. "The fact that the impact of this program was quickly felt in the economy and quickly went to work breaking the back of the great recession is something we wanted to take note of."
Administration officials also highlighted the relatively small number of complaints about contracts related to the stimulus package. An independent board established to provide oversight has received just 3,806 complaints - less than 2 percent of more than 200,000 awards. Prosecutors have initiated 424 criminal investigations, representing 0.2 percent of all awards.
Typically, 5 to 7 percent of government contracts attract complaints, Bernstein said.
Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which represents government contractors, said the unprecedented focus on oversight clearly paid off and should be analyzed for lessons that could be applied throughout the government.
"Given the ambitious nature of the stimulus, the fact that things have gone relatively smoothly suggests that they did put appropriate and adequate resources" into program oversight, said Soloway, an early skeptic of the package. "They definitely deserve credit for that," he said.
Bernstein said "people's feelings about the recovery act or the role of government in society" are unlikely to change because of Friday's report. "We have a ton more work left to do," he said.
But the report serves to verify, he said, that "the recovery act has accomplished much of what it set out to do."
Lori Montgomery Washington Post
Coming barely a month before November's midterm elections, which will determine whether Democrats retain control of Congress, the report challenges public perceptions of the stimulus aid as slow-moving and wasteful - an image that has fueled voter anger with the dominant party. Even some former skeptics who predicted that the money would lead to rampant abuse now acknowledge that the program could serve as a model for improving efficiency in government.
By the end of September, the administration had spent 70 percent of the act's original $787 billion, which met a White House goal of quickly pumping money into the nation's ravaged economy, the report says. The administration also met nearly a dozen deadlines set by Congress for getting money out the door.
Meanwhile, lower-than-anticipated costs for some projects have permitted the administration to stretch stimulus money further than expected, financing an additional 3,000 projects, according to the report.
Despite the speedy spending, the report says that stimulus contracts and grants have so far been relatively free of the fraud charges that plague more routine government spending programs. Complaints have been filed on less than 2 percent of awards under the program.
"Certainly, the fraud and waste element has been smaller than I think anything anybody anticipated," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group. "You can certainly challenge some projects as questionable economically. But there haven't been the examples of outright fraud where the money is essentially lining somebody's pocket."
The report, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post, is one in a series of assessments prepared by Vice President Biden, who was charged with overseeing implementation of the stimulus money, the largest effort in U.S. history to counteract the effects of a recession. The Congressional Budget Office originally estimated the package of tax cuts, state aid and direct federal spending would cost $787 billion over the next decade, a figure that has since been revised to $814 billion.
Biden delivered the report to Obama on Thursday during the president's daily economic briefing. In addition to assessing how the stimulus program has been carried out, the study restates the administration's case that the package has been effective economically, arguing that it staunched the worst bleeding in employment and led the economy to rebound late last year.
Many prominent economists agree with that assessment. The CBO has forecast that the package may be on track to meet the administration's goal of preserving 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
Congressional Republicans and many conservatives challenge those claims, arguing that the stimulus package led to record budget deficits while doing little to improve the economy. With the unemployment rate stuck at 9.6 percent, polls show that about two-thirds of voters agree with that view.
"The administration predicted that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8 percent if the trillion-dollar stimulus became law. We know how that turned out," Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Friday. "Unemployment, now at 9.6 percent, has hovered near double digits since the stimulus passed; we took on an additional trillion dollars in debt, and Americans' confidence in the administration's economic arguments never recovered."
Signed into law by Obama in February 2009, the package was designed to stimulate economic activity and preserve jobs at a time when private-sector activity had virtually collapsed and employers were shedding an average of 750,000 jobs a month. Speed was of paramount importance, and the administration vowed to get 70 percent of the money out the door within 18 months.
The report shows that the administration has met that target, spending $551 billion of the original $787 billion. That figure includes $242 billion in tax breaks to families and businesses and $232 billion in payments to states, unemployed workers and other victims of the recession, the report says. The administration has also written $77 billion in checks for thousands of public works projects, with an additional $127 billion unspent but committed, the report says.
Meeting the 70 percent goal "is an important accomplishment," said Jared Bernstein, Biden's chief economist. "The fact that the impact of this program was quickly felt in the economy and quickly went to work breaking the back of the great recession is something we wanted to take note of."
Administration officials also highlighted the relatively small number of complaints about contracts related to the stimulus package. An independent board established to provide oversight has received just 3,806 complaints - less than 2 percent of more than 200,000 awards. Prosecutors have initiated 424 criminal investigations, representing 0.2 percent of all awards.
Typically, 5 to 7 percent of government contracts attract complaints, Bernstein said.
Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which represents government contractors, said the unprecedented focus on oversight clearly paid off and should be analyzed for lessons that could be applied throughout the government.
"Given the ambitious nature of the stimulus, the fact that things have gone relatively smoothly suggests that they did put appropriate and adequate resources" into program oversight, said Soloway, an early skeptic of the package. "They definitely deserve credit for that," he said.
Bernstein said "people's feelings about the recovery act or the role of government in society" are unlikely to change because of Friday's report. "We have a ton more work left to do," he said.
But the report serves to verify, he said, that "the recovery act has accomplished much of what it set out to do."
Lori Montgomery Washington Post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)