Hmm, I Don’t Remember Obama Saying the Following … Obamacare Architect Zeke Emanuel Says, “If You Want to Pay More For An Insurance Company that Covers Your Doctor, You Can Do That”
Can you imagine how the 2012 Presidential election would have turned out if Barack Obama had told the truth and said, if you like your healthcare plan and doctor, you can pay more to keep them?
Barack Obama said to pass Obamacare and to get reelected, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD! Well, we all know that was a lie. Guess what else was a lie, keeping your doctor if you liked them and paying less. The latest misrepresentation coming to light has to do with individuals being able to keep their doctors. Obama stated, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But of course that was another Obama lie. Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel said on Fox News Sunday as he was dodging Chis Wallace’s questions to keeping one’s doctor, “the president never said that you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country that you want to go to.” Well, that was never the question.
It’s not that simple. In order to participate in health-insurance exchanges, insurers needed to find a way to tamp down the high costs of premiums. As a result, many will narrow their networks, shrinking the range of doctors that are available to patients under their plan, experts say.
“Many people are going to find out that the second part of the promise — that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor — just wasn’t true,” says Gail Wilensky, who directed the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush. Factcheck.org labeled the promise “misleading,” noting that while the law doesn’t contain provisions designed to force people to pick new doctors, a switch may be inevitable for some. “The President simply can’t make this promise to anyone,” the site wrote.
Unbelievable, the gall of these people that they are now passing Obamacare off as a choice. The government is forcing people to buy an insurance that they say is okay or face a tax (penalty) and that is a choice? Individuals were perfectly fine with the coverage and doctors they had, but the government as now made it a choice that Americans must pay more to keep the very choice that they already had. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
The host, Chris Wallace: “President Obama famously promised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading, as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan? Isn’t it a fact, sir, that a number, most, in fact, of the Obamacare health plans that are being offered on the exchanges exclude a number of doctors and hospitals to lower costs?”
Zeke Emanuel: “The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to.”
Chris Wallace: “No. He asked a question. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Did he not say that, sir?”
Zeke Emanuel: “He didn’t say you could have unlimited choice.”
Chris Wallace: “It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”
Zeke Emanuel: “Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits.The issue isn’t the selective networks. People keep saying, Oh, the problem is you’re going to have a selective network–”
Chris Wallace: “Well, if you lose your doctor or lose your hospital–”
Zeke Emanuel: “Let me just say something,” said Emanuel. “People are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.”
Chris Wallace: “Which will mean your premiums will probably go up.”
Zeke Emanuel”They get that choice. That’s a choice they always made.”
Chris Wallace: “Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words –
Obama Administration: It’s Ok for “Green Energy” Wind Turbines to Kill or Injure Bald or Golden Eagles without Penalty Because We’re Trying to Save the Environment
THE HYPOCRISY AND DOUBLE STANDARD OF THE LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS … DEATH PANELS FOR EAGLES.
So not only does Obama pick winners and losers with regard to energy companies, he also picks who can kill and who can’t. The shameful new rule enacted by Obama’s Interior Department makes it possible for green energy companies to slaughter Bald and Golden eagles without penalty for 30 years. UNREAL. Big Oil harms some water fowl and these people lose their minds and talk about the evils of oil. However, Big Green Wind kills eagles and other birds and that is perfectly acceptable. What a fraud these liberal groups are that claim to protect the Earth and the Eco-system. As long as so-called “green” energy kills the symbol of the United States, that bis perfectly ok, but of coal, oil, gas injures a worm … then that is a national tragedy. This president will do anything to pander to his liberal base and make it all political. I would ask Mr. President, how is this fair to the Eagles?
The Obama administration said Friday it will allow some companies to kill or injure bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without penalty, an effort to spur development and investment in green energy.
The change, requested by the wind energy industry, will provide legal protection for the lifespan of wind farms and other projects for which companies obtain a permit and make efforts to avoid killing the birds.
An investigation by The Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration’s reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. The White House has championed wind power, a pollution-free energy intended to ease global warming, as a cornerstone of President Barack Obama’s energy plan.
According to the Washington Times, wind energy facilities have killed at least 67 golden and bald eagles in the last five years, but the figure could be much higher, according to a new scientific study by government biologists. Hmm, so why doesn’t Obama and his liberal environmentalists put the same type of restrictions of “killer” wind turbines that they do to the coal, gas and oil industry? How come wind farm companies do not have to build protective cages around the turbines like a common fan has to protect birds from flying into the blades? This administration certainly has no issue with costly expenses when it comes to regulating other forms of energy.
Just curious, why aren’t wind farm companies regulated to put protective covers over their blades like a common fan?
More from Breitbart.com, It’s okay to kill Eagles because Obama said so.
Wildlife conservationists are livid at the Obama administration’s approval of a new rule that extends wind farms leases up to 30 years. On Friday, wildlife protection groups decried the new regulation as a “stunningly bad move” that gives wind power companies the ability to kill eagles and other birds for the next 30 years.
The Wildlife Society Bulletin approximates that 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats are killed by flying into wind turbines every year. National Audubon Society President David Yarnold expressed his anger over the Obama administration’s new rule: “It’s outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of America’s symbol, the bald eagle.”
UPDATE I: The only one who has stepped to the plate is the Audubon Society. Interior Dept. Rule Greenlights Eagle Slaughter at Wind Farms, Says Audubon CEO … New Rule Will Authorize 30-Year Permits for Killing America’s National Bird.
Instead of balancing the need for conservation and renewable energy, Interior wrote the wind industry a blank check. It’s outrageous that the government is sanctioning the killing of America’s symbol, the Bald Eagle. Audubon will continue to look for reasonable, thoughtful partners to wean America off fossil fuels because that should be everyone’s highest priority. We have no choice but to challenge this decision, and all options are on the table.” (Statement from Audubon President and CEO David Yarnold)
UPDATE II: From Right Wing News … All this carnage just to provide a pittance, a miniscule amount of energy. But because it is deemed “green” it is okay to make Eagles blood red.
All to provide miniscule power while putting a blight on the landscape. Average delivered power is roughly 30-40% with very low power density (megawatts per square mile), since you need huge tracks of land/sea for the farm. Compare that to natural gas, which has an average delivered power in the upper 80?s, with an extremely high power density.
From page 193 of The Mad, Mad, Mad World Of Climatism via Right Wing News
Alec Baldwin Fired from MSNBC for Anti-Gay Slurs … Baldwin Points Out Hypocrisy, Asks Why “Martin Bashir’s On the Air” with Comment He Made About Sarah Palin “On the Air”
Alec Balwin is out at MSNBC …
The NY Post is reporting that MSNBC has had it with Alec Baldwin and fired him. It would appear his latest unhinged rant was just the final excuse that MSNBC needed to whack Baldwin and his weak ratings show after just four episodes. My that was quick. It would appear though that according to reports that Baldwin was quite the PITA diva. Baldwin’s unhinged antics reported by the media would appear to have been common place at MSNBC as well by the classy Baldwin. But that is what happens when you screamed at a media photographer, calling him a “c—s—ing faggot.”
Just how bad must Baldwin truly have been to deal with for an uber-lib like him being given his walking slip by liberal BSNBC?
The rage-aholic’s weekly show, “Up Late With Alec Baldwin,” was canceled Tuesday because of the actor’s foul-mouthed, homophobic rant at a New York Post photographer.
Baldwin’s spokesman Matthew Hiltzik and a rep for the cable channel said, “We are jointly confirming that ‘Up Late’ will not continue on MSNBC.” The MSNBC spokeswoman added, “This is a mutual parting and we wish Alec all the best.”
Baldwin was suspended — supposedly for two weeks — after he screamed at a Post photographer, calling him a “c—s—ing faggot.” The “30 Rock” star was supposed to resume his weekly show Friday.
Besides demanding a humidifier because he claimed the air at 30 Rock was too dry, Baldwin alienated colleagues when he demanded a separate makeup room that was being used by a woman with cancer who is sensitive to hairspray.
When Baldwin was told he couldn’t have his way, he allegedly bellowed at the top of his lungs, “I don’t give a f?-?-?k if she has cancer or not, I want that f?-?-?king makeup room.”
As reported at Page Six, Baldwin was impossible to work with and became more and more impossible to work with as his ratings sunk. What a combination, a male diva, a bomb of a show and a lib who did not want to work hard. There is a recipe for success. In typical Alec Baldwin style, he pretty much blamed others for the show’s demise as Baldwin blamed “the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy” for the show’s cancellation. Baldwin said, “They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself.”
A network source told Page Six’s Emily Smith, “The frustration set in several weeks ago. All Baldwin’s shows were unwatchable. He assumed it would be a success, and when he saw the ratings were a disaster, he stopped wanting to do a lot of work for a little audience.
“Baldwin found out that cable news is tough, and stopped making an effort,” said the source.
This is good, when LIBS attack each other It would appear that Alec Baldwin told the Gothamist that there seems to be just a little bit of hypocrisy as he was fired, yet Martin Bashir made an over the top comments about Sarah Palin on air and nothing happened to him, not even a suspension. C’mon man, you know better than that Alec … you can call a conservative woman every name in the book and wish anything upon her, as for gay slurs, that is strictly verboden.
“Martin Bashir’s on the air, and he made his comment on the air! I dispute half the comment I made… if I called him ‘c*cksucking maggot’ or a ‘c*cksucking motherf*cker’… ‘faggot’ is not the word that came out of my mouth. That I know. But you’ve got the fundamentalist wing of gay advocacy—Rich Ferraro and Andrew Sullivan—they’re out there, they’ve got you. Rich Ferraro, this is probably one of his greatest triumphs. They killed my show. And I have to take some responsibility for that myself.”
Harry Reid, the Senate Democrats, Barack Obama & Joe Biden’s Nuclear Hypocrisy … Senate Goes Nuclear with Democrat Party Vote 52-48
Partisan Democrats end 225 years of precedent … Democrats just striped the protection of “We the People” who are in the minority.
Democrats were against it, before they were for it …
Yesterday, Democrats broke 225 years of precedent, when the U.S. Senate voted along Democrat partisan line 52-48 to invoke the so-called nuclear option allowing confirmation for most presidential nominees by simple majority. Some Democrats split with the party and voted against the change; however, the 52 votes were all of the Democrat party. Hmm, isn’t how we got Obamacare? What this does is the Senate voted to severely limit the use of the filibuster, one of the few tools a minority party has in our representative democracy. This was nothing more than a “Naked Power Grab.” As Dana Milbank writes, Congress wasn’t broken before, it certainly is now. What Reid (D-NV) and his fellow Democrats effectively did was take the chamber of Congress that still functioned at a modest level and turn it into a clone of the other chamber, which functions not at all. They turned the Senate into the House.
The Senate vote Thursday to lower the barriers for presidential nominations should make it easier for President Obama to accomplish key second-term priorities, including tougher measures on climate change and financial regulation, that have faced intense opposition from Republicans in Congress.
The move to allow a simple majority vote on most executive and judicial nominees also sets the stage for Obama to appoint new top officials to the Federal Reserve and other key agencies — probably leading to more aggressive action to stimulate the economy and housing market. And it frees Obama to make changes to his Cabinet without the threat of long delays in the Senate before the confirmation of nominees.
Laura Ingraham discuses the “nuclear option” on ‘The O’Reilly Factor’.
Remember when Senate Barack Obama said he was against the “Nuclear” option in 2005? So why the sudden change of heart Obama? Maybe because as we saw with Obamacare, you are just a lair. Hmm, did Obama also run in 2012 on the notion that “if you like the rules of the US Senate you can keep them’? What a frigging hypocrite.
HMM, WHAT CHANGED. REPUBLICANS THREATENED IT, BUT NEVER WENT THRU WITH IT. OBAMA HAS TRULY DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY AND ITS GOVERNMENT.
The Gateway Pundit has more on Harry Reid and Dems Overturn 1806 Senate Rule & Pass ‘Nuclear Option.’
Senator Barack Obama in 2005 against the nuclear option
Senator Joe Biden in 2005 against the nuclear option. Take a good listen at what Biden says when he was in the minority.
Obama says this is not what the Founders intended … compilation of numerous Democrats who were against it, before they were for it.
Joe Biden calls it a “naked” power grab and says, “you will not be in the majority forever”.
Oh the double standard hypocrisy of the IRS …
From the department that say it did not intentionally target conservative non-profit and Tea Party organizations comes the following, $67 million missing from a slush fund established for Obamacare implementation. Imagine what would happen in an IRS audit if you could not account for $67, let alone $67 million? Too bad the IRS does not follow the same rules and standards that they make others do.
So where is the money?
The IRS is unable to account for $67 million spent from a slush fund established for Obamacare implementation, according to a Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report released today.
The “Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund” (HIRIF) was tucked into Obamacare in order to give the IRS money to enforce the tax provisions of the healthcare law. The fund, totaling some $1 billion of taxpayer money, was used to roll out enforcement mechanisms for the approximately 50 tax provisions of Obamacare.
According to the report: “Specifically, the IRS did not account for or attempt to quantify approximately $67 million [from the slush fund] of indirect ACA costs incurred for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2012.”
The report also found several other abuses of taxpayer funds, including: (More)
These people are just playing fast and furious with your hard earned money and they follow no rules.
Liberal Comedian Bill Maher Criticized Obama Intervention in Syria … U.S. is Looking “More like George Zimmerman” than World Police
Liberal comedian Bill Maher slapped back at Barack Obama and his handling of the Syrian crisis and stated that U.S. is looking less like the World police and “More like George Zimmerman.” Ouch, that is going to leave a mark from the far LEFT.. Would that mean that Obama’s handling of Syria is racist? Maher went on to say, “we’re the only nation, as we’ve have seen in this Syrian fiasco, who threatens to drop bombs on you while telling you we don’t want to get involved.”
Liberal comedian Bill Maher said Friday the U.S. is looking “more like George Zimmerman” with regards to military force and criticized arguments over intervention in Syria.
“Forget the Syria debate, we need a debate on why we’re always debating whether to bomb someone. Because we’re starting to look not so much like the world’s policeman, but more like George Zimmerman. Itching to use force and then pretending it’s because we had no choice,” Maher said on his HBO program “Real Time with Bill Maher.”
Maher, who has been critical of President Barack Obama’s case to intervene in Syria, continued to condemn military force.
More from The Hinterland Gazette:
Maher asked, “How did we inherit this moral obligation to bring justice to the world via death from above?” “It doesn’t make any sense. Our schools are crumbling and we want to teach everyone else a lesson.”
Posted September 15, 2013 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Bill Maher, Comedian in Chief, Community Agitator, Democrats, Epic Fail, George Zimmerman, Government, Hypocrisy, Leading from Behind, Liberals, Middle East, Military, Misleader, Obamanation, Progressives, Syria, US National Security, World | no comments
LEFT’s Hypocrisy, Double Standard and Racism, Oh My … Ed Asner Explains Hollywood Silence on Barack Obama with Regards to Syria: They ‘Don’t Want to Feel Anti-Black’ … Also, Dem. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton‘s Says Only Reason She Would Vote for the Syria Resolution Would be to Not “Shame” Obama
The hypocrisy, double standard and racism from the LEFT … Are you kidding me, the Hollywood, anti-war Left has suddenly gone silent on Obama on Syria because they don’t want to be branded racist.
Good grief, this is what our country has come to under Obama? From The Hollywood Reporter states that uber-leftist Ed Asner believes that the liberals in Hollywood have been silent on President Obama’s cries for war with Syria and a military strike against Assad in response of his use of chemical weapons on his people because they are afraid of being called racists. HUH? That is correct, Asner stated that they ‘don’t want to feel Anti-Black’. Does Asner realize that his very comment is racists? So to understand the mindset of a liberal, if you are against war, you can only be against it as long as their is a white president? Unbelievable. Also, this morning on Fox & Friends Weekend, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee blasted ‘Insane’ Dem Rep. on Syria and the ‘Racist’ Hollywood for silence. The fact of the matter is that the LEFT will support Obama, not because of the content of his charter or policies, but because of the color of his skin. So they are admitting to having different standards for people of different color. That my friends is the definition of racism.
Tucker Carlson brought up Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton‘s comments that the only reason she would vote for the Syria resolution would be so that Obama wouldn’t be “shamed.” Huckabee called that an “insane rationale for launching a military strike,” since members of Congress generally need to think about the Constitution when they vote and not the president’s public relations.
Huckabee said this is clear and unqualified “racism in its rawest form,” made so much worse by the “duplicity of people who think they’re so open-minded.”
Don’t look for Iraq War-style protests, says the liberal activist, who — like “M*A*S*H” star Mike Farrell — opposes military action.
In 2003, ahead of a U.S. attack on Iraq, a robust anti-war movement in Hollywood included a TV commercial starring Martin Sheen and Sean Penn visiting Baghdad. There were online petitions signed by Ed Asner; letters to President George W. Bush pleading for peace were signed by Matt Damon, Tim Robbins, Barbra Streisand and Alec Baldwin; former M*A*S*H star Mike Farrell fronted multiple press conferences where celebrities denounced war. In interviews, Janeane Garofalo stopped identifying herself as an actor — she preferred to be called a member of the U.S. anti-war movement.
Also, said Asner, unsuccessful efforts to prevent war in Iraq led to complacency among left-wing activists.
“We had a million people in the streets, for Christ’s sake, protesting Iraq, which was about as illegal as you could find. Did it matter? Is George Bush being tried in the high courts of justice?” asks Asner. “We’ve been so God-damned stung in this country by false wars, repeatedly, that, how can you believe in any just war with the history we have had?”
Another reason some Hollywood progressives have been reticent to speak out against war in Syria, according to Asner, is fear of being called racist.
“A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama,” he said.
The Independent Journal Review asks, wasn’t the election of Obama, the nation’s first “post-racial president” was supposed to change all that? It seems that it only has enhanced it.
The unspoken message, of course: We must never oppose Barack Obama or his policies. Because he’s black. To oppose the actions of blacks – or fail to blindly take up their causes precisely because they’re black [see: Trayvon Martin], means we’re “racists.” In the hypocritical eyes of the left, that is.
Wasn’t the nation’s first “post-racial president” was supposed to change all that?
John Kerry: He Was For Assad, Before He was Against Him and Called Him Hitler … Kerry Seen in Pic Dining with Assad
How many of you would have had dinner with Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein?
Talk about your embarrassing pics and a lack of credibility. The UK Daily Mail has a 2009 photo of John Kerry having a pleasant dinner with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and their wives. As reported at the Weekly Standard, Kerry has met with Assad on numerous occasions and once lauded Assad in 2011 as being a “very generous”. Hmm, that is a far cry from what Kerry is saying these days. It would appear that Obama’s Secretary of State has a severe credibility issue. I guess Kerry was for Assad before he was against him. How is it that Kerry goes from an intimate dinner for four to calling him the Hitler of our time. Really? I mean seriously, how many get to dine with Hitler? And this is the guy who is trying to sell us on attacking Syria?
Once again we see John Kerry, reporting for duty or is it reporting for dinner?
An astonishing photograph of John Kerry having a cozy and intimate dinner with Bashar al-Assad has emerged at the moment the U.S Secretary of State is making the case to bomb the Syrian dictator’s country and remove him from power.
Kerry, who compared Assad to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein yesterday, is pictured around a small table with his wife Teresa Heinz and the Assads in 2009.
Assad and Kerry, then a Massachusetts senator, lean in towards each other and appear deep in conversation as their spouses look on.
A waiter is pictured at their side with a tray of green drinks, believed to be lemon and crushed mint
The picture was likely taken in February 2009 in the Naranj restaurant in Damascus, when Kerry led a delegation to Syria to discuss finding a way forward for peace in the region.
Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay?” Kerry said. “But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”
Looks like John Kerry has protesters at his home telling him “Hands off Syria” and it does not look like a Tea Party rally.
Hey, and go to Patterico’s Pontification … look who is shaking the hand of Assad, it is none other than two faced Nancy Pelosi. I guess she had to shake his hand in order to see what a miserable, murderous dictator he was.
Remember When Joe Biden Said in 2007 that George W. Bush Should Be Impeached for What Barack Obama is About to Do?
Oh the hypocrisy from the LEFT …
Remember when Senator Joe Biden wanted Bush impeached for the very thing that Barack Obama is about to do? So what is different, oh it’s Barack Obama. So what is the difference? Oh that’s right, the current president is not a Republican. So if Obama attacks Syria without Congressional approval, will Biden be the first to file articles of impeachment against Barack Obama?
In 2007, Senator Joe Biden repeatedly threatened to lead an effort to impeach President George W. Bush in the House should he attack Iran without congressional authorization. Senator Obama agreed that Bush did not have the power to order a strike on Iran. This was not mindless, partisan saber rattling: Vice President Dick Cheney and the neoconservative establishment were actively pushing Bush to take military action against Iran.
On Hardball, Biden emphatically and passionately told Chris Matthews that Bush had “no constitutional authority … to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.” Biden was absolutely correct to point out the illegality of Bush’s intentions and threaten him with impeachment.
It turns out that his Democratic primary opponent and eventual running mate, then-Senator Joe Biden, had even stronger views about presidents attacking other nations without Congress’s permission:
Chris Matthews: You said that if the United States had launched at attack on Iran without Congressional approval, that would’ve been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made?
Joe Biden: Absolutely. I want to stand by that comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris. you’ve known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in Constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of Constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that — and I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly.
This is a striking statement.
What a joke, GWB’s three biggest critics when it came to his foreign policy were Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry. Now suddenly they are all hawks!
Weiner Shrinks to 4th in Polls … Disgraced Prostitute Scandal Gov. Spitzer Says He Will Not Vote for Fellow Democrat Sexting Scandal Plagued Anthony Weiner
Could the Democrat Party get any more bizarre? Just curious, does purchasing the services of a prostitute trump sexting?
Weiners poll numbers in free-fall. As more and more sordid sexting details come out regarding NYC mayoral candidate and former disgraced US Representative Anthony Weiner, his poll numbers shrink. Following the stories that Weiner continued sexting young girls after he was caught in his first scandal,
Carlos Danger Weiner has now slipped to fourth place in the polls in the Democrat primary for NYC mayor. According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, Weiner has dropped to just 16%, down 10% from just five days. According to RCP, Weiner is pretty much done, put a fork in him. However, at this point Weiner is going no where as he is pot committed and his ego is going to make him stay in the race and lose as opposed to have yet another embarrassing presser explaining his withdrawal from the race.
New York City mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner has dropped to fourth place in a poll released on Monday, but Weiner has vowed to forge ahead nevertheless.
A new poll of likely Democratic voters taken by Quinnipiac University shows the disgraced former congressman trailing City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and former city comptroller Bill Thompson.
In addition, the poll shows that a majority of likely voters — 53 percent — think Weiner should step aside in light of recent revelations of another sexting scandal.
Quinn leads the Democratic pack with 27 percent, with 21 percent for de Blasio, 20 percent for Thompson, 6 percent for Comptroller John Liu and 2 percent for former Council member Sal Albanese, the poll finds. Seven percent of likely Democratic primary voters remain undecided.
Ha, Eliot Spitzer, the voice of the moral majority and ethics speak out against Weiner
But it gets even more bizarre, if possible. Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York who was forced to resign from office because of his prostitute scandal. Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle immoral. So Spitzer says he will not support or vote for Weiner. Really? Does Spitzer even have the right to weigh in on anything that has to do with a sex scandal? Dude, last time I checked buying prostitutes as a governor (Client #9) trumps sexting. This might be one of the most hypocritical double standards ever. Spitzer is currently running for comptroller of NYC. What makes him think that he has the moral or ethical background for that position?
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer doesn’t think Anthony Weiner should be mayor of New York City.
Asked by host Chris Matthews Monday on MSNBC’s “Hardball” who he would vote for in the mayoral election, Spitzer was hesitant to answer. Matthews pressed Spitzer, saying “You’re not going to vote for Anthony Weiner, can you just say that now? You don’t think he should be mayor of New York.”
“I think the answer is yes,” Spitzer said. “We have had a number of instances over the years where inevitably, of course, municipal employees, state employees have used computers and the like for improper purposes and there is an appropriate sanction for that and there should be.”
From CNN, comes the following comments from Spitzer’s opponent in the Democratic race for city comptroller, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer:
“It’s clear that Eliot Spitzer thinks there are two standards – one for him, and one for everybody else. His comments are the height of hypocrisy,” Stringer’s campaign said in a statement.