Thread: Pelosi & a "question of ethics"

CA Dem. Senator Feinstein Walks Out of TV Interview Over Question About Why She Won’t Debate Opponent
Posted on September 9, 2012 at 9:22am by Mike Opelka



Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is up for re-election in November and her main opposition comes from Republican candidate Elizabeth Emken. While Emken would like to debate the three-term senator, Feinstein has rejected the idea.

The Los Angeles Times thinks it is a good idea for the candidates to face off publicly. Last summer, after Emken won the Republican nomination, the Times published an editorial in favor of a debate: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,7751626.story

Sen. Dianne Feinstein had an excuse for not debating her opponents in the first round of this year’s election — there were 23 of them. But now that the voters have winnowed the field to two, the four-term Democratic incumbent owes it to California’s voters to appear publicly with Republican challenger Elizabeth Emken.

Again, Ms. Feinstein said no.

What is this sitting senator afraid of? She has the benefit of being the incumbent in a liberal state. Her campaign has amassed a massive pile of money to fend off almost any challenger. And based on the latest poll numbers from CBRT / Pepperdine, Feinstein leads Emken by double digits:


As Emken’s campaign is quick to point out, Feinstein has not faced a candidate in a public debate since the year 2000. And (as Emken’s website also points out http://www.emken2012.com/2012/07/the...-last-debated/ ) much has happened since 2000:

Let’s step into the Way Back Machine and see how much the world has changed since then. In October 2000:

•Bill Clinton was President
•Gray Davis was governor of California
•Saddam Hussein was running Iraq
•Most Americans had never heard of Osama bin Laden
•Most Americans had never heard of Barack Obama, either
•The World Trade Center towers dominated the Manhattan skyline
•No one had ever seen a Harry Potter movie
•No one had ever followed or friended anyone on Twitter or Facebook, or used an iPod, Phone, or iPad
•Unemployment was…only 3.9%
•The federal debt was…only $5.7 trillion
•Gas was…only $1.79 a gallon

Feinstein continues to reject the debate proposal, but the topic is not going away.

Emken’s campaign initially requested a series of five debates between the two. Based on the responses from Feinstein’s camp, it seems unlikely that even one debate will happen.

As the LA Times stated in the closing line of their July 17th editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,7751626.story

Nothing screams “entrenched incumbent” more than a refusal to debate an opponent.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ca-d...bate-opponent/

Why should Feinstein waste her time with a debate. She'll win on name recognition alone. After all, Brown is back as governor, and its California. Elections are over before they get out of bed. NOTHING new has come out of California since the 'talkies' and Movies were in Color.

Look at American Idol, the only ones who get sent on to Hollywood are the ones who sing something from MOTOWN, AND FROM THE 1970 ERA to top it.

What Is Your Government Hiding?
Posted on February 9 2013 by Conservative Daily

Don’t you wonder what our government is up to? As an American taxpayer, you have a right to know. But while requests for information from the government under the Freedom of Information Act have increased, fewer agencies are sharing information.

We pay their salaries, yet the federal government, which Obama promised would be “open and transparent,” is dismissive and out of control. It is not something we can allow to continue as we move closer and closer to tyranny.

On his first full day in office in January 2009, and amid much fanfare from an excited and hopeful press who had just seen their “savior” elected, Barack Obama announced a Presidential Memo on the Freedom of Information Act, promising to usher in a “new era of openness.” He said, "Every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known."

He continued: “The Freedom of Information Act…is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government…All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.”

Of course, he didn’t mean his administration should adhere to that standard. Under his watch, FOIA lawsuits have jumped 28 percent, and a Bloomberg investigation found that only one out of twenty cabinet-level agencies fully obeyed the law.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Freedom of Information Act into law on July 4, 1966. Under its provisions, an individual can file a request with one of the 100 federal agencies subject to the law. That agency then has 20 working days to reply either with the information, or to provide a time frame in which they will comply. If the request is denied, the agency has to explain why. At this point, the individual who requested the information can file an appeal and then move forward with a lawsuit, if necessary.

Under the Obama administration, the information flow is particularly bad. A Bloomberg News investigation in late 2012 exposed the problems. They asked for what should be a simple public request: 2011 taxpayer-supported travel for Cabinet secretaries and top government officials.

The Small Business Administration was the only agency to provide Bloomberg with the requested information within the 20-day time period. Only six cabinet-rank organizations complied at all. The Postal Service, IRS, EPA and TSA were among those who did not.

And, ironically, neither did the ATF, DEA, or FBI—all agencies under the umbrella of the Department of Justice, which is supposed to be in charge of FOIA compliance.

Now, a bipartisan effort to fix the culture is underway by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Elijah Cummings (D-MD). They sent a six-page letter to the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy asking about backlogs, regulation updates, and compliance failures—in total, 23 points relating to the government’s refusal to share information with the public. They are expecting a response and a briefing by February 22nd, but we assume they shouldn’t hold their breath given the Obama administration’s track record.

This is most certainly one of the most brazen “do as I say, not as I do” administrations. It is expected, given their level of corrupt behavior, that agencies would stall or ignore FOIA requests. However, it is unacceptable.

We cannot hold our government accountable if we do not know what it is up to. Sadly, that is probably the point of the Obama administration’s many stonewalls. (It is interesting to note that Obama received an award for his commitment to open government in March 2011; and the presentation was closed to the press!)

Katherine Meyer is a Washington lawyer who has been filing FOIA cases since 1978. She told Politico, “Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it.”

Fax Congress and support the investigation by Reps. Issa and Cummings, and let every Member of Congress know that we will not tolerate our government violating the rule of law.

http://www.conservative-daily.com/20...rnment-hiding/

Obama received an award for his commitment to open government in March 2011; and the presentation was closed to the press!

The irony...

Nancy Pelosi: Congressional pay cut would diminish the dignity of lawmakers’ jobs
By Doug Powers • February 15, 2013 04:43 PM

In any real-world performance-based pay system guided by rules of efficiency, effectiveness, accuracy, competence and return on employee investment, Nancy Pelosi and many of her colleagues would not only have stopped getting paychecks long ago, but they’d probably have been accused of stealing $16 trillion worth of office supplies. Unfortunately, we’re not talking about the real world, but the ever-expanding Fantasy-Land.

From The Hill: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/28...ty-of-the-job-

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers’ jobs. “I don’t think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “I think it’s necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded.”

The comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel.

In other words, a pay cut is beneath their pay grade. The rest of the country, not so much. http://www.sfgate.com/business/botto...in-3875894.php

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, real median household income fell for the second year in a row in 2011 - two years after the official end of the Great Recession - to $50,054. That's an 8.1 percent drop from 2007, just before the recession's onslaught. Hardest hit: white and African American households.

The nation's official poverty rate, meanwhile, remained essentially unchanged at 15 percent, which translates into 46.2 million Americans, or 9.5 million families, including 16 million children, says the report issued last week. Hardest-hit children: African Americans and Latinos.

**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/02/15...y-cut-dignity/

Nancy Pelosi Has a He!! of a Lot of Money ~ and No Shame
By drillanwr, on February 15, 2013, at 1:00 pm

The US Congress has become the largest sector of the entitlement class in this nation.

This uber-rich elitist hypocrite of the elected class is completely and willfully ignorant of the fact her office and those of the others in Congress were NOT designed to be full time jobs, let alone a lifelong career. And don't even try to argue it's really a part time job. NOT at those wages, perks, expense accounts, and lifetime benefits. Congress was originally intended only to meet just a few times a year ... and then go back to their homes, businesses, farms, and jobs, living day-to-day and personally among the district(s) they represented.

(The Hill) - House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs. "I don't think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."

The comments were made in the context of the looming sequester, which would force across-the-board cuts affecting most federal offices, including Congress. With lawmakers nowhere near a deal to avert those cuts, federal agencies are bracing for ways to absorb them with minimum damage to programs and personnel.

Pelosi, whose husband is a wealthy real-estate developer, was quick to note that a cut in her own pay would be far less significant than that for both staffers and less wealthy members of Congress. "It's a hard question to ask me because most of my colleagues are the breadwinners in their families," she said. "A pay cut to me doesn't mean as much."

She also emphasized that Congress should do everything it can to preclude such decisions by preventing the sequester cuts from taking effect at all. "A sequester should be out of the question," she said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/28...#ixzz2KzGFBqsV

For the last four years businesses, industries, employers have had to layoff staff, cut benefits and wages in order to keep up with the floundering economy and uncertainty. In the last few months, since the November election, this has increased with employees' hours being reduced to the new HHS and IRS adjusted "full time" status to avoid the ramifications to employers with ObamaCare. http://babalublog.com/2012/09/16/the...full-time-job/

Yet, Nancy Pelosi has the audacity to speak of dignity because the US Congress, whose job has become confiscating more and more of our money in order to spend it the way they want it spent, could be looking at pay cuts? Woman, you work for us. We do not work for you. Lastly, if Pelosi is so concerned a seat in the US Congress is a position of a family breadwinner's than, perhaps, this 1% elitist should not run for re-election and allow somebody with far less income run to fill it.

Dignity? Dignity, Mz. Pelosi? I hate to inform you that many Americans fail to see anything dignified about the US Congress these days http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2458914.html given they rate cockroaches higher than you and your comrades. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2435601.html


http://babalublog.com/2013/02/15/nan...-and-no-shame/

Pelosi Least Liked Congressional Leader, and ‘Most Polarizing’
April 24, 2013 By Michael W. Chapman

CNSNews.com) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is viewed as the most “unfavorable” member of the congressional leaders by the American people and the “most polarizing,” according to a new Gallup survey.

In the survey, people were asked their impression of the four top members of Congress: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

The pollsters asked, “Finally, we’d like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people – or if you have never heard of them. How about [Speaker of the House John Boehner; Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, House Democratic leader Nnancy Pelosi; Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell]?”

The Unfavorable rankings were as follows:

Pelosi 48%

Reid 38%

Boehner 41%

McConnell 34%

In terms of “favorable,” both Boehner and Pelosi tied, each earning 31%. Reid was only 27% favorable and McConnell, 26%.

In addition, the poll concluded that the Democrat Pelosi was the “most polarizing” of the congressional leaders.

“Pelosi also rates as the most polarizing of the four congressional leaders, a distinction she also held the last time all four were rated, in May 2010,” reported Gallup. “This is based on the finding that, compared with Boehner, Reid, and McConnell, she receives the highest favorable reviews from members of her own party as well as the highest unfavorable reviews from members of the opposing party.”

“More specifically, 62% of Democrats view Pelosi favorably, while 83% of Republicans view her unfavorably -- a 145-percentage-point spread,” said the pollsters. “This compares with a 109-point spread for Reid, a 102-point spread for Boehner, and a 90-point spread for McConnell.”

The telephone survey of 1,012 adults was conducted Apr. 11-14 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gall...ost-polarizing

Naturally: California awards billion-dollar high speed rail contract
to firm partly owned by ..... Dianne Feinstein’s husband
By Doug Powers • April 27, 2013 03:22 PM

Remember the good old days when Dianne Feinstein would insist her husband remove his name from consideration for government contracts in the state she represents because she didn’t want there to be any appearance of impropriety? Me neither.

From Crazifornia http://crazifornia.com/2013/04/16/di...gh-speed-rail/ by way of Sister Toldjah: http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...rail-contract/

Out of the entire universe of those who could have won the first phase construction contract for California’s high speed rail boondoggle, who would stand out as the last person who would win it if there were no political patronage.

Put another way, who is the most likely person to win it if there is political patronage?

Both questions have the same answer: Richard Blum, the husband of California senator Diane Feinstein.

So, who won the contract? Blum, of course, as the principle owner of Tutor Perini, the lead firm in the three-firm consortium selected by the California High Speed Rail Authority.

That would help explain headlines like this one from just over a year ago: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalert...rail-plan.html



Shorter headline: Cha-CHING!


More from Investors Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/newsfeed-b...-contract.aspx

Tutor Perini Corporation (NYSE: TPC), a leading civil and building construction company, today announced that its joint venture’s bid, valued at approximately $985 million, was recently identified by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) as the “apparent best value” for the design and construction of the initial Madera to Fresno segment of the California high-speed rail system. The Authority’s Board of Directors is expected to approve the design-build contract for this project in the coming weeks. Once the contract is awarded, Tutor Perini’s portion of the contract value will be added to the Company’s backlog.

What is the “apparent best value”? About $35 million per mile of track. http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/04/2...rail-contract/

But it’s a small price to pay to be able to make the popular Borden to Shafter commute in record time http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/files/...map1126101.png (or maybe not http://michellemalkin.com/2013/03/27...s-being-spent/ ).

Past DiFi coverage:

The Feinstein Chronicles : http://michellemalkin.com/2007/04/02...edia-catfight/

A question for Dianne Feinstein : http://michellemalkin.com/2007/03/29...nne-feinstein/

DiFi and the culture of corruption : http://michellemalkin.com/2007/03/29...of-corruption/


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/27...stein-husband/

Why is Diane Feinstein is allowed to serve a term in the U.S. Senate instead of a Federal prison.

So how does a woman who has never held a job outside public office scheme her way to a Net Worth of around $100 million?



From 2001 to 2005, Feinstein was a member of the Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Subcommittee (MILCON). During her time with MILCON, Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions of dollars to two firms; URS Corp. & Perini Corp. In May 2006, Perini held a collection of bundled contracts awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers for work in the Middle East worth $1.73 billion. Perini has also been awarded an open-ended contract by the Air Force for military construction and environment quality control at closed military bases.
...
The majority shareholder in URS Corp and Perini Corp is Richard Blum,..Feinstein's husband.

In 2009, without being a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Feinstein began a series of back-room deals to help the FDIC obtain money to meet the demand for compensation related to home foreclosures ($25 Billion to be exact),..but there was a catch. The FDIC was accepting bids for the contract to sell the forclosed properties it had inherited from a growing list of failed banks,..and Feinstein wanted CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) to win,...and they did.

The Chariman of CBRE, in case you haven't guessed, is Richard Blum,...Feinstein's husband.

The Washington Times reported that only a few days after consummating the contract with the FDIC, “CBRE raised $207 million through a stock offering that sold for $3.77 a share. Mr. Blum’s investment partnerships bought 10.6 million shares at the market price of $3.77. The stock offering was announced a couple of days before the signing of the FDIC contract.”

This is called Insider Trading.