text:
- Font:
- +
- -
Guests: Pat Buchanan, Trish Regan, Eugene Robinson, David Axelrod, Sen. Sherrod Brown, David Corn, James Rubin, P. Clarke Cooper, Aubrey Sarvis
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let's get together.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews out in Los Angeles.
Leading off tonight: High noon. What does President Obama want, and what are his powers to get it? And what can he do if the Republicans don't do what he wants? What leverage does he have to, A, keep the tax cuts for the middle class, B, save the deal struck with the Russians over nuclear weapons, and C, get Senate approval for ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
At the top of tonight's HARDBALL, White House adviser David Axelrod, plus a Democratic senator we expect to say, Mr. President, use your power. My question for the senator will be: Show me the power this president has to get Republicans to do what he wants this December.
Plus, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has said the emperor has no clothes, or is it the empress? Joe wrote in "Politico" today that it's time for the GOP to, quote, "man up" and take down Sarah Palin before she takes down the party's chances in 2011. Let the fallout begin.
Also, the latest blast from WikiLeaks. Who in the State Department is saying the president of Argentina doesn't have her head screwed on? Oh, by the way, does the government have any way to outlaw this kind of leaking? We do have a free press in this country.
And the Pentagon released its long-awaited report on repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and a huge majority of service members say they have no problem with repeal. The opposition's coming from the Marines and combat Army troops. So will enough Republicans sign up to end DADT?
Finally, let me tell you some things the pols keep saying when they know darn well they're not true.
Let's start with the president's meeting with congressional leadership today. David Axelrod joins us after a long solstice (ph), senior adviser to President Obama. Thank you, David. It's good to have you back.
DAVID AXELROD, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: Thanks, Chris.
MATTHEWS: I guess the big question is, how does he deal with Republicans, get somewhere in the middle politically and not lose the support he needs from the progressive left?
AXELROD: Look, I think the most important thing to do right now is to do the things the American people expect and want us to do. And one is to make sure that they don't wake up on January 1st with a very large tax increase because the Bush-ear tax cuts were scheduled to expire at that time, and I think there's a great sense of urgency on the part of the president. I think that urgency is shared on the part of the Republicans, to make sure that that doesn't happen.
And so, you know, I—I think the greatest—I heard you say before, What is his leverage? The greatest leverage in politics, Chris, as you know—you're a—you're an old practitioner of it—is public opinion. I think the American people do not want gridlock. They do not want inaction. They want us to use this time productively. They want us to deal with the things that are foremost in their minds and of great concern to the country.
MATTHEWS: If it comes down to late December, before Christmas and
Hanukkah, and the president's forced with making a decision—I want to
protect the tax cuts for the middle class, the Republicans are not giving -
would he then compromise with them and give them what they want, tax cuts for the rich, if he has to?
AXELROD: Look—look, as you know, the president's position is he believes we should have a permanent tax cut for the middle class. The middle class has taken a beating in this recession, and for the decade before, where incomes declined by 5 percent. He also believes that we can't afford what the Republicans have asked for, which is the same tax cut for the wealthiest 2 percent, which would cost $700 billion we don't have. Those are the parameters that he's set.
Now, I'm not going to negotiate with you here. What I heard in that room today was some good back-and-forth, really constructive, not rhetorical, but good constructive back-and-forth on that issue. Each leader and the president have designated high-level representatives to talk this through, and you know, I'm hopeful that there'll be action.
MATTHEWS: Well, when the Republicans get control of the House of Representatives next year, and more senators, could they then get the tax cut they want for the very rich, and therefore, knowing that, could the president say, OK, I want a permanent tax cut for everybody under $250,000 a year, but the other stuff, we'll give you an extension for a year or so? Is that in the cards?
AXELROD: Like I said, Chris, I'm not going to go through all the options. I think that—I gave you the parameters, and within those parameters—
AXELROD: -- we want to sit down and talk.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the president's "must" list. Does he have a "must" list? For example, DADT repeal? Does he have a "must" list in terms of beating Jon Kyl and getting a vote in the Senate on new START? Are those musts that he has to achieve in his heart before Christmas?
AXELROD: Let me say this. It's not a matter of beating Senator Kyl, it's a—and I'm not sure that Senator Kyl, at the end of the day, isn't going to support the START treaty. I didn't hear that. He was in that room today. I didn't hear that today. The START treaty is a matter of urgent national security. We can't—we can't verify what's going on on the ground in Russia right now because the treaty isn't in effect. It impacts our relationship with Russia, which has been pivotal in terms of our strategy with Iran, North Korea. We feel a sense of urgency to get that done, and we think we can get that done.
As you know, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" report came out today. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen were both very strong on why we ought to begin that process of ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and ask for congressional support on this.
I believe that we can get many of these things done, all of them, if we're disciplined. And the spirit in that room today was one of cooperation. It was one—I think there was a recognition that people are going to be frustrated if all they see is political posturing and an unwillingness to get things done—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
AXELROD: -- in these next few weeks.
MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the DADT. The report came out positively for those who want to see open service, and I think you know that as well as I.
AXELROD: Yes.
MATTHEWS: And here's the question. You have about four Republicans out there, maybe Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, maybe Brown up in Massachusetts, who may—maybe a longer list. I hear we're going to hear on the show tonight a longer list of possible yeses for repeal. Does the president have—again, my word—leverage? Can he bring fire power into Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, on behalf of his cause?
AXELROD: Yes, look, I think that there is a tremendous amount of energy behind this repeal. And believe me, we hear from it all—folks all time on this issue. I'm sure they're hearing from folks all the time on this issue. There's a strong majority in this country to repeal this law. It deprives our military of talented people. It's not good for our national security, and it's not consistent with our sense of fairness. So I think that those senators and others are hearing from their constituents, and you know, I'm hopeful that we can move on this before they go home for the holidays.
MATTHEWS: Great. It's great having you on. David Axelrod, thanks for joining us—
AXELROD: Thanks.
MATTHEWS: -- senior adviser to the president—
AXELROD: Good to see you.
MATTHEWS: -- from the White House.
Now for a view from the Hill, let's go to Senator Sherrod Brown. He's a Democrat from Ohio. Let's listen to this. I guess we're not going to listen to it. Let's go on right—let's go right now to you, Senator. The question is, should the president deal with the Republicans and compromise on taxes and other issues, or should he just throw up his hands and say, I'm going to straightarm you guys, I've got the power, you don't? What should be his approach?
SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D), OHIO: Well, I don't—it depends on what—you know, how you ask the question. Do you want the president to sit and negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and get nowhere, when you've got a Republican leader in the Senate that says his major goal in the next two years is to see Obama not get reelected, and when they are not willing to move off on their tax cut for the rich at all, for millionaires and billionaires? I think the president—I'm fine with him talking to them for a couple of days and trying to work this out. But I want to see this middle class tax cut extended, and I want to see us—see it—
MATTHEWS: Sure.
BROWN: -- expire for upper-income people.
MATTHEWS: But who doesn't—
MATTHEWS: But who doesn't want the—but who doesn't want the middle class tax cut extension? You're on the side of the angels with that baby. My question to you—and this is the cutting question. It's Christmas Eve, and the Republicans are saying, We're not going to let you get a bill through the Senate. You're not getting the 60 votes, you're not getting the vote on the other body unless you give us the full tax cut. What would you say if you were sitting in the White House, No way, Jose? What would you say?
BROWN: I'd say, No way, Jose. I'd say we should keep those—we should keep the Senate and House in session, continuing—again showing them that we're for extending the tax cuts for the middle class but not for millionaires and billionaires. And then Republicans eventually flinch come January because in the end—you know, 70 percent of the public knows that in the end, Republicans are there for the rich. I mean, that's—they're the party that always protects—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BROWN: -- the wealthiest people in our country. Do a showdown and say to the country, Don't—we're not going to let the Republicans hold this middle class tax cut—this middle class tax hostage on behalf of the rich. And eventually, I think the Republicans give in on this.
MATTHEWS: Yes, you're right about the rich. People think the Republicans are out for the rich, but most Republicans are rich, as you know. And number two, your party doesn't have a whole lot of street cred on cutting taxes. Most people know Democrats believe in government. They know government costs money. They're not the tax cutters. They don't play that game—
BROWN: Well—
MATTHEWS: -- the Republicans play all the time about—
MATTHEWS: So do you think you've got the cred to go into Christmas Eve and say to the American people, We're fighting for the middle class tax cuts and you're going to believe us?
BROWN: Well, first, I don't agree—
MATTHEWS: Will they believe it?
BROWN: -- with that presumption, Chris. I understand you're saying that, but that was sort of—that was years ago. It's Democrats that cut taxes with the Recovery Act. Almost 40 percent of those Recovery Act dollars, if you will, were tax cuts for a huge swathe of the middle class.
MATTHEWS: Right. Fair enough. That's true.
BROWN: That's what we did. That's what Clinton did, by and large, in the '90s on several different cases.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
BROWN: I mean, we do that as Democrats. The Republicans sing it better. They read off the page, to mix a metaphor, better perhaps, but we're actually doing it. And I think the answer is, yes, the public—you've got to bright—you've got to draw a bright line. It's really whose side are you on. The Republicans are on the sides of millionaires and billionaires. We're on the side of the middle class. I think there's no better way—
BROWN: -- to show that than this tax vote.
MATTHEWS: Well, here's a guy that's not afraid to say he's on the side of the millionaires. Here's Eric Cantor of Richmond, Virginia, on the "Today" show this morning, talking tax cuts for the very rich. Here he is defending their cause with Matt Lauer. Let's listen.
MATT LAUER, CO-HOST: What you're telling me is no compromise whatsoever on the Bush-era tax cuts.
REP. ERIC CANTOR (R-VA), MINORITY WHIP: Well, listen, Matt, one of two things is going to happen in January. Either taxes go up or they stay the same. Nobody's getting a tax cut here, so there's no compromise or not on that particular issue.
MATTHEWS: Well, what do you make of that? I mean, he's certainly squirreling around there a bit. I mean, what do you think he's talking about, It's not a tax—look, the bottom line is the American people are going to have their taxes go up in January, if the Republicans, you're saying, hold out for the rich, that'll happen because it ain't going to happen. But you're saying they're going to buckle.
BROWN: Yes, Congressman Cantor either failed English class or failed logic class or failed history class because these tax cuts for the rich that Bush did twice, Chris, in '01 and '03, as you know, resulted in very little economic growth. We saw only one million jobs created in the Bush years, 22 million created in the Clinton years when we reached a balanced budget with a fairer tax system. And there is no—there's no real history illustrating that these tax cuts for the rich result in jobs.
It's extending unemployment benefits that creates economic activity that creates jobs, not giving a millionaire an extra $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 in tax cuts—
BROWN: -- that they likely won't spend because they're already buying what they're going to buy anyway.
MATTHEWS: You're the best there is in this argument. I got to ask you one last question. What bee does Jon Kyl have in his bonnet that he wants to bring us back to the cold war? Why does this guy want to—is he in bed with the craziest of the neocons? Why does he want to kill this treaty with the Soviet Union—the former Soviet Union and bring it back to the Soviet Union? What is this guy up to? And how can one man screw a treaty with the Russians?
BROWN: Well, I think it's because Mitch McConnell put the talking points under his door that simply said—
MATTHEWS: Ah!
BROWN: -- the most important thing is to see Barack Obama fail and not
not be reelected. They don't want Barack Obama—
MATTHEWS: Ah!
BROWN: -- to have a foreign policy victory. All the major Republicans in this country, those that are out of office now, mostly of them, all the former secretaries of state and all that—
MATTHEWS: I know.
BROWN: -- they think we should pass this. It's good for—it's good for Russia. It's good for—I mean, it's good for Russian-American relations. It's good for strengthening the moderates in Russia, instead of strengthening the hard-liners like Putin. And it's good for our relations with Israel because it will help us deal with the nuclear threat in Iran. I mean, this is a winner all the way around, except McConnell and Kyl—
MATTHEWS: Oh, God!
BROWN: -- don't want Barack Obama to have a win. It's as simple as that, Chris.
MATTHEWS: So Kyl—so bottom line, Kyl is his Charlie McCarthy.
He's speaking for him, for Mitch McConnell.
BROWN: Your words, but close enough.
BROWN: Sounds good.
MATTHEWS: It's an old reference. Anyway, thank you very much—
BROWN: Thanks, Chris. Good to be with you.
MATTHEWS: -- Senator Sherrod Brown. Merry Christmas to you.
BROWN: Thanks.
MATTHEWS: Coming up: The empire strikes back. Our own boy, Joe Scarborough, has come out saying the empress has no clothes, the first Republican to say publicly what a lot of people say in the Green Room when you bump into them—Stop Sarah Palin, she's not presidential material. Can the establishment, being spoken for here by our own Joe Scarborough, stop the star's—the biggest star of the Republican Party so far?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Wow, a great moment on the Senate floor today. John McCain reached across the aisle to pay tribute to Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat, who went down to defeat this year. McCain and Feingold worked together most notably on the campaign finance reform law that bears their names, and the Arizona Republican said the Senate will be a lesser place when Feingold leaves.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA: I will miss him here every day. And I will try harder to become half the public servant that he is because his friendship is an honor, and honors come with responsibilities. God bless him.
MATTHEWS: Well, a bit of the world's greatest deliberative body there on the Senate floor today.
We'll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Is it time for the Republican Party to take on Sarah Palin? Joe Scarborough wrote today in "The Politico" that it's high time. And he writes, quote, "It's time for the GOP to man up."
Well, Pat Buchanan's an MSNBC political analyst and David Corn's a Washington bureau chief—the Washington bureau chief for "Mother Jones" and writes for Politicsdaily.com.
I see Pat. He's already got his wizened eyes ready—
MATTHEWS: -- to defend the womanhood and greatness of Sarah Palin. Go ahead, Pat. Take on Joe Scarborough, your morning mate. What right has he to say the empress has no clothes, you ask.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: He's got every right. He's a columnist and a commentator. He's got a voice. He believes deeply Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president. There are others that agree with him. I think Peggy Noonan's been very critical. I think Mona Charen, other columnists have.
But my view is basically this. I think she has certainly earned a right, if she wishes to compete in the Republican primaries, to have that competition and to try and prove she's fully qualified to be president. She's got enormous assets, a tremendous following, political instincts. Her last two statements on the WikiLeaks thing and on the Fed have been right on the money, which suggests she's staffing up. I think we give her a chance to prove herself. And for heaven's sakes, I think we don't want another Goldwater-Rockefeller battle where we tear the party apart before we get to the convention.
DAVID CORN, "MOTHER JONES": I think that'd be wonderful if the party tears itself apart.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe she has the right—I want to ask Pat—hold on just for a second. I want to get the answer from the Republican, or erstwhile Republican here. Do you believe, with your hand on a Bible, that she has the right stuff to be president of the United States, commander-in-chief and all that goes with it? Do you, Pat Buchanan—are you willing to say now she has the right stuff? Those are my words. I'm asking you if you accept them. The right stuff (INAUDIBLE)
BUCHANAN: She's got a lot of the right stuff, a lot of it, a lot of it.
BUCHANAN: Now, wait a minute—
CORN: He's hedging! You're hedging, Pat!
BUCHANAN: No, let me say I think she's got the instincts, the courage, the charisma, the following. Has she proven yet she's got the depth on the issues and the ability to handle issues abroad and at home, especially abroad? She has not demonstrated that yet, but I do believe she should have a chance to do so if she wishes to run for president.
CORN: She had a chance to demonstrate it when she was—
MATTHEWS: Well, the trouble with that argument—go ahead.
CORN: Chris, she had a chance to demonstrate this when she was governor of Alaska, and she couldn't take the heat. She couldn't make it through a full term there. Now she wants to pretend she's presidential timbre?
Well, I know why some people are following her, but that's why a lot of people in the Republican Party say, listen, this would be a big mistake if we went down this path.
The problems that the Republicans have is that they really have nobody to say no to her at this point who has any clout, any influence, any power that could block her.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Explain why.
CORN: Well, why? Well, who? Karl Rove and Barbara Bush? These are mosquitoes that she can just swat away.
CORN: If she runs, she will have to be defeated by other Republican candidates, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee.
CORN: And I'll tell you what. They're not going to take her on now, because there's a chance she may not run. And if she doesn't run, they want her support.
MATTHEWS: Right. OK.
BUCHANAN: Right.
CORN: Right. So, they're going to come out strong.
Let me ask you, Pat. You have just—
BUCHANAN: Sure.
MATTHEWS: Pat—I just want to give Pat one more bite at the apple here.
MATTHEWS: When I asked you if she had the right stuff to be president, you said not all of it. You just put her in a league with about 329 million Americans who you're not sure have the right stuff to be president.
BUCHANAN: Right. No, no.
Let me tell you this. Do I think Pawlenty has the right stuff to be president? I'm not sure. Do I think Mike Pence has it? I'm not sure. I think they have to prove that, Chris, in the primaries.
MATTHEWS: Who has it?
BUCHANAN: Nixon—well, when Nixon ran, you know what he told me? He said, Pat, they think I'm qualified to be president. Everybody thinks I'm a loser and they don't want me. I'm going to have to prove I'm not a loser by running in every single primary.
MATTHEWS: Right.
BUCHANAN: And he did it.
CORN: But, Pat, no one thought Nixon was unqualified. They might have thought he was a psychopath, but they didn't think he was unqualified. He had been vice president.
CORN: He had been a senator. He had been a member of the House.
CORN: This is much different than Sarah Palin and writing a book about how she feels.
BUCHANAN: Chris, "Mother Jones" is frightened to death of Sarah Palin. I can see it right here.
BUCHANAN: Go ahead.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let's take a look at Joe—Joe Scarborough asked my favorite question to John Shadegg, the congressman, today, put him on the spot for a number of minutes this morning with one question. It's the question I have asked. Is she qualified to be president?
Republicans don't like this question, not elected ones. Here's the condensed version of this morning.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: Do you think that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president of the United States?
REP. JOHN SHADEGG ®, ARIZONA: Well, you tell me who came out and trashed QE2?
SCARBOROUGH: Do you think—do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president of the United States?
SHADEGG: Joe, I think that's a decision for the American people.
SHADEGG: Let's talk—let's get serious.
SCARBOROUGH: Do you believe that Sarah Palin is qualified to be president of the United States?
SHADEGG: Do you want to ask me if I believe all the other candidates are qualified?
SCARBOROUGH: No, I'm just asking you one question, John. I'm just asking you one question. I want an answer.
SHADEGG: Are they at the White House going to discuss Iran today and what's going on with the leaked documents?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wow.
SHADEGG: Come on, Joe.
Do I think Sarah Palin is qualified?
SCARBOROUGH: Yes.
SHADEGG: I think the American people and the Republican Party will make that decision, as the process requires.
MATTHEWS: God. You know, Pat, this reminds me of the good old days of, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
MATTHEWS: This is the question that a lot of people don't like to ask.
MATTHEWS: No, here's the question. I guess the argument—go ahead.
I want to get the argument that I think Joe Scarborough, our colleague, has made here, which is this going to take a lot of time dealing with Sarah Palin, and it's not going to end up with her nomination. It's going to distort the process, putting all the focus on her. People will be nice to her. Some will treat her like a pinata at some point. I expect Newt Gingrich will take some shots at her at some point.
But in the end, it won't really have anything to do with picking a president. Don't you need to—since you would think you face—and everybody does, I think fairly—a very close election in 2012 -- don't you want to get to the business of picking the nominee from day one with the first debate, rather than having, who is so exciting in terms of politics, distracting?
Your thoughts, Pat.
BUCHANAN: No, no, I don't—hey, Chris, look, If Republicans are going to win, it's got to be a coalition of moderate Republicans, Republican establishment conservatives, and the Tea Party types.
Now, Sarah Palin brings cards to that table. You don't want to give any of it up. We don't want to make the same mistake we made in 1964, when we tore ourselves apart before we got to San Francisco. So, I think let the woman run—if she wants to run, let he run and make her case. And if she wins that nomination, she can only win it by beating these folks and beating another finalist in the debates and everything else. That's how Obama did it.
CORN: That's the problem that the Republicans face. If they are nice to her and they let her compete, the way that Pat suggests, there's a chance she might get the nomination.
And, right now, the polls and I think people in the Republican Party, in the leadership, you know, realize that she will have the least likely chance of any of the major Republican candidates at this point in time.
CORN: Now, so, the problem is, do you—can you stop Republican voters from going over that cliff? The answer might be, you can't.
BUCHANAN: All right, well, let me—look, look, she may—look, right now, the national voters, all the country at large says, by and large, they think she would be the weakest of the major candidates.
That may prove true, but do not attack, in my judgment, and try to destroy a candidate who will be an enormous asset to you in November if she loses. And if she wins, for heaven's sakes, she's only going to win because—if she wins, because she's beaten people like Romney, who have been out there, maybe Huckabee, who has been out there. If she does that, the party wants her.
CORN: Well, I think the thing that Pat is right about—
MATTHEWS: OK. Pat, Pat—I need to go to Pat on this. Pat is right about a lot of things. David, just hold for a second.
MATTHEWS: Pat, you say you're not sure she has the right stuff to be president. Name the Cabinet post that you're sure she's capable of right now, a member of the United States Cabinet. Which one do you know for sure that she's capable of filling, any Cabinet post. Name it.
BUCHANAN: Vice president of the United States.
MATTHEWS: She could do that job?
CORN: There's nothing to do except wait to become president.
BUCHANAN: She had it. She had it. And then you—the only concerns that people have is, as a student, does she have the knowledge on the issues and things like that?
As the vice president, I'm not sure Spiro Agnew, whom I supported, did he have all the knowledge --
MATTHEWS: You made a mistake here.
MATTHEWS: If she is qualified to be V.P., she's—she must be qualified to be president if she's qualified to be vice president, Pat. You know the Constitution.
BUCHANAN: That's what John McCain thought. That's what the Republican Convention thought.
CORN: Well, John McCain was wrong.
MATTHEWS: We are going to come back to this. We're coming back.
MATTHEWS: I think Sarah Palin's with us, no matter what Joe Scarborough says.
Anyway, thank you, Pat Buchanan. Thank you, my friend, as—David Corn.
CORN: She's good for business.
MATTHEWS: You're both my friends.
MATTHEWS: We will be right back with the "Sideshow."
You bet your bottom dollar.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
First, Christine O'Donnell stirs the pot. I guess she's back to her old tricks. Reminds of that Sinatra song. It's witchcraft, but it's strictly taboo. This morning, she went back to her satanic craft on ABC.
CHRISTINE O'DONNELL ®, FORMER DELAWARE SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: I hope she runs for president. The reason why I—
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC ANCHOR: Hillary Clinton for president?
O'DONNELL: I sure do. I would love to see her take out Obama in the primary.
You know, I would even be tempted to change my registration, so that I can vote for her in the Democratic primary.
O'DONNELL: I love everybody in the Republican side who's even considering throwing their hat in the ring, so I would be happy with any candidate who gets the Republican nomination. So, that's—
STEPHANOPOULOS: You're going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
O'DONNELL: I didn't say—
O'DONNELL: I said I would consider—
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that because you think she's easier to beat?
O'DONNELL: No. It's because, right now, I think anybody is better than Obama.
MATTHEWS: What is that about? O'Donnell also boosted Hillary's handling of the WikiLeaks scandal. I think she may be the only one in the country twisted enough to see people in the State Department looking especially good in this thing.
Finally, if you're a world leader, size matters. President Bush on his book tour yesterday told the crowd a fun anecdote about Russian Premier and noted tough guy Vladimir Putin.
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I introduced Vladimir to Barney. I don't know if you remember Barney. Barney's a little Scottish terrier, like an awesome little guy.
And he kind of dissed him. He kind of—like, oh, man. And I—
BUSH: At least I thought he did. And I kind of—I didn't let him know it kind of hurt my feelings, because I'm crazy about Barney.
Anyway, about a year later, Putin says, would you like to meet my dog? And out bounds this huge hound named Koni. And he looks at me and he says, "Bigger, faster and stronger than Barney."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's another piece to that story, though.
BUSH: Yes. Then I—so I share the story with Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada. And he says, "At least he only showed you his dog."
MATTHEWS: What is he so self-satisfied about? Anyway, Bush doing the blue material.
Up next: the latest nuggets from those WikiLeaks. Plus, what the government is going to do or trying to do to go after the group's founder to punish this guy.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
TRISH REGAN, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: Hello, everyone. I'm Trish Regan with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Stocks losing steam after a brief little bounce this afternoon. The
Dow Jones industrial average sliding four sliding 46 points, the S&P down -
S&P 500 losing seven there, and Nasdaq down 27 points.
Stocks struggled pretty much all day. You have all those worries right now about the Eurozone debt levels and Korea tensions that kept any gains we saw in check. That late-day bounce, it came after Republican and Democratic leaders agreed to work together on a tax cut compromise.
But, overall, we're looking at the worst November in two years, the market's worst monthly performance since August. Big banks are lower after the founder of WikiLeaks said his next release will reveal unethical behavior at a major U.S. bank. Google skidding 4.5 percent after announcing plans to buy online discounter Groupon for $5 billion to $6 billion.
And Barnes & Noble plunging nearly 6 percent on shrinking store sales, declining margins, and a weak outlook.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide.
I'm Trish Regan—now back to Chris and HARDBALL.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
The Justice Department is investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange broke the law when he published thousands of State Department cables that exposed confidential discussions among diplomats.
But the possibility of legal action does not seem to be deterring Assange. He says he has documents that could take down a big American bank and will release them early next year.
For more on the revelations from these State Department cables and what it means for our foreign policy interests, let's turn to former State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin, and also to "Washington Post" columnist and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson.
Jamie, thanks for joining us.
And thank you for joining us, Gene.
This big question here, can we stop this kind of behavior, this leaking and publicizing over the Internet of very sensitive material that embarrasses us, with the law? Is the law any help here, Jamie?
JAMIE RUBIN, FORMER U.S. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: Probably not.
I think someone like Mr. Assange is not going to be deterred by legal action. Look, the law was a—the private in the military who—was aware of the law when he stole this information and passed it on to what is essentially a fence operation of Mr. Assange. And I doubt they're going to be deterred by this.
The damage, ironically, that's been done here is to the very way of doing business that those on the hard left would prefer, diplomacy. Rather than the military operations of the Pentagon or the sanctions of the Treasury Department, diplomats are in the business of trying to resolve disputes peacefully. And they're the ones who have been cut off at the knees by this.
MATTHEWS: Well, Jamie, what is the hard left here all about? I'm fairly familiar with politics, but I don't get the angle here. What does this guy Assange out of Australia seek to do, besides create chaos in the West? What's his angle? What's his enemy?
RUBIN: Well, I'm not entirely sure, but I can suspect that he started off in the anti-war mode, trying to prove, through Afghanistan cables and Iraq cables, that these wars were a mistake and needed to be understood better by the American public, and then they would drop their support for them.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RUBIN: But from transferring that issue to broad American foreign policy to the U.S. government's daily operations, he's become an anti-American anarchist of some kind.
MATTHEWS: I want to ask Gene the same question.
Ideologically—we love that on this show, finding out where people are coming from. Where is this guy coming from? And are there—going to more of it? It sounds like this is the beginning of something, not the end of it.
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it does sound like the beginning, Chris.
And I don't know where to put him on a kind of left-to-right continuum. I'm not sure he fits into that traditional spectrum. I think Jamie is right. Put him off to the side or on a third axis maybe, as, essentially, an anarchist or somebody who—I don't—he doesn't fit a traditional left profile, in my view.
MATTHEWS: Well, here he is going after the secretary of state.
He told "TIME" that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—quote—
"should resign, if it can be shown that she was responsible for ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the U.N., in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has signed up."
Jamie, you worked at the State Department. You made your name there so well. It sounds like he's got a bee in his bonnet, a target of Hillary Clinton, who, to me, is somewhere center-left, hardly an ideological figure.
What is he after here?
RUBIN: Well, I say left earlier because I think that the supporters of Mr. Assange, certainly "Rolling Stone" journalist Michael Hastings and Daniel Ellsberg, who have been supporting what he is doing, come from the, you know, far left—
MATTHEWS: Yes.
RUBIN: -- to opposing U.S. foreign policy across the board.
You know, diplomats and spying have been an issue that's gone back to the Middle Ages and the early American Revolution, you know, they were all trying to read each other's cables and treaties. The irony here is that as a result of openness over the last hundreds of years, there are no great revelations. After Watergate, after Vietnam and Pentagon papers, learned that the private American policy is much like the public American policy. Not perhaps for the leaders in the Arab world where their democratic values are a little weaker.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I love it. Gene Robinson, you and I think a lot alike and I think I can say that with some assurance. And I was impressed that John Pindorice (ph), he's sort of a mild neoconservative, was praising the information. He's saying that this shows the United States is basically, honest, candid, serious, and sort of the good guy in the world, where the rest of the world is just playing games in terms of what they're up to.
ROBINSON: You know, it does. I mean, what's striking to me about what's come out so far, the cables that have come out so far, is that they are entirely consistent with what we understood U.S. policy to be and there has been nothing, you know, really even duplicitous and duplicity frankly is part of diplomacy.
You know, my colleague Anne Applebaum had a fascinating column this morning in which she was kind of trying to figure out where Assange is coming from, and saying, you know, there are places where they are real secrets to be uncovered, regimes that don't have sunshine laws like the regime in China for example, and ask, will he go as aggressively after those kinds of documents?
MATTHEWS: How do I know he won't?
Thank you, Jamie Rubin. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Eugene Robinson, for joining us.
Up next: the Pentagon reports that allowing gays to serve openly in the military wouldn't cause any long-term problems. What a report. So, if the Pentagon has no objection to ditching "don't ask, don't tell," why do people like John McCain and others in Republican Party oppose any change in the law?
This is HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: That doomsday scenario for Democrats at least in which New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg runs for president as an independent may not be as bad as some of the left fear. In a three-way race between Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Bloomberg, a new PPP poll shows Obama winning with 44 percent, with Romney 30 and Bloomberg way down at 11.
The poll also finds that voters don't really like Bloomberg. Only 19 percent say they have a favorable opinion of him, but he has enough money to change how he's perceived. At least that's what some people think. I like the guy.
HARDBALL will be right back.
MATTHEWS: We're back. Today, the Pentagon released its long awaited report on the effects of repealing the military's ban on open service by gays and lesbians.
Here are some of the results from their survey of active duty military reservists and spouses. Sixty-nine percent said they have worked with a service member whom they believe to be gay. Ninety-two percent said they had either good or neutral feelings about co-workers they have served with whom they believe to be gay. That's a big number. And 70 percent said a repeal would have either a positive, mixed, or no effect on their ability to work together and get the job done.
Hear Defense Secretary Robert Gates and joint chairman—chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, today. Let's listen.
ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: The findings suggest that for large segments of the military, repeal of "don't ask don't tell," though potentially disruptive in the short-term, would not be the wrenching, traumatic change that many have feared and predicted. I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation and send it to the president for signature before the end of this year.
ADM. MIKE MULLEN, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: I fully endorse their report, its findings and the implementation plan recommended by the working group. The working group has given a tall order, indeed, nothing less than producing the first truly comprehensive assessment of not only the impact of repeal of the law governing "don't ask, don't tell," but also about how best to implement a new policy across the joint force.
MATTHEWS: Well, Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the report's authors head to the Senate Thursday and Friday to testify to the armed services committee about their findings. The top Republican on that committee is Senator John McCain, the most vocal critic, I must say, of repealing "don't ask, don't tell."
We have joining us right now: R. Clarke Cooper is the executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans. And Aubrey Sarvis is executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
Aubrey, you first. Congratulations. I know this has been a cause of you—cause for you as all those years of your service justifies. What did you find in the report that was good news? What disturbed you, if anything?
AUBREY SARVIS, SERVICEMEMBERS LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK: This was a remarkable day, Chris. Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen both called for repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and this report. Not only did they recommend that the Senate act in the lame duck session, they also said the Pentagon was ready to get on with the job. So, I think it's remarkable.
It's also ironic that 17 years ago, President Clinton signed into law "don't ask, don't tell," and today, we heard from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs urging the Senate to act in the next few weeks to repeal this law.
MATTHEWS: Well, we're a representative democracy, Clarke, and the question is: are we going to begin to see representation of our democracy? We've got some Republican senators up on the Hill, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Are those people going to join and represent the public opinion on this and the opinion as voiced today by that report from the military itself?
R. CLARKE COOPER, LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS: Chris, I'm not going to speak on behalf of any of those senators, but I will say that this report does give air—gives lift to Republican senators who had called for this study and who are deliberative in the process. And there are a number of senators out there on the Republican side of the aisle who are going to be happy to have this report in their hands, having the necessary oversight hearings at the Senate Armed Services Committee will engender them or enable them to be able to vote for repeal in this Congress and on the defense bill this year.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your party. I don't think your orientation was a choice but your choice of political party is real. You are a Republican, right, Clarke?
COOPER: That's correct.
MATTHEWS: When you go to the Republican convention and they put together one of these platforms again, against—whatever their latest anti-gay move is, what do you feel about that?
And what do you feel about the fact that the entire Republican Party right now is recalcitrant—they're not willing to represent public opinion or military opinion on this matter? They're not willing to do what the public wants them to do. What's your feeling about that?
COOPER: Well, for starters, Chris, that's a broad brush about the entire party. And but I'll go back to your question about—
MATTHEWS: Well, the platform. No, no, it's not a broad brush, it is what the party speaks.
COOPER: Let's talk about the platform or the manifesto or whatever it's called, each party has one of those, in our country and other countries as well.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
COOPER: That is something that's to be addressed. And, obviously, one of our jobs within Log Cabin Republicans, as an auxiliary of the party, is to be that reminder that we are a party for everyone. We are a party of inclusion and that inclusion wins. And to focus on individual liberty, individual responsibility—those conservative pillars, those conservative bookends.
And so, yes, we've got a huge mantle on our how shoulders and a lot of work within the party. But I will say this—let's look at this election cycle in 2010 and we're reminding our fellow Republicans a reason, the big reason why a number of Republicans won either as challengers or came back and return on Congress is because they ran on the economy. They ran on jobs. They did not run on social issues. Running on social issues is a losing proposition.
SARVIS: Chris—
MATTHEWS: OK. Let's take a look at John McCain. I want Aubrey to respond to John McCain, because he's hot—I want you to talk about this magnate (ph) here. Here's John McCain back in October 2006 on the HARDBALL college tour in Iowa. And here's when I begin to suspect about the Republicans.
Let's listen to John McCain back then.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN ®, ARIZONA: And I understand the opposition to it and I've had these debates and discussions, but the day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, "Senator, we ought to change the policy, then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to.
MATTHEWS: Well, there he is saying it, Aubrey, that he is for changing it, if the military wants it changed. Certainly, that's—what's he up to now?
SARVIS: Well, he did say that. But, unfortunately, he has changed his mind yet again. In fact, the secretary of defense, the commander in chief, the chairman of joint chiefs, have recommended repeal to Senator McCain and he keeps moving the goalpost.
The reality is: he did not like today. This was a bad day for Senator McCain.
MATTHEWS: Right.
SARVIS: This report called for repeal. Senator McCain's response is to ask for another report, a different report. He's told them to go back to the drawing boards and come up with the answer I want. And I don't believe they are going to do that.
MATTHEWS: Clarke, I want to ask you as a Republican, has John McCain, Republican, lost touch with his own military ranks? He served with great distinction. He suffered for our country as a POW, but does he know the military today?
COOPER: I have actually traveled with Senator McCain in several capacities during the Bush administration. So, I have to give him credit for being very deliberate and very convictive about reaching out to service members. So, I'm not going to question that.
I will call upon Senator McCain, as a fellow combat veteran, as a fellow Republican, to change his mind again, to actually read the study and not predetermine. I mean, he, himself, said let's not predetermine, let's not circumvent the Department of Defense study process. Let General Carter Hamm and Mr. Johnson do their job.
Well, they have done their job. The seal on the Department of Defense is on this report. It's ready for review. It's ready for consumption.
And I would call upon Senator McCain, as well as other Republicans, to support the study as—and also vote for the amendment in the defense bill.
SARVIS: Chris, the reality is—
MATTHEWS: Well, I wish you both well and congrats—I have to go now. Go ahead, Aubrey, we have to go right now. Thank you so much, Aubrey, congratulations. I know this has been a passion of yours as service guy and former officer. I'm with you on this. I'm so glad you had a good day. And I guess I'm glad that John McCain had a bad day on this one anyway.
SARVIS: Well, thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Well, thank you, Clarke Cooper, as always with the—I like the Log Cabin guys. I love speaking to you guys over the years.
When we return: let me finish with a couple of truths that people dare not speak. Not everybody tells the truth in politics. These are about illegal immigration and the national debt.
You are watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with two truths that dare not be spoken in this country. They are true, all right—they simply dare not be confessed.
One, we are never going to send all those illegal immigrants home. "Send them home" is a great applause line on the right. It's a dynamite, though somewhat creepy 30-second TV ad. But it's got nothing do to do with the reality. The American people will simply not stand for the government going around and looking for people, some here for decades and throw them out of the country.
Two, the debt problem in this country is severe, monstrous and it's not going away. We can get rid of all the earmarks, all the waste, fraud and abuse, and we should. We can, quote, "trim the fat" and dump a bunch of unnecessary agencies and functions of government. But none of this, not all of this will solve the problem.
The problem—and it could endanger this country the way debt has up ended Greece and Ireland and could have been Portugal and Italy—is that we have made commitments that the taxpayer will not meet. Nobody I know will support a third of the economy going to the federal government. The only way to deal with the debt is to deal with the obligations that have been made and down the road cannot be met.
So, let's get serious about illegal immigration, about the debt.
Let's stop saying what isn't going to happen and focus on what needs to. We deserved a fair, workable immigration policy and we need to get this debt under control before we join the countries who can't.
That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us.
Right now, it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.> PASTE THE TRANSCRIPT HERE
Copyright 2010 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>


text:
One last thought about holiday presents and New Year's resolutions. Sometimes they go hand in hand, but occasionally, they're out of sync. During the past few months, "resolutioners" have flooded my club wearing their holiday gifts, intent on achieving their New Year's goal of better health.
For example, Laura* is a woman in her late 40s who spends plenty of time on the elliptical. Unfortunately, she hasn't dropped a pound — despite working out for half-hour stretches in stylish velour sweats worn by Hollywood stars 20 years her junior. Maybe the sweats don't inherently help get the body she is trying for, or maybe she needs to turn up the incline and hang up her new cell phone instead of chatting on it during her workout.
Sven*, a man in his early 20s, works out wearing a brand new blue suede power lifting belt around his waist. It is fitted for someone about to squat, deadlift and bench with an eye toward the World's Strongest Man title. Unfortunately, Sven's 14-inch arms struggle to curl 20-pound dumbbells. Luckily, his back is safe with the belt cinched as tight as it can be.
The main goal for Pete*, another new member, is to lose weight from his 300-pound, 5 — foot-10-inch frame. Unfortunately, the performance clothing he wears will fit better once he drops the weight. Perhaps part of the problem is the hour it must take to squeeze into his skin-tight tops. His intentions are good; his timing is just a bit off. This type of athletic wear made popular by the likes of Ray Lewis and other elite athletes loses something in the translation to regular guys like Pete.
Perhaps my favorite newbie is Fred*. Fred visits the gym regularly and has dropped a little bit of weight. However, if you looked at Fred, you'd think he was training for a marathon. Fred comes to the gym dressed in his business suit, and much like Superman, disappears into the locker room and emerges as his alter ego — GearMan**. Complete with a heart rate monitor, headband, wristbands, water bottle belt, an iPod strapped tightly to his arm and still way-too-white $150 running shoes, GearMan turns up the speed and incline on the treadmill, sings along with his iPod (who knew anyone had Hall & Oates on their iPod?) and turns different shades of red as he tries to keep up with the belt for his 20-minute workout. Then as quickly as he came, he turns back into mild-mannered Fred and grabs a shake on his way back to work.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am happy that each of these people is trying to get healthy. I hope they all achieve their goals and are members for years. However, they would have been better set for success if they had gotten some books on fitness and exercise — or better yet, a 10-pack of personal training sessions — rather than the unnecessary sweats, belts, apparel and gear. At least until they actually need them.
*Names not changed to protect the innocent. I actually don't know their names as I have my iPod (Metallica, not Hall & Oates) turned up and haven't really bothered meeting people in the club in the two-plus years I've worked out there.
**GearMan is not a real superhero. Please don't wait for him to save you from your local villain.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Maker Shed
DIY Kits, Tools, Books, Parts, and More
Think of the coolest 1) technology bookstore, 2) museum gift shop, 3) arts & craft shop, and 4) electronics store you can dream up -- now roll them all into one. That's the idea behind Maker Shed. It's an irresistible collection of books, kits, robots, microcontrollers, science sets, electronics, tools and supplies, all curated by us, the people behind MAKE and Maker Faire.


text:
I've just finished my 2nd year of music composition at university and am looking to expand my portfolio, I have always wanted to write for a fantasy RPG and I'm really impressed with some of the work i've seen coming from sandbox!
If anyone is interested PM me with some information such as; how far along the project is, expected deadlines, story line ect ect. . .
Here's a link to my website:
On the music page my oldest tracks are at the top and latest are at the bottom!
Thanks a lot,
Hope to hear from some of you soon!
Music Composition
Section for submitting new content to Sandbox, such as maps, code, etc.
Kids are also more than welcome to submit their work with parental permission!
Kids are also more than welcome to submit their work with parental permission!
1 post • Page 1 of 1
- Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: June 13th, 2012, 5:05 pm
- Name: Daniel
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Return to "Donate Content To Sandbox And The Community"
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
Grandpa was Noah's safe haven today. When he got scared he would grab grandpa's hand.
Noah stole Maddie's sucker and is playing peek a boo with grandpa
Please don't hug me
Proof that Maddie put her shoes all by herself - they are on the wrong feet.
My three cuties. Grandpa is making funny faces to try to get some smiles.
Noah loved to sit and pretend drive the tractors. He wanted to ride all of them.
Katelyn tried to pet the cow and it lifted up his head and pinned her arm between the fence. ** Followup ** Katelyn and the Cow are both fine now.
Ducks are Noah's favorite, he can even say quack, quack. Today he was a little hesitant to get close to them. He was either right by Grandpa or watching from afar.


text:
Mathys is a high-quality paint manufacturer that develops modern, efficient solutions for the protection, renovation and decoration of exterior walls and façade coverings, interior walls and ceilings, floors, roofs, terraces and balconies, wood and metal.
Headquarters: Flanders, Belgium Phone: +32 (0)13-460-200 Website: www.mathyspaints.eu
This website uses cookies and other tracking technologies (also known as pixels or beacons) to aid your experience (such as viewing videos), as well as "performance cookies" to analyze your use of this website and to assist with marketing efforts. If you click the "Accept All Cookies" button or continue navigating the website, you agree to having those first and third-party cookies set on your device. If you do not wish to accept cookies from this website, you can choose to not allow cookies from this website by updating your browser preferences. For more information on how we use Cookies, please read our Privacy Policy.


text:
Career Management Associates (CMA) is committed to individual and organizational client satisfaction. We provide a professional portfolio of HR services that draw on our 20+ years of experience in Northern New England. Our focus is on customizing the highest quality services to fit each client's organizational needs. We strive to exceed expectations and solicit regular client feedback to ensure open and productive communication.
Please click on each link below for detailed information about the HR services CMA offers:
465 Congress St, Ste 600
Portland, ME 04101
264 South River Rd, Ste 546
Bedford, NH 03110
Kevin M. Healey
Kennebec Savings Bank has used many services provided by CMA. Executive recruitment, career counseling for employees, AAP support and Human Resources consultation. I am pleased with the quality of their work and I don't hesitate to recommend their services to other HR professionals. CMA is Maine's "home Town" team when it comes to providing professional HR services.
David Pease
CMA is my go to HR advisor when we need extra hands, eyes or minds to work on an employment related situation or project. I work with CMA in a highly collaborative partnership – we look at our organization's vision and strategic plan, create a plan that is aligned and customized. I trust the team and am very satisfied with the work and results!
Allison Briggs
CMA is a fabulous trainer: knowledgeable, energetic, and practical! They delivered communication skills training to 30 of our hotel department managers, and the feedback we received was terrific. We certainly will request them back again.


text:
Happy Summer: Free Download "Flip Flops"
What do you want to see more of?
Well, after a well deserved vacation, I am back at the desk brainstorming a bit what to offer my readers. There is so much around my desk right now to write about, and those items will becoming.
However, I wanted to take a moment and check with you. What? You may say... Well, there so many blogs and websites out there that you can visit, but why do you read mine? I can't even describe in words how humbled I am for your readership. It is truly amazing at the amount of readers I have support from all over the world. I would've never thought my tiny e-mail list and small website back in 1994 would still be in existence today. Not much your support, but the support of country music as a whole through the publicists, record label representatives, and even the specific artists themselves.
To be sure I continue to provide you with what will keep you coming back and enjoying what I have to share with you, I am asking you to take just a moment and let me hear from you all that read this blog or visit the website to e-mail me what you want to see here. What interests you in the world of country music. To sum the question up, what do you want to see more of? E-mail me anytime, but specifically, right now to share your thoughts. I can't promise you will immediately see it, but then again, its very possible as well.
Every since the first line I have ever typed about country music, I have never forgotten my readers and enjoy so much communicating with them. I believe at the inner most core of country music artist's reason for performing is the connection with the fans. That is exactly what makes country music so very special. I too take that value of connecting with my readers (fans) in the dear spirit of country music, that I have such a immense passion of sharing with everyone I can.
I look forward to hearing from you all and I thank you dearly for your support in the blog and website.
Now that I'm back from vacation, I am back to writing like I want to. I feel it in my bones you will be hearing a lot on this blog in the upcoming days. Stay tuned.
Top 10 Airplay Country Music Artists in 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Country Aircheck has published the list of the 10 most played artists on radio through the first 6 months of 2008. Trust me, no breaking news here on the list:
- Kenny Chesney
- Carrie Underwood
- Taylor Swift
- Brad Paisley
- Rascal Flatts
- George Strait
- Alan Jackson
- Montgomery Gentry
- Rodney Atkins
- Gary Allan
See what I mean. Nothing shocking, but yet interesting. This list always shows alot about country music's current trend and status. Lets dig into this real deep and get my prospective on it.
First and foremost, I have to ask myself, is what country radio playing truly what the listeners of country radio really want to hear? Playlists for radio stations these days are all pre-loaded usually the day before. The "request" lines are there basically to track trends and do setup the next days lists and such, at best. The listener's input I don't believe has too much of an impact on what we hear on the radio. For the sake of argument, if it does, radio still controls what you are introduced to, leading to what you would request. I believe the answer to the question is split probably close to 50/50. Half the listeners do enjoy the programming of country radio these days, because it is was they have become acustom to and actually enjoy the pop-country sound that fills the radio airwaves these days. The proof is above. Spot 1,2,3, and 5 all are lesser traditional artists that perform more of a pop-country. The other half of the listners may enjoy some of what they are hearing, however, want to hear more contemporary traditional artists, hear new songs, hear different styles of country, even some classics mixed in...there soo many artists and songs out there that are just dying to be heard and have extreme talent. Boy, I wish I had the money to open up a radio station. (I'll save that for another entry)
Taylor Swift has 1 album. She is 3rd on the list. Can you imagine how many times her singles are being played over and over. Wow.
Speaking of Taylor Swift, Carrie Underwood is the only other female in the top 10.
George Strait and Alan Jackson both really never fall off this list. Why? Well, one that have massive catalogs, always are in demand, and maybe most importantly, they are country. They are traditional, and have talent. These artists, along with Brad Paisley have that magic, that talent it takes to be a true talented country star. I'm not saying 8,9,10 don't have it, because they do, but 4,6,7 are in a just slightly higher category.
Will the end of the year chart look any different? That's waht is sad, no, it will be the same artists, and probably real close to the same order... thats something that is sad about radio in general. Again, I wish Icould open my own station, thats for sure.
"Two Men With The Blues" Willie Nelson and Wynton Marsalis
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Nashville Star Thoughts, Episode 5
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Wow, well, what an episode of Nashville Star. One thing I really got out of this episode is how much improvement the artists showed this week, comparing to the beginning.
Boy, Pearl Heart was eliminated. I don't agree with that one, however their performance on the show wasn't as good as it was made to be by the judges. I just didn't think it was very good, however, they were right in commenting on their work ethic and I ill add their sound is incredible. I will miss them on the show for sure. I still have to wonder if there was some mix-up in numbers fans were dialing or something. I can't really see that though since the duo is Laura & Sophie and Pearl Heart has a band name for the 3some. Oh well, there is more to talk about.
Coffey I think sealed up his future on the show. It was over the top to try to compete with Gabe Garcia (more on him in a minute.) I still don't feel like he is country to me, and I don't know, just something there I'm not connecting with.
Laura & Sophie tonight showed their attitudes on the show and it probably has really hurt them. I agree with the judges that they just are at the point in their lives to be able to handle winning.
Shawn Mayer and Ashlee Hewitt I don't really think about too much really. There isn't nothing standing out about them that really make me think of them after the show is over. Decent performers, but there isn't any real connection or difference in them that makes them stand out above the others.
Gabe Garcia had an amazing performance. He will head to the final 2 performers, with Melissa Lawson. Gabe really stepped up and his performance just plain looked excellent on camera. Wow, we really have a talent there.
Melissa Lawson again had a great performance. Really enjoying her vocals and talents more and more. One thing I did hear that I really liked about her was in the little bio piece before the performance is that she mentioned working out preparing for performing nightly and such. That not only is a good idea, but, it shows me her thought process. She is confident, real, and is ready for whatever comes ahead of her.
Now, between the two. Its going to come down to something very simple who will win. 2 things. Connection to the TV audience and continued advancement in talent. Which ever connects best and show most improvement from this week to next week will win it all.
Keep watching, I sure am.
Country Music Alive Updates!
Here is a re-publishing of the email update e-mail that was sent to members of the e-mail list for website updates. You can get these sent directly to your email by joining on the website.
Good Day Everyone!
I know its been awhile since I have sent out any updates, however, I had a lot going on in the past few months. However, I am back doing regular updates and especially just about daily posts on the blog. There is a lot of good stuff over there, I hope you subscribe to the feed from there as well.
The New release schedule was updated about a month ago, so it will be updated again probably this week. I don't know any other place on the web to get all the release dates in one place. I try to offer every major label's release date list and as many independents as I can. There is also links available to directly pre-order the albums, or download the albums after their release from Amazon.com. You will be notified as soon as the list is updated.
The CMA Close-Up section has been up-to-date, until today's article is released and I will try to get it up on the site tomorrow. There a lot of great articles, including a great article on Alan Jackson and Jewel.
There have been quiet a few new reviews posted on the website as well, in fact I am all caught up except for about 4 that I will be working on very soon. Albums from Ricky Skaggs, The Road Hammers, Kalleigh Bannen, and James Otto are now posted and are apart of the 87 reviews available.
On t he front page, if you have not checked out the Carter's Chord video, please do. Their new single is featured right up top including links to buy the digital album and hear more clips. I think you will really enjoy them, so take a listen. More about them will be featured soon on the blog and then a feature concert review to be coming in mid-August.
If there is anything you would like to see on the website, please let me know! I will be glad to look into it for everyone to enjoy.
Hope you will visit the website very soon and check things out! Remember, your support of Country Music Alive is so appreciated. You support the website by getting the updates, subscribe to the blog, telling friends to visit the site and blog, and using the links provided to do your shopping at Amazon.com, CMT's store, I-Tunes, Time Life, and more.
As Always, Keeping Country Music Alive!
Kirk Fitzgerald
Zona Jones Signed to Rocky Comfort Records
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Wednesday it was announced that Zona Jones has been signed to Rocky Comfort Records. Your first thought may be is "who??" My first thought was "wow"!
Its been a few years since I have heard anything from Zona Jones, however, his review is still in my databse on the website of his album called "Harley's & Horses"
that was released in February 2004. Re-reading the review, I still remember the album, and will be pulling out of the CD case today. It is absolutely amazing, and believe me, I can not wait to start hearing more from Zona Jones. His new single is due out later this month from Tracy Lawrence's independent label Rocky Comfort Records.
When the single is out, I will be sure to keep you updated, until then, get excited like I am and checkout the links below"
Direct Link To My Review back a few years ago:
Listen to Zona Jones on his Myspace:
Zona Jones Website: (Coming Soon, but limited information on front page)
Kenny Chesney on XM "No Shoes Radio"
Saturday, July 05, 2008
George Strait just finished up 2 months of having his own dedicated XM channel, Led Zeppelin had 6 months of their own channel, as well as Michael Jackson for a month...and just announced, another artist gets his own channel. From July 26 through October 25 XM Channel 18 will be "No Shoes Radio." The channel will be available online for an additional 3 months after.
The channel is being described as not only playing his tracks from all his albums, but also specially recorded material such as live tracks and special performance recordings featuring special guests as well.
Alrighty, is it just me or is this a little crazy? I understand and respect Kenny Chesney being one of the most successful country music artists of the current and is very talented. He also is a master of the live show. However, he only has 10 studio albums, a Christmas album, and a greatest hits album, and a live album.
So, I did the math. Using his 10 studio albums, that even have repeat songs and different versions of the same song on them included in his catalog, there is a total running time of 7 hours and 3 minutes. Add in the new material from the greatest hits album at 15 minutes, 43 minutes from the Christmas album, 1 hour 5 minutes from the live album and we are at 9 hours and 6 minutes to play his entire recorded released catalog.
George Strait has 24 albums, 2 live albums, and 3 Christmas albums. Big Difference in Chesney's 10, 1, and 1. Strait ran for 2 months. This new channel is scheduled for 3 months. Gracious, listeners are in for a lot of repeated songs. I know, most people anyway, won't be listening to this channel alone, but some will. Even the casual listener like most of us will be, I have a feeling will get a bit tired of it.
I must say one thing though, again, this one of the amazing power of satellite radio. If you want to hear Chesney 24-7 for 3 months, you can. However, there are 78other music 24-7 music channels alone on XM. That's not counting the rest of the channels for news, comedy, sports, talk radio, and other entertainment.
If you aren't an XM subscriber, I hope you will take a moment and think about it. It will change your listening habits forever. Once you get it, you will not want to let it go, ever. If you want more information, just send me an email.
The bottom line, enjoy the upcoming channel and Kenny Chesney fans get ready, Channel 18 is on its way beginning July 26, 2008.
Brad Paisley "Waitin' On A Woman" with Andy Griffith
Friday, July 04, 2008
Country music, it doesn't get any more American than that. Another great icon of Americana, Andy Griffith, makes an appearance in Brad Paisley's new video for "Waitin' On A Woman."
Now, I don't watch too many videos, but when I got notice that Andy Griffith would be featured in the video, I had to give it a wath. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
I hope that you have a wonderful 4th of July, and remember, be safe and bring the country music along with you.
Patriotic Country Music For July 4th
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Looking around this afternoon, I found that AOL has released a list of the Top 10 Patriotic Country Songs (click above to play them.) The list is amazingly pretty well put together.
Sometimes overlooked, "Arlington" by Trace Adkins makes the list. What incredibly powerful song. I was so glad to see it on their list, as well as Billy Ray Cyrus' "Some Gave All," one of the best songs he ever recorded, and again, gets looked over at times.
Now, Johnny Cash's "Ragged Old Flag" makes the list at #9. Come on, this classic deserves a higher rating without a doubt. The well overplayed "God Bless the USA" makes the list at #1, a great patriotic song deserving of the top spot, however, how many times can we really play this song. Goodness.
Take a read at the link below, and get your MP3 player ready for July 4th by listening to the clips and download the songs of the full list above.
Also, if you rather pick-up a CD, there is a new Patriotic Country CD out from that group of albums. This is the 3rd in the set. A portion of the proceeds from album sales go to Our Military Kids. 17 tracks include songs like Kenny Chesney's "A Lot of Things Different," "If I Don't Make It Back by Tracy Lawrence, "The Last of A Dying Breed" by Neal McCoy, and more. This one can be found in stores and online along with the other 2 from the series of releases. Patriotic Country 1 & 2 are available for download.
Kelleigh Bannen "Radio Skies"
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
boundaries of genre and style that govern how many people consider music.
But then there are those for whom boundaries and genre lines are just
something to be torn up and erased in the pursuit of music that penetrates
deeper. Kelleigh Bannen is such an artist, and on her debut album, "Radio
Skies," she reveals a depth and soulfulness that borders on astonishing,
singing songs that transcend the narrow constraints of modern country to
connect with an audience that wants something beyond the cookie cutter."
Nashville Star Thoughts
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
I have been watching this season of Nashville Star pretty closely. The contestants/performers this year so far really have impressed me, overall. There is some chance that a few of them could end up with a record deal, especially on a independent label.
I do have 2 complaints about it.
1)Why so many non-country songs being performed as country songs? Come on, if this is a country artist competition, they should be singing country songs. Now one week's theme would be perfect for doing non-country songs as a bit of a challenge, but not every episode these non-country songs are performed. Last night's show was a lot better with this as well, but still the pop songs did make its way in.
2) I don't feel the personal connection to this group like I have to previous Nashville Star series. Last night helped with that a little bit, with their families on the show. However, we need more about their lives and personal tidbits that allow us to learn more about them other than they can sing throughout the series. Country music artists do more than record records and perform. They have to connect with their fans on a personal level. Country fans are a bit different than fans of other styles of music.
I must say my 2 complaints seemed to be really worked on last night, hopefully next week's show we will see even more improvement.
What I'm loving is seeing John Rich. I'm not a huge fan of Big & Rich, but I do love Rich. He is such a talent. In songwriting, studio work, and understanding country music. He is one of the industry leaders these days. It is nice to see this series on NBC, getting network exposure, rather than cable. I also really like the look into how they got ready for the week. It seems to show how hard this group of people are working on their materials.
The contestant choices for this series I really like as well, though don't know too much about them, other than their performances. What a great group overall, not sure if it is the strongest series, but really enjoyable performers.
At this point we have 8 left: Ashlee, Coffey, Gabe, Laura & Sophie, Melissa, Pearl Heart, Shawn, and Tommy.
Let me predict the final 4. Ashlee, Gabe, Melissa, Pearl Heart.
Then, 3: Gabe, Melissa, Pearl Heart.
Then 2: Melissa, Pearl Heart
Then 1: Pearl Heart


text:
Most enterprises are all-in on mobile these days, and Taptera is creating a suite of useable (and in its words, "beautiful") applications for employees, ranging from productivity tools to conference room schedulers to tools offering customer interaction capabilities.
Taptera will ship seven such applications this year (many are already available) and has 30 on the docket for the short term.
You can hear more from Taptera in the elevator pitch session video embedded below. Taptera CEO and co-founder Chris O'Connor also showcased an app called Sophia, which brings Apple Siri-like functionality to CRM.
Taptera's elevator pitch was part of our October 24 Valley View live Web show.
You can watch more of these by tuning into our November 28 Valley View, which begins at 11 a.m., PT.


text:
This entry was posted
on Sunday, February 14th, 2010 at 1:21 pm and is filed under Cat Pictures.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You must be logged in to post a comment.


text:
After the Fear
You have not attended a Demonstration this month.
by Rosanne Rivers
In Sola's city, everyone obeys the rules. Stay away from the trigger cameras and regularly update your Debtbook, and you just might survive. But having to watch the way criminals are dealt with—murdered by Demonstrators in the Stadium—is a law Sola tries to avoid. When a charming Demonstrator kisses her at a party, however, she's thrust into the Stadium and forced into the very role she despises.
Armed with only natural resourcefulness and a caring nature, Sola narrowly survives her first bout. Her small success means she's whisked off to a training camp, where she discovers a world beyond the trigger cameras and monitoring—a world where falling in love with a killer doesn't seem so terrible.
Yet life as a Demonstrator has no peace. Sola must train her way through twenty-five more Demonstrations before she can return home to her father. At the end of each battle, only one survivor remains.
Sola could face anyone in the Stadium . . . even a loved one.


text:
U.S Documentary Constitution USA EP01 A More Perfect Union
In A More Perfect Union, Peter Sagal explores the Constitution's most striking and innovative feature: its resilient brand of federalism. The framers created a strong national government while at the same time preserving much of the power and independence of the states. This delicate balance of power, seemingly hard-wired for disagreement and conflict, has served America well for more than two centuries. Let's take a closer look at how it has also led to tensions throughout American history and still sparks controversy today over medical marijuana, gun control, and Obamacare.


text:
Sorry, i searched in the forum, but i didn't find anything. So I ask just right here:
My question to ReD was how he made these firs/confiers in his map Coyote Bluff.
He gave me the answer to search for how to install .ase models and that they are included already, and i should search here, but i didn't find anthing.
Maybe anything can explain it to me?
I don't want to ask Donut again, had to ask him too much till now


text:
Congress, The Legislative Branch of The United States of America was, as 'the people's house', intended to be the most powerful of the three branches of government created by The Constitution… a 'first among equals', as it were. Of the 4,543 words of The Constitution, the 2,312 words of Article I constitute just over half of the total (50.89%). Unlike Article II (The Executive Branch) and Article III (The Judicial Brach), Article I deals very much with the actual workings, duties, powers and authorities of Congress. A primary reason for this, I assume, is that the founders had a long history of experience with operating a working, functioning Congress or Legislature. They also had more trust of a strong legislative branch than they did of a strong executive branch.
The first representative legislative body established in the American Colonies, in fact, in ANY of the British Colonies, was Virginia's House of Burgesses, which was created in 1619… 170 years before the creation of Congress under The Constitution. Before and during the Revolutionary Period, ALL of the American Colonies had functioning state legislatures and, at the national-level, the first Continental Congress had been called in 1765. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress ran the nation with a VERY weak Executive, who was appointed by Congress itself to preside over 'A Committee of The States'. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention well understood what a legislative branch could do, although, prior to The Constitution, members of Congress for any state were appointed by the legislatures of that state. As such, apportionment by census and direct elections of the members of The House of Representatives was their great experiment with a representative legislature. Members of The Senate, of course, continued to be appointed by each state's own legislature until the passage of Amendment XVII, which was ratified in 1913 (although some states had been providing for the direct election of their Senators by the people of those states as early as 1907).
It was never the intention of the founders to create a permanently ruling political class. They envisioned men, who would, for a short period of time, leave their private lives, take up the burden of public service for the good of the nation and then go back to their private lives. This idea was only one of many visions of theirs that did not survive our national transition from our 'first generation' to our 'second generation' [see 'Part I' of this article for an explanation of my theory of the first and second generational effects]. Many Americans have the mistaken belief that the founders created a two-party system. This is patently false, but still many of our children are taught it. The founders tried to create a NO-party system, with the idea that individual members of Congress would band together is short-lived coalitions for each separate issue that came before them. This is another idea which not only did not survive our nation's first generation; it did not survive the Washington administration. This is probably the biggest reason that party politics dominates our government, because The Constitution did not provide any guidelines for or controls / limitations upon them.
Several of my suggested changes will be attempts show how I think that we can restore the founders' original concept of public service to our government, and show a way to end or, at least, make it more difficult for the continuation of our professional and permanently ruling political class. These suggestions will be made to try to minimize the amount of time elected officials have to spend in their continuous cycle of staying elected, to maximize their learning curve and effectiveness in office, and to reduce their susceptibility to the corrupting effects of long-term office holding. They will also have a goal of wanting to breaking the stranglehold which the two major parties have on our government, at all levels, as well as minimizing the power and effect which those at the extreme ends of any political spectrum have on our government. This is crucial if we are to return our government to a rational level of moderation.
As a general change for ALL elected offices, no one would be allowed to campaign for one office while they are holding another. If people think that such an allowance is necessary, they could be allowed to run for as MANY offices at one time as they want, but they have to be campaigning on their own time (they, of course, could only accept election to one office if they should win more than one election at the same time… if they do win more than one, though, maybe they should have to pay for any special elections which they necessitate by winning an office they have intention of serving in). Since all elected officials are elected to serve their constituents by doing a specific job, and not to spend their time on that job trying to keep their current job or trying to get a new one at our expense, once a public office holder is officially a candidate for any national office (the point at which they start raising funds or operating a campaign), they will be REQUIRED to immediately resign any elected office, at ANY level, that they might hold at that time. This would also help keep the lengths of campaigns down to more reasonable amounts of time as elected officials would be less likely to give up an office in their hand too long before they run for the office in the bush that they want to seek.
Section 2 of Article I lays the groundwork for the composition of The House of Representatives. Paragraph 1 of Section 2 sets the term of office for members of the House of Representatives at 2 years. I would change this to 6 year terms, with one third of The House being elected every three years and a one term limit. This would allow an on-going House with regular turnover and without the turmoil of having to elect ever member of The House and recreating itself every election cycle. Former Representatives could be elected to additional terms by the people of any particular state that they have served when they have been out of The House for the length of a full term between each term.
Paragraph 2 sets the minimum age for eligibility for election as a Representative at 25. I would lower this to 20, although with the requirement that being a Representative is a full time job (i.e. – if someone is a student and is elected, they would have to leave their studies for the duration of their term of office). We allow citizens to vote at age 18, we let them serve in our military, we require them to pay taxes (which they have to do at ANY age when they earn any money), etc., there is no reason that citizens of that age should not be allowed to elect Representatives of their own age range if they are able to.
Paragraph 3 of Section 2 deals with apportionment of Representatives among the various states. As we have seen all too frequently, the abilities of modern computing to pinpoint every voter has given the supposedly forbidden practice of gerrymandering an even more frightening and insidious power than it has had in a long time. That same computing power can allow us to create congressional districts that are of the most compact size and even shape as possible without ANY regard to the politics, or any other discriminating factor, of the citizens of any particular district. Every state has corners and edges. All that would have to be done is to program the same computers to start at each corner and create evenly shaped and compact districts as they work in towards the middle of each state. Alternatively, the first district could start in the middle of a state and work outward. This would still allow for differing proposals, depending on starting points and merging points, but the test would still be which proposal presents the most precise and evenly shaped districts possible. Basically, if districts can be created within a smaller or more compact area of a state, you go for the most compact districts possible. This would not only prevent the parties from manipulating districts in the way that is most advantageous to them, it will prevent them from creating both 'safe' districts (which protect members of either party), and 'reservation' districts (which isolate and limit ethnic voting power overall to specific limited areas).
Paragraph 3 also provides for the total number of Representatives the House. Its original provision of "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;" has been modified by legislation passed in 1911, which capped the total number of Representatives in The House at 435. 'One man, one vote' was NEVER an intention of the founders (as seen by their plan of equal apportionment of Senators, the guarantee of at least one Representative from each state, and the fact that Congressional districts must be fully contained within their home state) because it was never their desire to allow high population areas to dominate the government at the expense of the rural areas by the simple fact of having more people. However, it was also not their intention to let rural areas have excessive power by limiting the numbers of Representatives to be divided among the more populous states. As was seen when Alaska and Hawaii entered the union (the total number of members in Congress was temporarily increased by one for each state UNTIL the next apportionment, at which time it was returned to the 435 Representatives level), the current total is seen as a hard and fast one which is not increased by the admission of additional states. As a result, with each shift in population and a theoretical continuous expansion of the numbers of states in the Union, the single Representative for the states with the smallest population increase in their own proportional power within Congress. To counter this, I would propose that the total number of Representatives be equal to ten times the total number of states. This would mean that every time a new state is admitted, ten Representatives will be added to the total number of Representatives in The House. Right now, that would result in a total of 500 Representatives, with 50 being taken by guaranteed representation for each state and the other 450 apportioned according to state population sizes.
Paragraph 4 deals with vacancies within The House while Paragraph 5 creates the office of Speaker and allows for The House to create and choose its other officers. The only change I would make here is that ANY officer of The House (or The Senate) has a responsibility to the nation, as a whole, as well as to their own district's constituency. As such, ALL officers of The House or The Senate, from any party, must equally accept feedback, requests, petitions, etc. from anyone within the nation as they do from anyone within their district.
Section 3 of Article I deals with The Senate. Paragraph 1 sets the length of term for a Senator at six years. As with the House, I would increase the lengths of their terms of office to twelve years, with a limit of one term and the passage of a length of time equal to one full term before they can be eligible to run again within their state. For those of my readers who have caught some of my specific wordings, by the way, these limits would only apply to a candidate in a single particular state if they want to run again in that state. If someone thinks that they can just pack up and move to another state to get elected again, they would be welcome to try it. I would love to see the spectacle of hordes of former Congressmen moving constantly between states while trying to convince the voters of their 'new' home states that they are not carpetbaggers who are only looking out for themselves rather than for the citizens that they purport to serve.
Paragraph I also sets the numbers of Senators from each state at two. I would increase this to three for each state so that every state will have an election turnover of one Senator for every equal third of a term (i.e. – every four years), which is what is dealt with in Paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 sets the minimum age of a Senator at 35. As with The House, I would lower this age by five years to 25 in order to increase the chances for better representation of the younger population of the nation.
Paragraph 4 of Section 3 deals with the role of The Vice President as the President of The Senate. While I will deal with the larger issue of the office of Vice President when I discuss The Executive Branch, the primary constitutional duty of a Vice President is to be President of The Senate. This office needs to be a functional part of our government. [Please see my article on 'The American Vice Presidency… Graveyard of the Constitution'.] While I would still give The Vice President no vote in The Senate except in cases of ties, I would give the office political power in The Senate equal to that of The Speaker in The House. I would also give The Vice President the freedom to address The Senate under the same rules as any Senator, but with the provision that they must temporarily give up the Presidency of The Senate while speaking on the floor, and maybe with the additional restriction that they must ask the permission of The Senate to be allowed to speak to it from the floor.
Paragraph 5 of Section 3 provides for the creation and selection of other officers for The Senate, including The President pro tempore. My biggest issue with how Section 5 is fulfilled is that The President pro tempore, the third person in line to the office of President of The United States, has become a meaningless ego job which is simply given to the oldest, most senile member of the majority party. This Constitutional office needs to be held by the person elected by the whole Senate to be its Floor Leader. Tell me, honestly, would you have wanted to see a 99 year-old Strom Thurmond succeeding to The Presidency? What about an 84 year-old Ted Stevens? Or a 92 year-old Robert Byrd? The President pro tempore should be the Senator who is leading the legislative agenda on the floor of The Senate, not the one singing 'I'm a Little Teapot' with the Spectre of Death.
(This article will be continued in Part III (b), which will continue discussing Article I of The Constitution.)
Rhys M. Blavier
Romayor, Texas
"Truth, Justice and Honor… but, above all, Honor"
© copyright 2009 by Rhys M. Blavier
Thank you for reading this article. Please read my other articles and let me know what you think. I am writing them not to preach or to hear myself think but to try to create dialogs, debates and discussions on the nature of our government and how we can build upon and improve it based on what we have seen and learned over the course of the 225 years of The American Experiment.


text:
Ascot Dance Floor Hire is your friendly comprehensive event hire company providing various dance floors, stages, lighting, LED Furniture, VIP carpets and entertainment. Our stunning Starlit dance floor range is available in pink, white or black finishes and is perfect for weddings, birthday parties and corporate functions to name just a few examples of applications.
Choose from 3 plain acrylic dance floors – Pure White, Black and White Chequered and Pure White. You don't need to go fancy to have a stunning dance floor.
Our real wooden Oak Parquet flooring is perfect for marquees and function rooms. We can supply the Oak dance floor in any size you require, from large events to intimate parties.
The UK's first Outdoor Dance Floor specially built for outdoor event. The dance floor is hard wearing and designed to withstand heavy outdoor use.
Standard and Custom Stages are available to hire in various sizes and formats with a choice of coloured finishes, we can provide custom designed stages for all types of events.
Stage Hire - Click Here
LED Furniture is available to hire alongside your room decorations. The vibrant colours and practicality of our furniture makes it a perfect choice for ant party
Say it with the word LOVE. Our LED Love Lettersmake a perfect backdrop for any wedding and your guests will love the photo opportunity.
Make your entrance stand out with our VIP Red Carpets. Not only do we supply red carpets in Ascot, but any colour you require to truly make your event bespoke.
Red Carpet - Click Here
New to our dance floor range is an amzing 16ft circular RGB LED dance floor which is only available to hire from UK Dance Floor Hire.
Circular Dance Floor - Click Here
UK Dance Floor Hire has wealth of knowledge and is here to help you get the most from your event. Booking with us is ever so easy. If you are looking to hire a product for you event, give us a go and feel rest assured that you are booking through a reputable company.
Call today to see what we can do for you
0800 24 254 74
NEW - RGB Circular Dance Floor
A beautiful 16ft twinkling cirular dance floor.
More LED Disco Floors on the way.
We are just about to increase our LED disco dance floors to make us the largest supplier in the UK.
Registered in England and Wales | Company No. 06851338 | V.A.T No. 972207324


text:
Today, January 18, 2011, is the last day of my tenure as President of Pumping Station: One, and I'd like to take this opportunity to say to the PS:One 2010 Board of Directors, PS:One members new and old, our community, our friends, and our neighbors:
Thank you.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve your community for the past year as president of the City of Chicago's hackerspace. Thank you for the hard work, enthusiasm, and ideas; the good, the bad, and even the crazy ones you contributed to keep us alive this past year. In 2010 we experienced near-catastrophes, but we also experienced many more triumphs. Continue reading President's Farewell Letter


text:
Chamber Volunteers Needed!
If you know the story behind Andre the seal, or where to find all day parking, or If you know which museum in Rockland offers 20,000 square feet of gallery space and over 10,000 works in its collection; which event serves over 20,000 lbs of lobster each year; or where you can see the finest collection of pioneer-era aircraft and automobiles in the world, then your communities need you!
In just two to four hours a week you can share your local knowledge, be part of a wonderful group of community-minded local residents, and get to talk with visitors from all over the globe from the comfort of Camden's Public Landing or from the centrally located Chamber Office inside the Maine Lighthouse Museum in Rockland.
The Penobscot Bay Regional Chamber of Commerce is looking for friendly, knowledgeable people to help out in its Camden and Rockland offices seasonally and year-round. If you enjoy meeting people and talking to them about our area, please consider spending a few hours a week as a Chamber volunteer. There are many time slots available, and the Chamber staff will be glad to accommodate your schedule and provide the training you'll need for the job.
In addition to giving back to the community and welcoming visitors, volunteers with the Chamber get to learn about the local business community, often in informal, fun, social settings like Business After Hours parties and exclusive "back stage" tours of inns, restaurants, and more (often with delicious food!).
Volunteers are critical to ensuring that visitors leave our area with great memories and a desire to come back. If you'd like to help make those memories, you can volunteer immediately by calling Alicia Bagnall at the Chamber office in Rockland at 207-596-0376.
Call (207) 594-4401 or join online at knox.villagesoup.com/join.
Donate directly to keeping quality journalism alive at knox.villagesoup.com/donate.


text:
Rihanna turned up as a special guest at Jay-Z's Los Angeles concert on Sunday.
The singer helped out her former record label boss, mentor and collaborator, joining Jay-Z on stage at UCLA's Pauley Pavilion on "Run This Town," MTV News reported.
VIEW THE PHOTOS: Rihanna: Music's Style Superstar
Rihanna gave Jay-Z a hug while on stage, and she shared her joy at being on stage with the crowd, reportedly blowing kisses to the packed arena.
The chanteuse took the stage in black and silver leggings and an asymmetrical jacket, according to the site.
VIEW THE PHOTOS: Jay-Z
"Los Angeles, make some noise," the singer said as the crowd erupted in cheers.
While on stage with Jay-Z, Rihanna gave her first public performance of her new single, "Hard" off "Rated R," due out November 23.
"RiRi, you ready?" Jay-Z reportedly said before she launched into the number.
VIEW THE PHOTOS: Pop Stars
Rihanna will perform more tracks from her new album in London on November 16 in association with mobile phone giant Nokia. The venue for the show has yet to be announced.
Related Content from AccessHollywood.com:
PLAY IT NOW: Rihanna Reveals Details About Chris Brown Beating On 'GMA'
PLAY IT NOW: Inside Rihanna's Glamour Woman Of The Year 2009 Cover Shoot
MORE ACCESS ON THESE TOPICS: Rihanna - Jay-Z - TV One - Music - Celebrities