Who would have guessed that a car dealer, hailing from the hills of western Pennsylvania, would be the right guy to talk some real common sense into Members of the United States Congress?
Well, it just so happens that the car dealer I'm talking about -- who has indeed been making a whole lot of sense -- is a guy named Mike Kelly, just now half way through his first term representing Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District, a sprawling district comprised of large chunks of several rural counties, all located in the northwestern corner of the Commonwealth, north of the City of Pittsburgh.
Mike was born in the "Steel City" back in 1948, but he hails from Butler, a modest town of 15 thousand residents or so, set along the Connoquenessing Creek, north of Pittsburgh. Butler is where Mike grew up and where he played high school football, before attending Notre Dame.
Butler is just over 33 miles, and about a little less than an hour's drive up Rt. 8, north of Pittsburgh. It is also located about 100 miles (give or take a few depending on your route) due south of the largest town in the 3rd District, the City of Erie, Pennsylvania. Erie, the 4th largest municipality in Pennsylvania, with a population of just over 100,000 residents, is the only Pennsylvania port on the Great Lakes, located in the northernmost section of the state.
Just listen to these comments of Mike's during a recent committee hearing in Congress, talking about the need for a balance budget.
No Time For A High Crime Co-host Fingers ABC Investigative Reporter Hubby - "Get off of it, Mika!" Breaking: Did Bill Clinton Make The Offer Via Rahm Emanuel?
05/28/2010 -- In a recent clip from their show, MSNBC co-host of Morning Joe, Mika Brzezinski, admits to Joe Scarborough that some of her friends and her husband, Jim Hoffer (an investigative TV news reporter at ABC-TV) have both told her to drop on-air discussions of the circumstances surrounding the offer of a federal job to Joe Sestak, who is now the Democrat candidate for the United States Senate for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by an official of the Obama Administration.
Mika says she she "got hammered" by them, saying to her, "This issue doesn't matter. Let it go. Get off of it, Mika!"
Joe Sestak has insisted that the offer was indeed made to get him to drop out of the Democrat primary race against Arlen Spector for the nomination. As reported by Politico, Sestak reconfirmed that recently during an appearance on Meet the Press. But Sestak will not say who the Obama Administration official was who made that offer. It is a federal crime to make a job offer to someone to affect the outcome of an election.
Curiously, Mr. Hoffer's reportorial investigative instincts have even led, in the recent past, to his brief detention by county shreiff's officers for refusing to back off from an interview of a County Executive in Rockland County, NY. It seems that Mr. Hoffer was persisting in pursuing additional information regarding why the county had
"filed a notice of claim seeking [Medicaid reimbursement] money from the estate of a nun, who died when an unbolted closet toppled onto her in the county-run Summit Park nursing home."
But, when it comes to the federal crime of bribery, at least according to Mika Brzezinski, her husband Mr. Hoffer told her Ix-nay on the offer!
Here is the Newsbusters coverage where we found the clip, above, and where they aimed their primary focus on Joe Scarborough's funny quip that the mainstream media would not follow the Sestak story even
"if Rahm Emanuel announced it in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue wearing nothing but a Speedo and that very nautical dress."
Well, that was obviously more visual suggestion than most people would care for! But the point is well taken! We certainly know now what a certain investigative reporter for ABC-News would do with the story!
It took his wife "diming him" on air, but when an investigative reporter for ABC-TV could care less about what would be a high crime committed by a high Obama Administration official, you've got to think that we're all in a little jeopardy.
And, by the way, can you imagine the off-air cell call Mika must have received from hubby Jimbo the minute he found out that she had "outed" him that way?
"What the . . . !"
Heh!
Again, as noted at Politico, Sestak continued to refuse to identify the person who made the offer. Said he:
"I was offered a job, and I answered that," Sestak said. "Anything that goes beyond that is for others to talk about."
Breaking: And now, according to Greg Sargent at the Washington PostPlum Line, former President Bill Clinton was tasked through Rahm Emanuel to make the job overture to Sestak.
Below is a transcription of the relevant portion of a Sunday (April 13th) response by Barack Obama, as he spoke to a crowd of steel workers, U.S.W. Local 1688 members, in Steelton, PA.
A video of that response was posted on YouTube by his campaign.
Here it is:
Obama was responding to prior comments he made to a group of well-heeled donors at a private Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco a week ago today. His original remarks, made at that event (which was closed to the press) did not surface until an obviously unofficial audio clip of his comments surfaced, and was linked on The Huffington Post just this past Friday.
Regarding the Sunday response, the AP, per Beth Fouhy and Kimberly Hefling filed a story today -- Obama Lashes Out at Clinton. But it focuses almost exclusively on the political aspect of his Sunday remarks, in which the reporters parsed his attack on both Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their responses to his original speech in San Francisco.
Below is the transcription of first part of yesterday's (Sunday) comments, the portion "explaining" his original remarks.
Over the last couple of days we've seen a whole dust-up, a dust-up about me talking about the frustrations and struggles of workers, not just here in Pennsylvania, but all across the Midwest, including my home state of Illinois.
Now . . . I am the first to admit that some of the words I chose, I chose badly because, you know, as my wife reminds me, I am not perfect. She reminds me of this frequently, and events often remind me as well.
So, I'm not a perfect man and the words I chose, I chose badly. They were subject to misinterpretation; they were subject to be twisted. And I regret that; I regret that deeply. But . . . but . . . but . . . when people suggest that somehow I was demeaning religion, when I know that I'm a man of deep faith, somebody who in my own life has held on to faith, held on to my confidence in God during times of trial and tribulation, then it sounds like there's some politics being played.
When people suggest that I was somehow being elitist in demeaning hunters, when I have repeatedly talked about the tradition that people pass on from generation to generation, hunters and sportsmen, and how I have consistently spoken about my respect for the Second Amendment, when people try to suggest that I was demeaning those traditions, then it sounds like there's some politics that's being played.
And what really burns me up is when people suggest that me saying that folks are mad, they are angry, they are bitter after 25 - 30 years of seeing jobs shipped out, pensions not fulfilled, healthcare lost, the notion that people are surprised and are suggesting that I am out of touch, because I spoke honestly about peoples' frustrations, that tells me there some politics going on. . . . .
In the first place, note that rather than apologize for his San Francisco statements, he is merely conceding that he chose some words badly, not that he even misspoke (ala Hillary' concession on the non-existent sniper incident). All he is conceding about his choice of words is "[t]hey were subject to misinterpretation; they were subject to be twisted." Are we to conclude, then, that the real fault lies only with those who "misinterpreted" or "twisted" his words? His only real concession, seems to be that he was just not crystal clear.
And, Barack gives the credit for pointing out his lack of clarity to his wife, Michelle! She, whose own lack of clarity on how she generally feels about this country, or on other subjects, e.g., our meanness as a people, are hardly the most instructive examples of lucidity!
Secondly, note also how he has also chosen to utterly ignore a few of the most egregious comments from the relevant portion of his original statement madeout on the West coast.
As a reminder, here was the key portion of the "private" comments to the San Francisco elites -- Barack Obama discussing the bitterness of small town Pennsylvanians:
It's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations.
So . . . what happened to his explanation for his comment about the bitterness of the Pennsylvania voters harboring, "antipathy toward people who aren't like them?" That one sounded to me like the Senator was telling the San Francisco elites in "code" that small town Pennsylvanians are a bunch of bigots. Where am I wrong? Where is Barack's explanation? And, I might add, his context was what can be deemed pure Marxian analysis -- they harbor these feelings, according to Barack, arising out of their economic frustrations.
And, why has he offered no explanation of his comment about their "anti-immigrant sentiment?" Funny, over the past few years I thought the public debate in this country was focused throughout pretty exclusively on peoples' concerns about "illegal immigration," not on "anti-immigrant sentiment." It was a long and instructive public debate; and one in which the balance of persuasion has clearly came down on the side of those who have urged the implementation of measures protecting our borders prior to providing, in federal law, for a process of possible absorbsion into our society of those who are here, many quite unlawfully.
Therefore, his characterization of the issue as "anti-immigrant sentiment" simply sounds like another unfair accusation of bigotry on his part, and is not a fair comment about peoples' feelings on the topic. Where am I wrong?
Finally, what about his reference concerning "anti-trade sentiment?" This is the really strange one. I thought he and Hillary are both "anti-trade," or at least they are both telling us they are -- at least this week! So why was he raising that point with the San Francisco crowd? Was it more "code" message for a rich crowd hailing from a major United States port . . . as in, don't worry about that! We'll deal with the issue your way once we get this election out of the way!!??
Why should we not conclude that Obama is really talking very quietly one way to a group of well-heeled folks, many of them very interested in free trade, and quite another way to manipulate union voters in Pennsylvania who are upset over outsourcing of jobs?
After the comments written above, he then went on to attack both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The attacks on Clinton were especially belittling, even asking rhetorically and quite sarcastically if she thought she was some kind of "Annie Oakley," arising out of her sudden gun-hugging tendencies?
But the upshot is that Obama has clearly not adequately answered for what people are seeing as his stereo-typing elitist comments to the San Francisco fundraiser crowd. Recall that this is a guy who just recently called his own grandmother a "typical white person." That, incidentally is another comment he has not been called to account for by anyone.
He made the comment the day after his speech on race relations, in a radio interview. During the interview, he referred to his Grandmother, the woman who raised him, as a "a typical white person." It was his phrase. Makes you wonder . . . what exactly is a "typical white person" in the mind of Barack Obama? Should he not have to answer that question?
It seems that the time may be fast approaching -- or probably has already arrived -- when Barack Obama is going to have to "man-up" and directly address several of the things he has been saying, ones that he has been getting way with so far.
Snippets of explanation in politically-laced speeches to supporters will simply not do any longer.
"It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns, or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment, as a way to explain their frustrations."*
Obama's comment to the leftie San Francisco elites was not just a gaffe -- it was a downright verbal gutter ball. He and his apologists will try to explain that it was all taken "out of context," and he will never withdraw the comment, or apologize, or even express any sincere regrets.
As a result, he will likely just keep trying to counterpunch his way out of it.
But the context of those remarks should be abundantly clear to anyone.
The words were not spoken out of any sense of, shall we say, bonhomie. There was nothing gentle or affable about such expressions.
And obviously the comments were not an example of what politicians like to call "connecting" with voters. He was just plain talking down about small town people, their beliefs, their values and their cultural heritage, to a bunch of well-heeled elitists, in behind-closed-door remarks that were simply never intended to become public.
But he got caught.
(Update:) *This is a transcription of the key portion of the April 6, 2008 comments by Barack Obama to the San Francisco Fundraiser, based on the audio that was posted by Mahill Fowler on the Huffington Post here. It differs slightly from the transcription Fowler himself posted. His version is as follows:
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I cannot hear the "So" Fowler included at the beginning of the sentence, hence I did not include it. It sounds to me (having listened to the recording several times) like Obama said "their guns" -- not just "to guns" as transcribed by Fowler. The context suggests that he did, as well. It also sounds clearly to me like he said "antipathy toward people" not "to people."
" ... It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"
"Major Wilkinson, this is a glorious day for our country."
-- General George Washington, December 26, 1776, at Trenton
"Seas roll and months pass between the order and the execution; and the want of a speedy explanation of a single point is enough to defeat a whole system."
"Irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors."
-- Thomas H. Huxley
"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
-- Henry David Thoreau, upon suspecting his milkman was watering it down.
"Really, the truth is everybody wants to tell their story."
-- Lawrence Wright, September 23, 2007, author of The Looming Tower asked by Sean Hannity why jihadis and their supporters were so willing to be interviewed for his book.
"I believe in having an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
-- Grace Murray Hooper, "Amazing Grace" - Mathematician, computer scientist & programming pioneer, Rear Admiral, U.S Navy, patriot, quoted by, Tropp, Henry S. "Grace Hopper: The Youthful Teacher of Us All." Abacus 2 (Fall 1984): p. 18 (ht, Wikipedia).
"For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience?"
-- Paul of Tarsus, The Bible, 1st Letter to the Corinthians 10:29
"Every dollar spent by government is one less dollar spent by taxpayers."
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
-- Mark Twain, American Humorist, Writer, and Lecturer, as quoted here.
"I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty, or civilisation, or both.
... Either the poor would plunder the rich, and civilisation would perish; or order and property would be saved by a strong military government, and liberty would perish."
-- Thomas Babington Macaulay, British Historian and Whig Politician, in an 1857 letter to an American friend as quoted here, ht, here.
