House could arrest Holder with inherent contempt power
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/house-could-arrest-holder-with-inherent-contempt-p/

"This.... is much better.."
-Sandra Bullock, SPEED

:D

Michale.....

Conflict of interest, much? This, alone, is reason for Holder to resign.

There is always this option:

Conflict of interest, much? This, alone, is reason for Holder to resign.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/house-could-arrest-holder-with-inherent-contempt-p/

"If only... Ifff only...."
-Hades, HERCULES

:D

Michale....

:D

Conflict of interest, much? This, alone, is reason for Holder to resign.

One of my clients is a communications company in D.C., and I write a monthly blog for them. But it's mostly stuffy, heady, account-exec-type stuff re: social media, research, best practices, interindusty events and awards show — and even a lot of liberal stuff about influencing behavior, which makes me ralph. (The company does a lot of contract work for the Kumbaya government agencies.)

Anywhose, how do we go about branding and competitively positioning a toothpaste? Well, we give it a name (Obama) and create the (target-appropriate) packaging: a logo (rising sun) and a tag line (Yes, We Can!)

And then we spin the crap out it with competitive headlines and body copy, repeating and repeating and repeating the same cohesive message via TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, social media, Public Relations events (Win a Dinner with Barack Obama!), branded collectibles — you name it.

And we monitor it all by conducting research (focus groups; one-on-ones; national surveyss, etc.) to ensure that the consumer is receiving the intended message, and to use as a tool to guide us in making modifications to the message, if we're not getting the desired result.

There's a lot more to it, but those are the basics. Candidates and toothpaste: one and the same. ;D

-David

Hahahahah ... "healthy, beautiful smiles for life".

I can see it. I think of them more as brands. Do you ever write about this topic over at HuffPo or elsewhere?

I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on marketing and political campaigns. If you have, please post. I only get to interact with the world of marketing but am not in the fray so I find it very interesting.

-David

Yep..

Like I said before... Obama is the first President elected solely based on marketing alone....

Michale.....

Perhaps I have a bit of marketing envy, Chris1962.

LOL! Now, don't sell the Dems short, David. Obama/2008 was the best marketed product I had seen in a long time. (Did you know that candidates are products, marketed just like toothpaste? Think about it.)

I think you give far to little credit to the Independents and NPAs of this country...

They DO pay attention.. They know enough to simply write themselves as a Democrat or a Republicans...

It's my experience that Independents and NPAs take their status very seriously..

They know what's what..

Michale....

"Since Obama's promise of no taxes for those under $250K was as blatant as Bush's READ MY LIPS promise, it's logical to extrapolate that Obama's fate will be the same as Bush's..."

The second sentence of your first paragraph is what makes the second paragraph less than a logical extrapolation. (However, I'll also grant you that there is at least some logic there, I can't wholly dismiss it out-of-hand.)

My opinion is that the people who will accept the reasoning that this is a "tax" and criticize Obama for it are the same people who already think that Obama has raised taxes in his tenure in office. The people who are already inclined to be against him. The people who were still pro-Obama on Wednesday aren't suddenly going to say, "Wait, this thing I was supporting him on, I can't support him on that now that it's semantically being called a tax." For Romney to win, he's going to have to win over more people, and I haven't seen him do that at all yet, or even seen much to suggest he's capable of it. (It seems as if his strategy, from the primaries until now, has been to wait until his opponent screws up and then pounce on it, which he's good at -- except that, in the primaries, he matched every pounce with a screw up of his own.) I'm not saying that it's a guaranteed failing strategy, but it puts him less in control of the narrative and the momentum, so it's a disadvantageous position to be taking.

Undecided voters, meanwhile, are undecided because they pay very very little attention. [I was out at a work-lunch a few weeks back and my boss actually asked, "So, is Obama running again? I can't remember." It was an interesting reminder of how low low-info voters can be.] They're going to see this as "Oh, so it *was* constitutional, okay." They're not going to look into the tax logic, or the "the mandate was unconstitutional as written" argument; they're going to see the headline. Possibly not even reading all of it.

Since Obama's DOJ has stated that they will shield the Attorney General from prosecution (can you say NIXON??) it's beginning to look like the House's only recourse is to have House Police arrest Holder...

We're looking at the same kind of standoff that ensued when Denzel Washington (FBI) tried to arrest Bruce Willis (USA General) in THE SEIGE!!

Where's the popcorn, this is gonna be awesome!!! :D

Michale.....

FUTURE!!???

You mean we weren't spose to start the beers 3 hours ago????

Awww crap!!!

:D

Michale.....

I joke about marketing mostly because where I work (which shall remain nameless) our marketing dept ... ummm, how should I say it? could be better?

When people do marketing right ... it's pretty amazing. A few examples: P&G, Apple, and yes, I have to admit it, the Republican Party. From everything I've seen they seem to "get" branding and marketing much better than the Democratic Party.

Perhaps I have a bit of marketing envy, Chris1962.

I just like to give you a hard time about it because well, that's what we do. But when it starts getting mean it's no fun anymore.

No disrespect intended. Happy Friday and hope there's a beer in your future!

-David

Yeah, I've just done the competitive positioning and advertising campaigns for some of the biggest companies on the planet. What, pray tell, could I possibly know about business? Let's go with your indepth knowledge (or wholesale lack thereof), otherwise known as regurgitating spin.

Darrell Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record
http://www.rollcall.com/news/darrell_issa_puts_details_of_secret_wiretap_applications_in_congressional-215828-1.html

There's your smoking gun...

Holder is going down...

Michale.....

I would put it a little more diplomatically and say that marketing is creating reality out of perception..

Of course, since Obama is the first "Marketed" President we ever had, if you want to call marketing, "BS" then I guess I could go for that.. :D

Michale.....

-David

"I think that's my first felony. I've committed many misdemeanors before, but I do believe that is my first felony."
-Oliver Platt, BEETHOVEN

:D

Michale.....

And what's that got to do with bringing the prices down through fewer federal regulations, tort reform, and opening sales across state borders, not to mention the states handling their own programs?

I suggest you stay in marketing as you are clueless about business. Fewer federal regulations, tort reform, and opening sales across state borders, if they worked, would reduce impediments to market forces and fulfilling supply and demand and that's what business is all about.

Now I always thought that the whole point of marketing was to increase consumer demand for a product, but then I haven't spent years in marketing so maybe supply and demand doesn't have anything to do with it and the same elves and faeries that are going to magically bring prices down for you also magically put money in your clients' pockets. But I wouldn't bet on that proposition.

I been called many things, most recently a grizzly bear..

I do believe this is a first for "adorable"... :D

Thanx, though...

Tomorrow, 0700hrs, the MICHALE LOVES OBAMA spectacle begins.. :D

Michale.....

Not in its current form. I'm talking about making some changes.

Michale

As to your faith in the insurance industry, originally insurance meant spreading risks across the widest possible pool, as Obamcare attempts to do. The modern insurance industry, however, attempts to profit by using statistics and actuarial tables to write contracts that favor the house by seldom, if ever, paying out.

They have far more in common with Las Vegas casinos than what used to be insurance providers. And like casinos they make their money by not paying off. The biggest problem with your let the insurance industry handle it is that the insurance industry is not in the insurance business. They are free, or course, to offer any product they choose, but since they're not interested in offing the product people want the people are trying to provide for themselves. Insurance customers want traditional insurance coverage not to gamble against the house.

You realize that you're not helping your case with "I've been in the marketing industry ..." :)

I thought it was pretty much standard knowledge that marketing = BS

I am joking of course ... kind of. Heheheh.

-David

Well, putting aside that various members of his administration, who've answered direct questions before congressional committees and the like over the past couple of years, had said that it WAS a tax, I'm hard-pressed to believe that the super-duper Harvard lawyer and former constitutional law instructor was in the dark as to whether it was a tax or not — particularly given that he had administration members out ther admitting that it was. They don't do that without the boss's okay. ;D

Mmm, I've been in the marketing industry for the past couple of decades, but hey, what would I know?

market forces, supply and demand, simply don't apply to healthcare.

And what's that got to do with bringing the prices down through fewer federal regulations, tort reform, and opening sales across state borders, not to mention the states handling their own programs?

http://www.pctechbytes.net/showthread.php/47244-A-Tour-Of-My-Friends-Computer-Clinic?p=137796#post137796

Enjoy :D

Michale....

I'm always amused by proponents of marketplace solutions who don't understand the marketplace. Most of the money spent on healthcare is spent when people are sick. They are in no position to negotiate, shop around or defer purchase. They are acting under duress. So market forces, supply and demand, simply don't apply to healthcare. Healthcare providers, even if honest and well intentioned, extort money from their customers, because those customers simply have no options.

I also find it interesting that when conservatives discuss business they talk about business to business relationships, mergers, failures, ect., not business to client relationships, as if business means Wall Street speculation not providing goods and services.

That, however, is beside the point. The point is that treating healthcare as just another business, like every other business, is either supremely naive or patently dishonest. You simply cannot have fair marketplace solutions when the majority of customers are acting under duress as that is, by definition, unfair.

Michale....

-David

OK Gimme a few...

Michale

Hey, Michale! Your link is bringing me to an "error" page. (I'm Firefox.)

What's the exact text of the error...

David,

Sorry, missed your post...

Make sure you use PUSH if your on FIREFOX.. ANd make sure you have JAVA up to date..

If you use Internet Explorer, use the IE/ActiveX login and make sure Active X is installed.

Michale

Yeah, and since the mandate they passed under the commerce clause was ruled unconstitutional, Roberts took the SG up on his "congressional authority to tax" offer. So now it's a tax.

...whether the general population will make that distinction i have no idea.

Well, that's the interesting part: Whether they perceive it as a "mandate," which they've wanted repealed but are now still stuck with, or as a "tax," O is quite screwed either way.

Hey, Michale! Your link is bringing me to an "error" page. (I'm Firefox.)

But, then again, I *ALWAYS* say 'it doesn't look good'...

:D

But who knows. This time, I might just be right. :D

Michale.....

You are correct.. It wasn't created as a tax, it wasn't presented as a tax..

BUT...

But it was found Constitutional ONLY as a tax..

Despite my early posts (I was still in shock) I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say he may have truly believed that ObamaCare wasn't a tax.. So, it's a falsity to claim Obama "lied".. (Sorry CB. :D) Just as it is a falsity to claim that BUSH lied...

But regardless of Obama's INTENTIONS, the fact is, in the here and now, ObamaCare is a TAX....

And it DOES represent a fundamental broken promise from Obama.. Just like HW Bush's was a fundamental broken promise..

Time will tell.. But considering all the other negatives.. AZ, Holder, F/F... It doesn't look good..

Michale....

the difference as i see it is that, in spite of CB's assurances to the contrary, obamacare wasn't presented as a tax, written as a tax or signed as a tax. even now, two years later, it wasn't defended as a tax, at the very least not by the president himself.

even the solicitor general didn't really call it a tax, but rather said that the penalty associated with the mandate was legal "under congressional authority to tax" ...whether the general population will make that distinction i have no idea. however, as with dubya's "lie" to get us into iraq, the truth is a lot murkier than bush 41's read my lips moment.

Any Weigantian who needs laptop or tablet repairs, I am available. Just cover parts and shipping and that's it...

don't think we won't take you up on that ;)

There's no arguing with your logic..

However, it fails to take into account recent history..

HW Bush's READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES was a direct cause of Bush's failed re-election campaign. That and Ross I'm-All-Ears Perot.. :D

Since Obama's promise of no taxes for those under $250K was as blatant as Bush's READ MY LIPS promise, it's logical to extrapolate that Obama's fate will be the same as Bush's...

Michale.....

Testing, testing, 1 ... 2 ... 3 ...

-David

I have to say, it's pretty remarkable to have such confidence in your own ability to read the tea leaves, to start making guarantees about November on the same day that you were proven 100% incorrect in your prediction that Obamacare would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Any Weigantian who needs laptop or tablet repairs, I am available. Just cover parts and shipping and that's it...

Michale.....

http://173.12.137.150:2501/

IEx users (WHY??? :D) use the USERNAME/PASSWORD box...

Those who use REAL :D browsers (FireFox, etc etc) use the SERVER PUSH link..

U- cw
P- obama

Lemme know if there are any issues.. The shirt will be on tomorrow..

And it's a BLACK shirt and it's going to be over 100 tomorrow!!!! OUCH :D

Michale.....

"Still a BFD"
-Obama Twit

Ignoring for the moment how completely un-Presidential that is, I have to agree...

ObamaCare/Tax *IS* a BFD...

oBama's Frakin' Downfall

Michale.....

=

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Michale.....

I gotta call BS on that one..

Tort Reform will bring down costs...

And ObamaCare/Tax will increase costs..

This is well documented..

Michale....

The private sector 'solution' was the most expensive system in the world. We spent the most, got the least.

There was a conflict of interest between profits and providing health care. Here's the conflict: You make the most money when you provide the WORST coverage.

And companies who make the most money are the companies that survive.

Like it or not, the Affordable Care Act fixes this problem. Tort reform does not.

-David

Ya know, technically, it SHOULD be called ObamaTax, not ObamaCare....

:D

Michale.....

DING DING DING DING!!!

We have a winner!!!

Tell 'er what she's won, Johnny!!!

As long as Democrats are in power, we will NEVER have Tort Reform..

Ergo, as long as Democrats are in power, there will never been any REAL health care reform..

As long as Democrats are in power, healthcare costs will never go down...

David,

I think CB has something..

It's in black and white in the ruling.. So basic that even *I* can understand it..

The MANDATE was ruled unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, which was Obama's argument..

Basically, Roberts said, "The mandate is unconstitutional. But we'll call it a tax and then rule it, as such, constitutional."

Once again, I am not trying to weasel out of anything.. You won the spirit of the bet and that is fine by me. I will also refer it to ObamaCare, as promised. I am ECSTATIC to do that, as I want to make sure we tie Obama to his new tax everytime we talk about it.. :D

But, it's clear from the ruling that the mandate is no more. We now have a tax...

And two hundred and fifty thousand broken promises from Obama..

Ya know, between the AZ ruling and the ObamaCare ruling, I bet Obama turned to his aides at the White House and said:

"Ya know, guys. I don't think my campaign can handle any more of these 'victories'!!"

:D

Michale.....

I think he didn't much appreciate O's ridicule and threats and gave O just what the Right wanted:

This Election Just Became About Obamacare
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/election-just-became-about-obamacare_647928.html

When you think about it, David, Roberts DID kill the commerce clause mandate, which was the law that was presented to the court. And if Roberts had left it at that, O could've gone onto the campaign trail with no mandate around his neck anymore, and no taxes (now) laid on the middle class, and no "tax-and-spend liberal" label associated with this law.

Only now, 60-70% of Americans, who didn't want a mandate, STILL have a mandate — or a tax, or whatever you wish to call it. But both are lethal to O.

Exactly what Romney did. Handle it at the state level. If you want prices to go down, get the federal government, and its overload of regulations, out of it; enact tort reform; open sales across state boundaries so that the industry can actually freely compete; and step back while the insurance companies kill each other in a war over sales. States, meanwhile, can create RomenyCare, or single-payer, or a Vermont-like program, or whatever other program they feel best suits its residents. There's no reason for the federal government to be involved in this industry. It's the most inefficient, expensive, wasteful level of government we have. And yet liberals just keep turning to it, to solve their problems.

Actually, no, it wasn't. They defended the law by positing that congress had the authority to compel a sale under their power to regulate commerce. And Roberts ruled that it was unconstitutional. That was one of the Right's two big victories today. And it slams the brakes (big time) on the Left's never-ending attempts to increase the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause.

Or ... what would Romney do? You know he might surprise you and not repeal the bill because of the potential political fallout. Just as I believe Roberts ruled the way he did to rescue the Supreme Court from absolute ridicule.

-David

They passed a law, not an argument. The law they passed was found to be constitutional, except for the bit about the federal government being able to decide how much Medicare money to give to the states.

That's what I've been trying to tell ya, tee-shirt boy. LOL! Pelosi/Reid/O's mandate, which they passed under the commerce clause, was ruled unconstitutional. As Roberts concluded, congress may regulate commerce but may not CREATE it in order to then go about regulating it. That's what I've been saying, and the Right has been saying, and the Tea Partiers have been saying from Day One. (Excuse me for a moment... NARNEE-NARNEE-NARR-NARRRRRRRRR.)

That's the law that was put in front of the Justices, which begs the question: Why, then, did Roberts decide to take the extra (arguably questionable) step of judging it as though it had been passed as a tax — which it clearly had NOT been? If you'll recall, not only did Pelosi/Reid/O know that they weren't gonna be able to get the BlueDogs aboard if it were a tax on the middle class but they made the political calculation and decision NOT to use their taxation powers because they didn't want the fallout, in the 2010 midterms, of having raised taxes on the middle class.

So why didn't Roberts just declare the commerce caluse mandate unconstitutional and leave it at that?

Answer: He dropped a big ol' bomb in O's lap, from where I'm sitting. O is now on the campaign trail with a "victorious" mandate (if you choose to call it a mandate) that 60-70% of Americans wanted repealed, or (if you prefer) a "tax" on the middle class, which he had sworn up and down was never gonna happen.

So did Roberts REALLY "side with the Left"? Or did he actually royally screw them — particularly candidate O? Y'know, the guy who was trying to threaten and intimidate the Court from the bully pulpit? Kinda makes a body wonder. ;D

We're all dying to see you in that tee-shirt anyway, but I'm just saying: Pelosi/Reid/O's mandate WAS killed. And rather soundly, if you read the ruling.

They always have. That's never been the point of contention. The mandate has been.

Y'know, the "mandate" that is now a tax, since the original Commerce Clause mandate was deemed unconstituitonal.

So, depending on how you'd like to refer to this — as a mandate or a tax — O is screwed either way. Only I don't think that's occurred to O or the Left yet.

Justice Roberts just might be hailed as the GOP hero of the 2012 Election...

He just put the TAX&SPEND yoke around Obama's neck that Obama will likely be unable to shake...

Michale....

In politics, perception is everything...

And now, the perception is, is that ObamaCare is a tax...

THAT is the perception...

And it's a guaranteed NO LOSE perception that will take Romney to the White House...

Michale....

But Justice Roberts did just the opposite (and, bonus, also strictly adhere to the original intent of the Constitution). Obamacare is unconstitutional if it were to be enacted via the Commerce Clause, but not if it’s simply a tax, the justice wrote. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

ObamaCare, AS IT WAS ARGUED, was, in fact, unconstitutional....

Roberts simply made the argument that Obama COULDN'T make because of his NO TAX PLEDGE...

In essence the Chief Justice said to Obama, "If you want your legacy, you are going to have to accept it as what it really is, not as what you want people to BELIEVE it is.."

It's a tax... A health tax...

Don't worry, David.. I am not wiggling out of our bet... As I said before, you won the spirit of the bet, if not the letter of the bet..

But, the facts are clear..

CB is right... The SCOTUS did rule the mandate unconstitutional as Commerce...

But, as a tax??? Then, it's Constitutional...

Basically, the Chief Justice handed Obama his "READ MY LIPS" moment, for the GOP to use at their leisure....

Michale.....

The interesting thing is that when most people are asked about provisions of the Affordable Care Act, they by and large support them.

- 61 percent favor allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26.
- 72 percent of respondents wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees.
- 82 percent of respondents favored banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

And how could you not support the requirement that 80% of costs should go towards actual care?

So what Obama & Democrats should do - despite your I'm sure most helpful advice for him - is to focus on what is in Obamacare.

Rather than back away from it, they should focus on the good parts of it.

Focus on how Republicans are all for the current system which can deny anyone. Focus on the many benefits to groups like folks under 26.

And ask Republicans what would they do instead ... because you know what? They don't have an answer. Obamacare was the conservative solution from the beginning and now all conservatives have is opposition.

No alternative plan or ideas to solve the problem. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Just endless whining, bitching, and moaning.

If they had done this in 2010, things might have been different. And hell ... we've got nothing to lose. We know big business is going to line their money up behind RMoney ... err Romney ... so why not?

-David

I think if you step back and look at the big picture, Roberts just dropped a bomb in O's lap. Is Obama REALLY gonna declare "victory" again — after his last CrapCare "victory" resulted in the great shellacking of 2010? Is he REALLY gonna want to talk about his new "tax," which folks UNDER $250K will be hit with, in stark contrast to his repeated promises that no way, no how would the middle class be taxed a single dime?

I think what we're gonna see is Dems running for cover again. As for O, he still doesn't seem to "get" it, regarding the 2010 wipeout. If I were him, I'd stay waaaaaaaaaay far away from the topic of CrapCare on the campaign trail. But knowing him, he'll probably brag about, clueless that's he's whipping up another "tsunami" — this time with his name on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/28/obamacare-and-2012-campaign/#ixzz1z8WPQ6Ep

Just how well do you think Independents and NPAs are going to warm up to Obama in Nov???

Slim and None and Slim just logged off...

Michale.....

After I posted the "Live" post that ObamaCare survived as a tax, I was rocked..

Then DRUDGE had a headline that ObamaCare failed and I thought, OK... We're good...

Then AMY or TOM on the Live Blog came back with the ACA was approved or whatever...

SO, it was definitely a roller coaster of emotions. That, I can attest to... :D

Michale.....

Actually, it was struck down:

?...The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.
(b)
Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable CareAct’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding lawsunder that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, andin service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560
U.
S. ___. The individual mandate, by contrast, vests Congress withthe extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power and draw within its regulatory scope those who would otherwise be outside of it. Even if the individual mandate is “necessary” to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a “proper” means for making those reforms effective. Pp. 27–30.