About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

White House Cheat Sheet: Obama Names Drug Czar

President Obama will name the Seattle, Wash. chief of police as his choice to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

President Obama will name Gil Kerlikowske as the nation's drug czar today, ending a long search that slowed as details of drug arrests involving Kerlikowske's stepson came to light earlier this year.

The Obama administration will remove the job's Cabinet designation -- reversing an elevation of the office made during the presidency of George W. Bush -- although one senior administration official insisted Kerlikowske would have "full access and a direct line to the president and the vice president." The source also noted that Vice President Biden was instrumental in the creation of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and would continue to be an outspoken advocate on the issue. (Further details on the nomination in a Post story by The Fix.)

Kerlikowske, who is currently the chief of police in Seattle, Washington, has long been speculated to be the frontrunner to serve as the drug czar. But, revelations concerning the arrests of his stepson, Jeffrey, on drug-related charges complicated the process and led some to draw unfavorable comparisons to the film "Traffic" in which the daughter of the man entrusted with overseeing the nation's drug policy spirals into dependency.

In remarks today accepting the nomination, Kerlikowske will reference his own family struggles with the specter of drug abuse. "Our nation's drug problem is one of human suffering," Kerlikowske is expected to say, according to prepared remarks. "As a police officer, but also in my own family, I have experienced first-hand the devastating effects that drugs can have on our youth, our families and our communities."

In formally nominating Kerlikowske, Obama, who admitted to cocaine use of his own as a teenager in his memoir "Dreams From My Father," offers a powerful vote of confidence for a man who could well face uncomfortable questions during his confirmation process. The drug czar position -- formally called the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy -- requires confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Kerlikowske served as police chief in two Florida cities -- Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie -- before being named police commissioner in Buffalo in 1994. He left that job after four and a half years to work in the Clinton Justice Department as the director of the Office of Community Policing Services.

In his most recent stint in Seattle, Kerlikowske drew national press attention when, seeking to demonstrate the efficacy of tasers, he allowed himself to be shot with 50,000 volts of electricity in front of reporters and television cameras. He commanded less favorable media attention in 2001 when his department was criticized for their lack of aggressiveness in dealing with the so-called "Mardi Gras" riots that left one man dead and 70 injured. In late 2004, Kerlikowske's personal gun was stolen after he left it under the seat of his unmarked police car.

The Omnibus Vote -- By the Numbers: After several days of delay, the Senate passed the $410 omnibus spending bill last night with 62 votes -- two more than they needed to break the threat of a filibuster. Six Republicans -- Sens. Kit Bond (Mo.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.) -- bucked their party to vote for the measure; three Democrats -- Sens. Evan Bayh (Ind.), Russ Feingold (Wis.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.) -- voted against the bill. Two Senators -- Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- did not vote.

Wednesday Must-Reads: Hump day has been reached.

1. Citi reports a profit and the Dow (thankfully) responds.
2. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) floats the idea of a second economic stimulus. Will the public swallow it?
3. Progressive outside groups have begun holding a daily strategy call to push Obama's agenda, according to Greg Sargent.
4. Al Franken sees a "light at the end of the tunnel." Is he about to be seated or about to pass out?
5. Political columnist extraordinaire Stu Rothenberg bashes Obama's "trite rhetoric" on eliminating the power of so-called "special interests." (subscriber-only)

Democrats Continue To Hammer Rush: Although conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh has retreated from the center of the media world over the past few days, Democrats are doing everything they can to remind their base about Limbaugh's words. J.B. Poersch, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, sent out a fundraising email Tuesday highlighting Limbaugh's comments regarding the failing health of Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy (D). "Rush Limbaugh has no shame," wrote Poersch -- adding that the best way to "make him irrelevant" is to help Democrats win 60 seats in the Senate. Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee continues its plan to fund a billboard in his hometown sending Limbaugh a message; the top five anti-Rush slogans are open for a vote on the DNC's Web site. As we have noted before, Limbaugh is a gold mine for Democratic strategists seeking to draw money and organizational commitments from their base -- they will ride Rush as long as he will carry them.

An Unlikely Opportunity? Delaware is one of the most Democratic states in the country -- President Obama won it with 62 percent last fall -- but a new independent poll out of Delaware suggests that Republicans would be in the game if they could convince Rep. Mike Castle to run. Castle leads state Attorney General Beau Biden, the son of the vice president, by a 44 percent to 36 percent margin in the Public Policy Polling survey. Castle's lead is due, in large part, to the fact that he is a well-known and well-liked presence in the state. Prior to being elected to Congress in 1992, Castle served eight years as governor of the First State and spent time in the Delaware State House and Senate. Beau Biden, on the other hand, is a relative newcomer to elected office although he carries the powerful last name of his father who vacated the seat earlier this year to be sworn in as vice president. Longtime Biden aide Ted Kaufman is currently filling the Senate seat but won't run for a fu ll term in 2010. While Castle is clearly a strong candidate, his age (he will be 70 this summer) and health problems make his candidacy less than a slam dunk. "He's keeping his cards very close to his vest even with his own people but he's taking a close look at it," said one knowledgeable D.C.-based Republican source.

Click It!: The boys over at Public Opinion Strategies, one of the leading GOP political polling firms, have started their own blog designed to turn questions into answers -- hence the TQIA blog. (The Fix loves acronyms.) The blog already has some interesting stuff on it including an explanation by Gene Ulm on why Obama should be much more concerned with fluctuations in the Dow.

Say What?: "We'll look and see if we can get enough votes to pass it. I certainly think we can." -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) on the chances of getting 60 votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, which was introduced in the House and Senate Tuesday.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 11, 2009; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Cheat Sheet Share This:  E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble Previous: Obama Creates White House Women's Council
Next: Wag the Blog: Obama And Earmarks

Add The Fix to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>


Does he qualify as a tax cheat for Obamanomics ? is my first response to the announcement.
Then I felt sorry for the guy, because he will inevitably be seen as a bad guy for consorting with Obama by being nominated.
Poor guy, he should turn and run like numerous others from this breech in our Constitutional Republic status.
No Confidence in Obama means no one will purposely earn enough to tax for as long as it takes. This king is not going to get a dime from Americans who believe he offs it to his Cousins in the Middle Eastern caves.
Obama secrets, followed by his first address aimed towards Islam, put his credibility at zero.
Timmy "AL CAPONE" Geither in the treasury fueled the TEA PARTY revolt to demand their Constitutional Republic back.

When Charlie Freeman walked out, it should be a cue for this poor guy....run.

Posted by: dottydo | March 11, 2009 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris you and Gerson should form a "think-tank" and pretend to be analyzing President Obama, his cabinet and then you can bash him all you want.

Your columns are so trite as you try to be sly - everyone knows you are not impartial. Democrats "hammering" Rush - who has a hammer big enough to hammer the "big fat...". Give me a break.

Posted by: rlj1 | March 11, 2009 4:01 PM | Report abuse

If the drug czar is really going to make an effort then he will be going after mostly BHO's constituency. I give credit to BHO on this one.

Posted by: leapin | March 11, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like the drug czar is the Attorney General's buddy and that this administration considers the post less than vital. About freakin time. It's a step at least in getting the issue of substance abuse back into the realm of public health and out of law enforcement.

As for the Republicans picking up a seat in Delaware the Fix is suffering from the hormone imbalance of a new kid. Good for the Fix, bad for his judgment. From the size of the Biden delegation on the stage in Denver when Obama was nominated it appears Beau is related by blood or marriage to enough votes in Delaware to get 50%.

Posted by: caribis | March 11, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

here's what i mean, mark. it seems to be a basic tenet of conservatism now that taxpayers should subsidize business, rather than thinking about how to best allocate taxpayer funds. here's what it means to health care reform:

"For instance, Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the committee, had expressed concern last week that any public health care plan would crowd out private insurers, particularly those who offer private Medicare Advantage plans to seniors, which he argued are particularly important in his rural state of Iowa.

Grassley raised the same concerns to Orzsag today during a hearing. The budget proposed by the President, Grassley pointed out, would cut funding for Medicare Advantage programs by more than $170 billion. Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage programs account for nearly a quarter of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"Question, if we take $176 billion out of this Medicare Advantage program through plan bidding, how many of the ten million beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage do you estimate would lose their current coverage?" asked Grassley.

The budget director took the opportunity to "take a step back" and consider the entire logic behind the Medicare Advantage programs, which are subsidized by the government.

"First, I know many people believe that capitalism is founded on private markets, and it is. But I very firmly believe that capitalism is not founded on excessively high subsidies to private firms. That is what this system delivers right now," said Orzsag. "For every Medicare beneficiary in Medicare Advantage, the federal government pay $1,000 more than covering the same beneficiary under traditional fee-for-service. In addition, it is true that Medicare Advantage plans then take part of that extra payment and deliver it in the form of either additional benefits or lower premiums to beneficiaries.

But the data also suggests that every dollar of additional benefits costs the federal government $1.30 in cost. So what we're doing is we're all paying $1.30 in order to deliver a dollar to a subset, 20 percent, of Medicare beneficiaries. I don't think that is competition. I think that is an unwarranted subsidy."

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Can you say hypocrisy?

"WASHINGTON — Democrats who have weathered criticism from Republicans over earmarks in recent months are singling out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for the more than $75 million in federal funds for Kentucky projects he requested along with other members of Congress in a $410 billion spending bill.

The federal funds for projects, or earmarks, McConnell asked for in the omnibus spending bill include $1.6 million for a forage animal production research laboratory in Lexington, $1.088 million for an animal waste management research lab in Bowling Green, $2.945 million for LexTran to purchase buses and $950,000 for a Western Kentucky University bikeway project, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks federal spending."

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

On EFCA- has anyone seriously made a filibuste rthreat yet? Remember, it is still entirely possible that 60 might not be necessary. And even if a filibuster threat is launched, is there reason to believe a number of Senators, such as Nelson, would support the filibuster? It is possible, and used to be quite common, for senators to vote for cloture and against the bill...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 11, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

'the D leadership will perhaps poison the well on gaining broad based support for health care reform'

I can't see how there will be any 'broad-based' support on this, mark. Which R's do you really see supporting that? I don't think you there'll be but a handful of R'scoming out for this, maybe Snowe and Collins and Specter again. The leadership has stated they aren't interested in anything but 'market-based solutions' -- which means putting patients at the mercy of the marketplace, and that won't fly with dems.

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm trying to pysche that out, mark. I think they're keeping very close to the vest on this.

I do want to clear up, though, some misinformation:

As labor scholar Gordon Lafer writes:

When employees want to form a union, they have to go through a process that looks more like the discredited practices of rogue regimes abroad than like anything we would call American.

For an election to be "free and fair," both sides must have equal access to media and the voters. But not under labor law. Anti-union managers are free to campaign to every employee, every day, throughout the day; but pro-union employees can campaign only on break time. Furthermore, management can post anti-union propaganda on bulletin boards and walls — while prohibiting pro-union employees from doing the same.

By law, employers can force workers to attend mass anti-union propaganda events. Not only are pro-union employees not given equal time, but they can be forced to attend on condition that they not ask any questions. Recent data show that workers are forced to attend between five and 10 such one-sided meetings. If, during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democrats could have forced every voter in America to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (or if the Republicans could have forced everyone to watch the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth video), with no opportunity for response from the other side, none of us would have called this "democracy."

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

-pamela, decertification of a union local is often a function of jurisdictional fights between unions. It is not logically related to the original organizing effort.

Bsimon, I agree that health care costs to employers are the critical labor issue of our time and a critical competitiveness issue, as well. Do you think that the D leadership will hold the EFCA in committee mode until after health care is voted up or down, or do you think that the D leadership will perhaps poison the well on gaining broad based support for health care reform by forcing card-check to a fight?

Or do you think one will have no political impact on the other? Drindl?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 11, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Kerlikowske's stepson's involvement with drugs, including the fact that it wasn't covered up, is more of a plus than a negative where his appointment is concerned. The man's seen the drug problem close up and personal.

And he's been a good police chief, as anyone who lives in the Greater Seattle area and actually knows what's been going on there can attest. It's ridiculously stupid for someone from the other end of the country to bad-mouth him in some general and undocumented way—just because, no doubt, that he's been appointed by Obama. There are many not readily perceivable aspects to being a police chief of a large city, just as there will be serving as a drug "czar." Kerlikowske's up to his new job.

Posted by: TomCamfield | March 11, 2009 12:22 PM | Report abuse

That Seattle police chief sounds like a bit of a nut.

Posted by: Bitter_Bill | March 11, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse


Do something -- tell your story to the American Civil Liberties Union (link below).

Then demand that ACLU renew its free speech fight by filing a class-action suit against unconstitutional, rogue government surveillance operations.


Posted by: scrivener50 | March 11, 2009 12:00 PM | Report abuse

NICE STRATEGY BOEHNER!!!!!!Normally, an approval rating of 39% is not reason to cheer. Unless you’re Congress.

Gallup is out with a survey today that finds Congress at its best approval rating since 2005 with that 39 rating. That’s up from 14% in the middle of last year, and 19% early in 2009.

GOP Rep McHenry two days ago
From the AP wire, the GOP's plan for the next 2 years...

GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry, a key player in helping craft the Republican message, has offered an unusually blunt description of the Republican strategy right now.

McHenry’s description is buried in this new article from National Journal (sub. only):

"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint."

Posted by: PJF311 | March 11, 2009 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Hello America! Do we need a Drug Czar to monitor the Pharma companies? The "War on Drugs" is an abysmal failure, and we shure don't need a czar there. Why is this administration following in the footsteps of Bush?? Here all along I thought we had a reasonable man for the job, it is turning out that he's listening to the same clowns who started the War in Iraq. I am disappointed in the political attitude of "business as usual" of this administration that ran on the "change" platform.

Posted by: NMremote | March 11, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Every cop thinks because he/she has a gun and a badge, they are a god.

Ignorant, unfair, and untrue.

I come from three generations of cops (though I am not one myself), and I KNOW for a FACT that most cops are putting their lives on the line to protect the rest of us. They don't ask for our thanks (good thing -- they usually don't get any), but they could use a little understanding of the insanely difficult jobs they do so the rest of us can be safe.

Are there ones out there undeserving of our trust? Sadly, yes, but to brand all cops in this slanderous manner is too easy, and very, VERY stupid.

That said, the point made about yet another law enforcement type becoming drug czar is worth reflection. Even with my strong admiration for cops, I believe we could all benefit from an alternative approach to the problem. It's not just a law enforcement issue, but we keep addressing it as one, and that strategy has been an expensive and abysmal failure.

I would like to see someone from the treatment/medical side of the issue serve as the "czar", if only to try something other than what hasn't worked up to now. Maybe the next one.....

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | March 11, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"wilful misunderstanding surrounds card-check on all sides."

On one of the Sunday news shows, I heard someone make the argument that if a company wants to have a "vote" on eliminating a union, the process was very similar to what is being proposed by card check - only in reverse. Based on that argument, the rationale for card check was that it simply levels the playing field b/c the process would be the same for voting a union in or out. Is that true?

PS - You're absolutely right about health care and the cost to employers - which is why it makes sense to tackle this as part of reinvigorating the econmy.

Posted by: -pamela | March 11, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone seen the GOP latest attack Campaign vidoe.?? They are attacking Obama on his White House Partying.

Posted by: crimesw | March 11, 2009 11:13 AM | Report abuse

bsimon -- I expect the Dems know card check will fail. But they had to deliver on their promise of trying. I think though, that they will work harder for health care reform.

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

You blew my comments away by requiring me to register again despite the fact that the WaPo already had me registered and signed in.

My hello already was at the top of this page.

Stupid is as stupid does obviously applies to The Fix.

Posted by: wj_phillips | March 11, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"I suggest that the rise and decline of unions has followed the industrialization and de-industrialization of America, which itself has followed the effect of "globalization". I suggest that card-check reflects a desperate and wilful misunderstanding of the effects of these external forces."

wilful misunderstanding surrounds card-check on all sides. This AM on NPR, supporters argued that card check is necessary because wages haven't gone up in a decade. While that may be true, it ignores the fact that employers' costs of hiring & retaining workers have gone up, primarily due to health care costs. If these bozos are going to expend political capital to improve the lives of middle class Americans, they ought do spend it on radically changing healthcare delivery, not on this misguided attempt to unionize the workforce.

Posted by: bsimon1 | March 11, 2009 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Does Kerlikowske see his son as a criminal to be incarcerated? Hope he knows some law enforcement officers in L.E.A.P. see, www.leap.cc

Posted by: notabeliever | March 11, 2009 10:28 AM | Report abuse

As Carleen demonstrates:

The Party of Moron

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

The Party of Clown Shoes:

Republican insiders tell Political Wire that a no confidence vote on RNC Chairman Michael Steele is likely to be called after the NY-20 special election on March 31 -- regardless of whether Republicans win the seat or not.

Katon Dawson, who came in second in the January RNC vote, is said to be quietly organizing a vote and is getting the support of several state party chairmen who want to dump Steele.

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

As for Castle, I'm not sure i buy the threat and I think he may well opt out. For one thing, his resume - 2-term governor, lone representative in Congress, the guy has universal name recognition and history of service, 44% begins to sound like a ceiling. Biden has the name recongmition going, but that's probably working against him right now as people are leery of legacies and political dynasties. Thus, 36% may be his floor and when he begins to campaign as Attorney General and veteran Beau Biden, not the son of VP Joe Biden, the numbers will go up.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 11, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

So,does Messiah from Kenya Comrade Leader
Barack Hussein Obama know even one clean
person to appoint to a postion in his now
corruption,tax cheaters,and incompetent crooks ridden phony adminisration here?
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama and Save The
USA from the most corrupt government in
our entire USA history.

Posted by: Carleen19771 | March 11, 2009 10:10 AM | Report abuse

The Party of Rush:

"No one wants [President Obama] to fail,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed in an interview with Bloomberg. “But saying ‘no’ to bad policy is not saying ‘no’ to everything.” McConnell was singing Rush Limbaugh’s praises at the CPAC convention last month.

'This morning at CPAC, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell paid homage to hate radio host Rush Limbaugh, saying that he epitomized how fun Republicans are:

McCONNELL: Compare that [CPAC] to the left’s annual attempt to imitate, the so-called Take Back America conference, which last year drew about a third as many people as CPAC. What this proves, of course, is that conservatives are more fun and interesting than liberals.

I mean, let’s be honest. Who wants to hang out with guys like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, when you can be with Rush Limbaugh!"

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

"Dow up second day this year. Messiah saves.

Mission accomplished!"

Your metric, not ours.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | March 11, 2009 10:08 AM | Report abuse

The Party of Hypocrites:

Late last month, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would be seeking to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. “As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder said.

RNC chair Michael Steele sent an e-mail to supporters yesterday criticizing the decision and claiming that it is “step one” in the Obama administration’s grand plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment:

The Obama Administration has revealed its intention to reinstate the so-called “assault” gun ban — Step One of their plan to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Having already taken advantage of our country’s current economic woes to speed the largest, most pork-laden spending spree in history through the Democrat-controlled Congress, the Obama team is again using fear tactics to impose bad policy.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced his desire to once again deny law abiding Americans their 2nd Amendment rights, using the ongoing violence in Mexico as justification.

Of course, Obama does not plan on repealing the 2nd Amendment. In fact, as FactCheck (and Holder) noted, Obama specifically stated during the campaign that he supports it. “Barack Obama believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms,” his campaign said.

But also, Steele’s criticism rings hollow as just two years ago, he stated his opposition to assault weapons, calling them “overkill“:

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

STEELE: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you’re going hunting? That’s overkill. […] If you want to talk about gun control, that’s where you need to start. We’ve got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it’s about how we enforce the law.

Posted by: drindl | March 11, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse


Add to routing list:

VP Joe Biden; DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano; Defense Sec. Robert Gates; Sec. of State Hillary R. Clinton; CIA Dir. Leon Panetta; FBI Dir. Robert Mueller; Secret Service Dir. Mark Sullivan

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 11, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse




Chief Kerlikowske knows from the inside how community policing programs funded by FEMA, DOJ and other agencies were transmogrified by secretive Bush administration ideologues in security, law enforcement and intel agencies into a constitutionally-exempt citizen vigilante army...

...an "American Gestapo" that has usurped local law enforcement and has violated civil and human rights of U.S. citizens "targeted" by federal security and intelligence agencies as "undesirables," "dissidents," or "mental defectives."

Obama officials and Congress should quiz Kerlikowske on what he knows about the following human and civil rights abuses that have been reported by victims of this officially-sanctioned vigilantism -- deemed legal by the now-discredited Bush DOJ "torture memos":

* Silent, covert microwave radiation weapons assaults on innocent but "targeted" U.S. citizens;

* Terroristic vigilante community gang stalking, surreptitious home entry, police-tolerated vandalism;

* Secret federal "programs of personal financial destruction" that have politicized the IRS, which victims say has been used as a tool of "social cleansing."


Now you have on your team an official who can tell you the WHOLE truth -- so you can compare his account with what you have been told by your Bush holdovers.


FOR MORE on the ongoing extrajudicial punishment network:


OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 11, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

PJF311, thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees a little too much of Cizzilla's personal bent in some of his postings. Like on Jan.07/09 when he stated that he had known Chip Saltzman for a long time and that Chip was the furthest thing from a racist,(the Dali Lama is the furthest thing from a racist) without acknowledging that MOST people found the CD to be offensive, insensitive, bigoted, and yes, racist. Maybe now that he's a dad, he'll clue into how hurtful crap like Saltzman pulled. Hopefully, it wouldn't take something like his kid being bullied to clue into how invasive bigotry, which racism is, is in our western society. His wife, being a field hockey coach at a University, probably encountered lots of sexism(bigotry)on her way to her position, probably still does when it comes to funding for female sports as compared to male sports. But like alot of white guys, he doesn't equate the bigotry his wife encounters with the bigotry of Chip's Barack the Magic Negro CD. My husband, a middle aged white male has become more aware of this, realizing that his life experiences have never really included being discriminated against, so he admittedly has no clue to what it feels like, or unless it's pointed out to him, what it looks like. Hopefully, little Charlie will help clue Chris in; bigotry, which incompasses racism, sexism, gay bashing, etc, has finally had alot of light shone on it, and the light will only get brighter.

Posted by: katem1 | March 11, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Dow up second day this year. Messiah saves.

Mission accomplished!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 11, 2009 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Vitter, our spy said, gave the airline worker an earful, employing the timeworn "do-you-know-who-I-am" tirade that apparently grew quite heated.

That led to some back and forth, and the worker announced to the irritable Vitter that he was going to summon security.

Vitter, according to the witness, remained defiant, yelling that the employee could call the police if he wanted to and their supervisors, who, presumably, might be more impressed with his Senator's pin.

But after talking a huffy big game, Vitter apparently thought better of pushing the confrontation any further. When the gate attendant left to find a security guard, Vitter turned tail and simply fled the scene.

Posted by: PJF311 | March 11, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Why the hell do we need a drug czar? This stupid war on drugs has been dragging on for years, and matters only get worse. Legalize drugs. Let the a-holes who want to destroy themselves do so post haste, and let the others of us who want to go on living, solve more tractable problems.

How's that for a libertarian point of view?

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | March 11, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

The Zouk is loose!! Zouks friends are at it again, but lets worry about the Churchill bust some more!! I'm Zouk!! I make snide comments at the FIX because Powerline is too full and drudge doesnt have comments, DONT YOU KNOW WHO I AM!!!!

Report Of Vitter In Airport Rage: Do You Know Who I Am?!!
By Eric Kleefeld - March 11, 2009, 9:17AM
Roll Call reports that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the staunch social conservative whose career became bogged down in the 2007 D.C. Madam prostitution scandal, was sighted this past Thursday night having an incident of airport rage at Dulles Airport.

Vitter arrived 20 minutes before the plane was scheduled to depart, and found the gate locked. He then opened the door, setting off the alarm and inviting the attention of an airline worker:

Posted by: PJF311 | March 11, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Time for another porkulus. It seems the first one was a complete waste and accomplished nothing. Queen peloony should stick with hijacking air force jets for shopping trips.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 11, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Time for another porkulus. It seems the first one was a complete waste and accomplished nothing. Queen peloony should stick with hijacking air force jets for shopping trips.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | March 11, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

I'm going to look up the modern use of the word 'Czar'. Does it me maven or expert or powerless expert???

Posted by: newbeeboy | March 11, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

A cop for drug czar, and not a good one at that. There is plenty on the web about Washington cops and they way they police. Besides that, we should be looking at ways to reduce drug use, not appoint another cop. Every cop thinks because he/she has a gun and a badge, they are a god.

C'mon, there are millions of people better qualified than this idiot! !

The Obama presidency is really starting to go downhill, and if he keeps it up, the "R" will win in 2010 and 2012.

I am strating to feel like I wasted my donations to him (over $1K) and my vote may have been wasted, except I would never have voted for the old man and his right-wing flat earther.


Posted by: swanieaz | March 11, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Parker, if the objections to the Omnibus were a R grandstanding effort, what does that make Russ Feingold, Claire McKaskill, and Evan Bayh?

One R objection - against the automatic pay raises for Congress - drew such widespread support that the D leadership had to promise to bring a salary freeze bill back to the floor quickly in order to get that objection cleared.

It sounded more like the normal process to me than like "grandstanding".

I do agree that there seems no reason why this was not passed last year.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 11, 2009 8:43 AM | Report abuse

The "controversy" over the omnibus was just a monumental waste of time and episode of grandstanding by Republicans.

The bill should have been passed in October, includes mostly essential government funding, and only 2 percent of the legislation is earmarks.


Posted by: parkerfl1 | March 11, 2009 8:09 AM | Report abuse

Assuming everyone understands the bare bones of card-check I will not describe them here, yet again.

I suggest that the rise and decline of unions has followed the industrialization and de-industrialization of America, which itself has followed the effect of "globalization". I suggest that card-check reflects a desperate and wilful misunderstanding of the effects of these external forces.

Whether or not card-check passes, and I hope it does not in its present form, it will not lead to the re-unionization of America.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 11, 2009 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Finally a Cheat Sheet that does not mention Twitter!!!!!!!!!

And no mention of one of the rights silly crisis of the week (Churchill Bust-gate, Socialism, Brown gift-gate) unless they attack the drug czar's family. Which I wouldnt put it past them.

Remember the days when insulting a president was unpatriotic??? Those were the days.

Posted by: PJF311 | March 11, 2009 7:48 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company