Obama names conservatives to Legal Services board

[autorank]

Obama names conservatives to Legal Services board

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers Dec 22

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama this week formally nominated Sacramento-based attorney Sharon L. Browne to help lead the Legal Services Corp., whose activities Browne's fellow conservatives have long tried to restrict.

Another attorney formally nominated by Obama this week, Victor B. Maddox of Kentucky, is also a conservative. Maddox served as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Browne is a Republican and a principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which promotes limited government. Even so, she voices support for the legal-aid program born amid Lyndon Johnson’s expansive Great Society.

“The Legal Services Corp. provides an important service to low-income Americans to help with everyday legal problems,” Browne said by e-mail Tuesday, adding that she was “honored” by the president’s nomination.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/254/story/81144.html

[leftstreet]

1. We can't take three more years of this n/t

[grantcart]

4. How many years can we stand a President that follows the law?

from the article. The board is one of many with multiple seats that require appointments made from both side of the aisle.

Though nominated by Obama, Browne owes at least some of her new role to Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan.

[leftstreet]

13. Do some research. These assholes have serious agendas

Of course the board is required to be bipartisan.

:eyes:

These choices suck.

[grantcart]

19. Of course they suck they are Republicans which the article the article

clearly explaihs is a legal requirement.

If Republicans appoint someone to fill a Democratic seat that the Democrats don't like then they can charge a violation of the law.

The same applies when Democrats fill a Republican seat, if the minority leadership does not agree that it represents their POV then it would be a violation.


Presumably the OP knew that but would go to any length to try and discredit the President. Apparently you support such highly biased excerpting of articles so that relevent facts are not presented.

Any lie that is presented is acceptable as long as it tarnishes the reputation of President Obama.

[leftstreet]

21. These are VILE Corporate Whoring Anti-human rights Republicans

Do they have Google where you live?

:eyes:

btw, the OP is using the same article title as posted with the actual article

But please do continue,

[grantcart]

23. and he omitted in the excerpt that they were bipartisan appointments

It is quite clear that by not explaining that the appointments were to fill Republican seats in a bipartisan board that the OP is intending people to understand that the President is appointing Republicans rather than Democrats.

This is a lie.

To try and now argue that the President should have picked "better" Republicans is an obvious attempt to hide the fact that you quickly endorsed a slam against the President that is based on the lie.


Obviously you feel that the editing of the OP which clearly gives a false impression of the appointment is correct and you consider it proper practice to mislead people to the basic nature of something as long as it gives a bad impression of the President regardless of the fact that it is purposely based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

[EFerrari]

26. The OP posted the first four graphs of the article.

You really, really need to stop accusing him of lying.

[grantcart]

29. I am absolutely accusing you of intellectual dishonesty

So if the relevent facts are in the 5-8 paragraphs then he should not post those.


You approve of editing that distorts the action of the President. It is exactly what FOX news does every night.


It is wrong there, and wrong here.


It is one thing to disagree on policy but to engage in a campaign where simple appointments to boards that require the President to appoint a Republican to fill a Republican seat simply exposes you as a person that is so consumed with personal hatred that you are willing to set aside any reasonable discussion of policy for vitriolic spasms of hatred that are based on lies.

[leftstreet]

32. DUDE! It doesn't HAVE to be a Republican!

Why, oh why won't you do some basic research?

It can be an independent.

(oops, you hadn't thought of that)

The issue isn't that he chose Republicans, it's the particular Republicans he chose.

[grantcart]

39. The article clearly states that it does have to be a Republican

The article also explains that Obama is a major supporter of Legal Services Corp. also omitted from the excerpts.


Though nominated by Obama, Browne owes at least some of her new role to Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan.

Obama formally submitted Browne's and Maddox's nominations late Monday. The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet scheduled a hearing.

If history is any guide, the Republican nominees will be asked to affirm support for the Legal Services Corp. That’s what happened in 1983, when then-President Ronald Reagan nominated Pacific Legal Foundation trustee and California appeals judge Robert Kane. Kane dutifully assured senators he supported the legal aid program, notwithstanding his conservative background and Reagan’s own stated desire to eliminate it.

Obama, unlike Reagan, is a strong public supporter of the Legal Services Corp. He recently signed a Fiscal 2010 appropriations bill that provides a $30 million boost to the organization’s budget, raising it to $420 million.



I don't have to do any more research because the facts are in the article, ahd the facts show that the OP excertped the article to remove facts showing that Obama supports LSC and that he appointed a Republican to a Republican seat after consulting Republican leadership.

What is clear is that you like the OP are so consumed with hatred that you will lower your intellectual standards to Fox news so that even the most pedestrian actions of the administration can be turned into an ideological crime, even though a complete reading of the article shows that nothing of the kind happened.

[leftstreet]

42. No, actually it says 'bipartisan' which is different

LSC states that there be no more than 6 members of the 'same party.'

Independent is considered a 'party' in this case.

[ThomCat]

70. You obviously aren't aware

that republican presidents (Bush in particular) would have 1 republican on each board change their affiliation to Independent, so that they could then stack the board with an extra republican.

So, yes, and Independent can be added to the board. The republicans often did it dishonestly. Obama could have done it honestly.

Or he could have appointed a republican who didn't have a horrible history of having a horrible agenda. perhaps someone more or less neutral and willing to be bipartisan if bipartisanship is really the goal.

But if Obama is putting far right republicans on the board then who is he really helping? How is that his best option, or the best he can do?

Even you should be able to see that this was a very bad move. It undermines the party, and his own strength and influence. If he's supposedly playing chess then he's definitely not playing it very well. :(

[KakistocracyHater]

85. after "loyal bushies" hell yeah

we need more left-of-center

[EFerrari]

38. The OP didn't edit anything. And he provided you the link.

And now you owe us both an apology.

[grantcart]

59. The OP didn't edit anything

Of all of the stupidest comments I have read on this board your reply ranks as one of the stupidest.



The OP didn't edit anything. That would mean that the OP reprinted every single word in the article.


The OP didn't do that. The OP neglected explanations of how the board is established by law that guides Presidentail appointments. That is called editing.

He also chose not to include this statement

Obama, unlike Reagan, is a strong public supporter of the Legal Services Corp. He recently signed a Fiscal 2010 appropriations bill that provides a $30 million boost to the organization’s budget, raising it to $420 million.

This is a relevent fact which would have a significant impact on how people would understand the President actions. The OP did not include it. The process of deciding what to include and what not to include is called editing.

The OP didn't edit anything -- give me a fucking break -- now regressing to the intellectual level of a sandbox.


The OP and you should apologize to DU for being so consumed with personal hatred for the President that you have gone to the extent of using the same techniques that Fox news uses. Absolutely fucking shameless.

[EFerrari]

61. I get it. You're trying to get the thread locked. Very shabby. n/t

[inna]

88. pathetic. you really owe them an apology.

shame on you.

:thumbsdown:

[autorank]

58. Pacific Legal Foundation - from Source Watch

(Appointee Sharon L. Browne is "a principal attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation"... form McClatchy Article)

Source Watch: Pacific Legal Foundation
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Legal_Foundation

History

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) was established in 1973-74 by a group of attorneys from California's Justice Department (then under the control of Attorney-General Ed Meese) to counter reform of the welfare system, and the liberal public interest legal groups that were pressing for better environmental and health regulations. Especially targeted were the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Governor Ronald Reagan of California appears to have provided the required financial links to Pittsburg billionairre Richard Mellon Scaife who funded the initial office in Sacramento, and his friend and counsellor, Ed Meese (III) became one of the founders and its chief supporter. Its expressed aim was to use its financial and litigation power to "impact the public policy agenda."

An article in the Washington Post in May 1999 reveals that "Scaife's first grants in this area (conservative public interest law movement) were made in 1974 to the Pacific Legal Foundation. In its early years Scaife kept the PLF alive. Since the mid-'70s more than $20 million in Scaife money has gone to the conservative public interest law movement "on behalf of a market-oriented economics system, traditional property rights and limited government," in the words of an internal memo written by a Scaife aide in December 1980." SNIP

According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Pacific Legal Foundation has received $110,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The website goes on to state that: Anti-environmental from the start, PLF's early actions supported the use of DDT, the use of herbicides in national forests, and the use of public range land without requiring an environmental impact review.

[leftstreet]

28. sigh

I didn't 'quickly endorse' shit. I know quite a bit about the appointments.

Whereas you, apparently, do not.

But hopefully a perusal of the article along with some basic Google searching will enrich your knowledge base. Soon you'll come to see that on his present course the President needs no help in giving the public a 'bad impression.'

[autorank]

45. Pacific Legal Foundation ... from their web site

Featured article on the site:

Dems Aim to Expand Water Pollution Controls
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/04/democrats-aim-to-expand-water-pollution-controls-b/

"With the deletion of a single word from the Clean Water Act, some leading Democratic lawmakers are angling to greatly expand the federal government's authority to regulate water pollution.

"The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in June quietly approved legislation dropping the adjective "navigable" to describe the bodies of water covered under the 1972 law, vastly expanding its scope and prompting a lobbying campaign from business groups that fear the small editorial change would cost jobs during economic hard times. SNIP

"Business groups and some legal analysts disagree.

"I think the change would be a nightmare; the bill would be the most far-reaching legislation in the history of the country," said Reed Hopper, an attorney for the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation. The group successfully argued the environmental lawsuit Rapanos v. United States before the Supreme Court in 2006. The court limited the federal government's oversight of U.S. waterways.

AND

"PLF Brief Targets Vague Laws, Like the One That Speared Skilling (of ENRON)
http://community.pacificlegal.org/Page.aspx?pid=1126

WASHINGTON, D.C.; December 18, 2009: In a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court today, Pacific Legal Foundation argues that the federal "honest services fraud" statute that is being used to prosecute former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling is unconstitutionally vague.

As America’s premier litigator for free enterprise and limited government, PLF submitted the brief as part of its Free Enterprise Project. PLF filed the brief jointly with the Cato Institute, the leading libertarian think-tank.

The brief is submitted in the case of Skilling v. United States, No. 08-1394.

The law at issue in the Skilling case makes it a crime "to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." The PLF-Cato brief argues that such vague laws violate due process guarantees because no one can be certain what constitutes a "violation."

[autorank]

31. The OP posted a news article

With a link. People read it and that's that.

There was no requirement to appoint these Republicans, in particular, Republicans opposed to the body that they're supposed to serve.

You talk about "any lie that is presented is acceptable." What are you thinking when you write stuff like that. It's a headline and a few paragraphs, the DU standard. No comment.

The facts speak for themselves and stop calling people liars who simply present them.

[grantcart]

44. You have lowered your standards of intellectual honesty so that you take

a very pedestrian act of appointing a Republican to fill a Republican on a seat that is required by law to be bipartisan.

It is especially ironic given your comment "Manufactured news, manufactured elections: thank you Corporate America."

The impression that was given and taken by the first 5 repliers was tha Obama was appointing Republicans over Democrats.


You also omit to include relevent statements in the article that outline the President's strong support of the LSC.


By leaving out key facts you are "manufacturing news" using the exact same techniques that Fox uses.


You continue to lie in saying that the appointments don't have to be Republicans while your article says that they do


Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan.


and also "the Republican nominees" will be asked to affirm support for the Legal Services Corp



You are now in the position of arguing against your own source.

The way that you edited the article is an example of "manufacturing" news about something to make it appear that it is about something else.

It is a perfect example of how people on this board are using the same tactics of FOX and the teabaggers to try and use anything they can to forment hatred against Obama.

[autorank]

82. Nonsense

Here's the story. The Republicans presented two highly offensive nominees, the type that the Bush people would appoint routinely. They were accepted. The alternative was to say, "Go back and do it again. Don't insult our intelligence." There's no absolute requirement to accept who Mitch McConnel. comes up with. But that wasn't done and that's telling. These are people who have no interest in the legal rights of the poor with an ample paper trail to document that.

For you to engage on a series of personal attacks based my simple post of a headline and a few paragraphs speaks for itself. But the notion that I'm some sort of Rasputin who can whip people up in a fury by just posting a news story is really bizarre. That's your predicate for the personal attacks and it's a very weak one since it denotes powers to me that I simply don't have.

[inna]

89. I completely agree with you.

That poster's behavior is bizarre and absurd in its sheer maliciousness. :shrug:

[inna]

90. I completely agree with you.

That poster's behavior is bizarre and absurd in its sheer maliciousness. :shrug:

[Ken Burch]

17. It could have been a moderate Republican, though.

n/t.

[Jim Sagle]

18. The only moderate Republicans left are in the executive branch.

;)

[laughingliberal]

25. Good point nt

[autorank]

72. Agreet n/t

[IndianaGreen]

86. K&R for telling the unvarnished truth!

We elected a moderate Republican as President.

[Hannah Bell]

30. Browne is an ally of people like Ken Starr & Phyllis Schlafly.

Her specialty is "reverse racism" cases.

There are many other republicans he could have chosen.

[leftstreet]

35. She is disgusting. LOL the NLG is already calling for her withdrawal!

National Lawyers Guild Calls On President Obama to Withdraw Nomination of Sharon Browne to the Legal Services Corporation

WASHINGTON - December 22 - The National Lawyers Guild (NLG) calls on President Obama to withdraw the nomination of Sharon Browne to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation (LSC). On December 17, Obama announced his intention to nominate Ms. Brown, a principal attorney and member of the senior management at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation and a member of the Civil Rights Practice Group of the Federalist Society.The Legal Services Corporation is the nation's principal funder of civil legal aid for the poor. Established by Congress in 1974, it operates by providing grants to-and overseeing-independent nonprofit legal aid programs throughout the US. The LSC operates as a private, nonprofit corporation, with a board of directors composed of 11 members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. By law, the board is bipartisan: no more than six members may be of the same political party.

The Pacific Legal Foundation, in contrast, describes itself as a "public interest legal organization that fights for limited government, property rights, individual rights and a balanced approach to environmental protection." At the PLF, Browne has authored briefs arguing against race-based school district assignment policies. She and the PLF have also been ardent supporters of Prop. 209, the 1996 ballot initiative that ended most affirmative action programs in California.

Not only does the PLF oppose much of what Legal Services stands for, but it has also directly opposed funding for Legal Services agencies. The PLF filed an amicus brief seven years ago in support of litigation challenging the legality of IOLTAs, or Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts, which are an essential supplementary funding resource for Legal Services agencies around the country.

While this slot on the LSC Board cannot legally go to a Democrat and while the minority members are traditionally selected by the minority party's congressional leadership, there is no legal bar and ample precedent for naming an independent rather than a member of the opposition party. At the very least, the president is obligated to nominate someone who believes in the importance of ensuring that the poor be afforded the legal services they need. We note, for example, that the recently-deceased former head of the Legal Services Corporation, William McAlpin, was a Republican who fought vigorously to strengthen it.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/22-4

[mmonk]

76. Amen.

I'm close to having enough.

[EFerrari]

2. I have an Exedrin headache.

:(

[grantcart]

7. Why because the President follows the law

read the article and not the biased clip of the OP


The board is one of many with multiple seats that require appointments made from both side of the aisle.

Though nominated by Obama, Browne owes at least some of her new role to Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan.

[sandnsea]

11. lol, thanks for the facts,

but it's not going to matter.

I don't know what it will take for some of these people to see that their minds are as badly infected with kneejerkitis as any freeper.

[EFerrari]

15. Yes, I know, it's only a two minute prayer.

[autorank]

34. There are any numbe of Republican jurists or attornies are not rabid right wingers

They could have been chosen. There's nothing in the law that says pick a wingnut.

[Jamastiene]

3. Just great

Geez, I'm surprised he hasn't dug Raygun up to appoint him to something too.

:wtf:

[grantcart]

8. so your opinion is that the President disregard the law?

From the article

The board is one of many with multiple seats that require appointments made from both side of the aisle.

Though nominated by Obama, Browne owes at least some of her new role to Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan.

[valerief]

5. sigh... nt

[grantcart]

9. The poster in taking only part of the article forgot to say Republican appointments are req by law

The board is one of many with multiple seats that require appointments made from both side of the aisle.

Though nominated by Obama, Browne owes at least some of her new role to Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan.

[valerief]

14. Shit. Deeper sigh... nt

[grantcart]

6. Bipartisan appointments required by law

The board is one of many with multiple seats that require appointments made from both side of the aisle.

Though nominated by Obama, Browne owes at least some of her new role to Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan.

[KoKo]

95. You've had your say several times....why do you insist on

making a "case" of yourself? Doesn't it embarrass you to see yourself repeating the same thing over and over? :shrug:

[griffi94]

10. this should be one seriously

spectacular trainwreck coming on.
he seems to be charging hard right

[grantcart]

12. or you could actually read the article and see that Republican appt is req by law

[griffi94]

16. yeah and i'm sure he couldn't find a moderate repub anywhere

[grantcart]

20. the appointments for each side of a bipartisan board are the responsibility

of the leaders of the party that they represent and have always been accepted unless there is some overwhelming reason not to do so.


So you want a Republican President picking our seats too?


In any case that is not the point


The point here is that the OP went out of his way to hide relevent facts and create another broadside that misrepresented the nature of the appointment.

Anyone reading the OP would think that the President picked a Republican over a Democrat. This is a lie,

Obviously you believe that such outrageous lies are acceptable as long as they are lies that damage the reputation of the President.

[EFerrari]

22. That's simply untrue. autorank used the article's own title and posted the link.

[grantcart]

24. and omitted references in the article that he was appointing a Republican

to a Republican seat in accordance with the law.


You agree with such misrepresentations because you don't care if it is accurate or not you are simply engaged in a hate campaign against Obama and any misrepresentation that assists in that is completely acceptable to you.

[EFerrari]

27. autorank posted the first four paragraphs as is the practice in LBN

And your cheap shots at him and at me are unworthy of you.

[grantcart]

33. Your pathetic attempts now to run behind non existent rules to try and

justify your lack of intellectual honesty fools no one.

1) This GD not LBN

2) Nothing requires the first 4 paragraphs. If an article buries the lead in the 5th paragraph you would post 4 paragraphs of nonsense.

3) Even if your assertion of posting the first 4 paragraphs were true, and it isn't, then LBN also allows for a comment and a simple comment would have presented an intellectually honest presentation of the facts.

4) But even if none of that were true and he was required to present only the first 4 paragraphs of an article then the question would be why would you post only the first four paragraphs of an article without commment that would leave such a dishonest impression of the subject.

The reason is the same as your pathetic attempts to defend a completely intellectually dishonest move - consumed by personal hatred.

[EFerrari]

37. Excuse me? I'm not trying to fool anyone.

That is the most common practice at DU, to post the first four.

Your vitriol at me and at the OP speaks for itself.

[grantcart]

49. common practice to post the first four

so your saying that if critical facts are not in the first four paragraph they should be left out.

This is the same fucking bullshit that Fox endorses.

It is clear, you don't care if something is presented in context to give an accurate picture, the only determining factor is can it be used to slander Obama, regardless if the facts are otherwise.

How extremely unfortunate for readers of the OP that McClatchey is unaware that it is against DU rules to post facts outside of the first four paragraphs or they might have known to include both the bipartisan nature of the board and the fact that Obama significantly increased its funding in the first paragraph.

[EFerrari]

50. What utter nonsense. You obviously don't have two broken hands

and can click on the link provided.

Seriously, maybe that's enough eggnog for one night.

[Hannah Bell]

51. It's not "slander". The rule says he has to appoint a republican,

but not one from the far-right-wing, opposed to everything Legal Services historically stands for.

[EFerrari]

63. "Obama appoints wingnuts to Legal Services" would be a more accurate headline.

If anything, that headline is too demure.

[Hannah Bell]

69. i'd go further than wing-nut, myself.

The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 <1> to support pro-business causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies.

It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded initially by Scaife Foundations money across the USA to support capitalism and oppose environmental and health activism and government regulation.

The organization has been <2> partially funded by a range of corporations and conservative foundations.

An article in the Washington Post in May 1999 reveals that "Scaife's first grants in this area (conservative public interest law movement) were made in 1974 to the Pacific Legal Foundation. In its early years Scaife kept the PLF alive. Since the mid-'70s more than $20 million in Scaife money has gone to the conservative public interest law movement "on behalf of a market-oriented economics system, traditional property rights and limited government," in the words of an internal memo written by a Scaife aide in December 1980."

Anti-environmental from the start, PLF's early actions supported the use of DDT, the use of herbicides in national forests, and the use of public range land without requiring an environmental impact review. They also supported at least six pro-nuclear power cases before the early eighties while accepting funding from Pacific General Electric (PGE), a utility which has gained a great deal through the development of nuclear power in the Pacific Northwest. In the 1980s, PLF won several cases that are considered landmarks by those working on property rights issues today: Nollan v the California Coastal Commission and First Church, both Supreme Court victories which provide precedence for the takings litigation pursued today (Oliver Houck, "With Charity For All," Yale Law Journal, 1993). In October 2003, PLF Vice President M. David Stirling had an Op-Ed published in which he defended President Bush's environmental record and condemned former President Clinton for endorsing the Kyoto Protocol.

Bill Berkowitz, "Pacific Legal Foundation is on the wrong side of history: Partially funded by conservative foundations, the legal advocacy group is at the hub of fighting for the re-segregation of America", Media Transparency, December 11, 2006.

Associated Legal Foundations

Landmark Legal Foundation Run by Mark Levin. Scaife used this organization to fund the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project (He gave them $250,000 - and more than $1 million over a few years).

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Legal_Foundation

This is where Browne works.

[EFerrari]

73. So many of these appointments are nauseating.

I notice myself withdrawing from news of the administration because most of it is just too upsetting.

[autorank]

41. Oh please. That's way overboard now

You attack me for simply posting the article without comment and now this poster for pointing out that it was a straight quote.

I made no comment at all, people read it and they're coming to their own conclusions.

Are you going to now complain about McClatchy?

You should have been in the San Joaquin Valley and seen what a difference Legal Services made to farm workers organizing. They were treated with utter contempt and inhumanity. Over time, the right, like these folks now nominated, manhandled and weakened Legal Services as effectively as they could. It had a human cost and delayed progress for the workers and their families.

The way crap like what McConnell pulled is handled is simple - you say, "Look, these people are an embarrassment, find me someone decent form your side and I'll appoint them." End of story.

[ipaint]

43. I can read.

It says right here it couldn't be a democrat. 4th paragraph. It also said the post was recently held by a moderate democrat who actually knew how to help the poor. Was there only one of those in the world?

"While this slot on the LSC Board cannot legally go to a Democrat and while the minority members are traditionally selected by the minority party's congressional leadership, there is no legal bar and ample precedent for naming an independent rather than a member of the opposition party. At the very least, the president is obligated to nominate someone who believes in the importance of ensuring that the poor be afforded the legal services they need. We note, for example, that the recently-deceased former head of the Legal Services Corporation, William McAlpin, was a Republican who fought vigorously to strengthen it."

[Forkboy]

93. I post the first 4 paragraphs in every forum when I post a news story.

And I hardly ever include a comment.

You're losing it, and looking insane in this thread.

[autorank]

36. Straight quotes from a Democratic news organization and you're called a liar

Isn't that something, what a load of crap. But I guess that's the way it is now.

Quote an article that people find threatening just from the facts and you're lying.

Newsspeak prevails.

[EFerrari]

40. WTF?

:wtf:

[grantcart]

56. straight quotes

here is a straight quote

Obama, unlike Reagan, is a strong public supporter of the Legal Services Corp. He recently signed a Fiscal 2010 appropriations bill that provides a $30 million boost to the organization’s budget, raising it to $420 million.

for someone who appears to be concerned about "manufactured" news you sure have gotten FOX's techniques down well.


And yes when essential facts are not included and it gives an impression that is not consistent with the truth it is a fucking lie

And you shouldn't be surprised that a site for supporters of Democrats that when somebody tries to "manufacture" news that smears democratic office holders that you will be called out on your lies.

[EFerrari]

60. You only have that quote because autorank provided you with a link.

The only smear on this thread is the one you're doing to yourself.

[goclark]

87. Thanks grantcartg anyone who thinks you are not telling the truth

sure doesn't know you at ALL! :bounce:

[NutmegYankee]

46. Perfect example of intellectual dishonesty.

The OP just left the title hanging out there and didn't say anything about this:

"Though nominated by Obama, Browne owes at least some of her new role to Senate Minority Leader McConnell. Minority leaders have a major say in some Legal Services Corp. appointments, as the board is required by law to be bipartisan."

"Another attorney formally nominated by Obama this week, Victor B. Maddox of Kentucky, is also a conservative. Maddox served as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.'

At the very least the OP could have identified that the board is required by law to be bipartisan and that the minority leader gets some say in who is appointed as well. The argument that he could have appointed moderates isn't supported by fact.

[EFerrari]

47. Wtf are you talking about? The OP posted a link to the article.

He used the original title and posted the first four paragraphs.

You people need to get a life.

[leftstreet]

48. So now we are to be held accountable at DU for a news service article?

We must add caveats to all posted news sources?

:shrug:

Why bother posting here?

[grantcart]

52. caveats are you fucking kidding

The OP intended people to have the impression that the President was appointing a Republican rather than a Democrat, weakening the board.


The Article clearly shows that the President is a strong supporter of the board. Those facts are left out because the only thing that matters is to use Rovian tactics in a Fox manner to smear the President


Relevent material that was omitted in the OP

Obama, unlike Reagan, is a strong public supporter of the Legal Services Corp. He recently signed a Fiscal 2010 appropriations bill that provides a $30 million boost to the organization’s budget, raising it to $420 million.

[Hannah Bell]

54. he replaced a moderate republican with a wing-nut.

[EFerrari]

55. The OP posted a straight news story without comment

and you are flipping like a pancake.

[leftstreet]

57. You are just Forrest Gumping your way through this at this point

If Obama is such a strong supporter, why would he appoint members whose support of LSC goals is...questionable?

Why are legal organizations already calling for the withdrawal of a nominee based on conflict of interest?

:shrug:

[autorank]

64. I'm now the designated Rasputin;)

I simply post four paragraphs and a title and it is an incendiary attack? Hardly.

It's a good thing that I didn't ad my own words.

The entire internet(s) might have fallen under my trance :rofl:

[EFerrari]

66. I'm getting sleepy, very sleepy. . . .

:rofl:

[autorank]

67. Come, look in the Cabinet!

Just say yes...

[autorank]

71. .

:)

[EFerrari]

74. Sorry, I fell asleep!

[autorank]

75. The Trifecta!

That would be me on the left;)

[autorank]

65. I'm now the designated Rasputin;)

I simply post four paragraphs and a title and it is an incendiary attack? Hardly.

It's a good thing that I didn't ad my own words.

The entire internet(s) might have fallen under my trance :rofl:

[autorank]

68. Becauseu of people like you! n/t

[Hannah Bell]

53. It certainly is, since the person being replaced was a moderate republican.

[autorank]

62. Wrong

There was a link. The link took you to an article. That plus a little common sense would tell you
that it was not imperative to appoint a wingnut. That's the key point. These came from Sen. Mitch
McConnell for goodness sake. They didn't have to. In fact, these two are so unreasonable the custom
of getting the names from the leadership could have been ignored.


See this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7304253&mesg_id=7304437

[IndianaGreen]

80. Both nominees worked for Mitch McConnell?

Are you telling me that out of tens of thousands Republican attorneys, that Obama could only pick two of Mitch McConnell's flunkies?

[autorank]

84. Yes, and her's what else he's telling you

I'm "intellectually dishonest" for posting the headline, first four paras, and NO comment according to Mr. Nutmeg.

I've never seen this level of out of the gate attack behavior for something so neutral. The story lets the reader decide the meaning.

[autorank]

83. Hey, that sure looks like a PERSONAL ATTACK

And a cheap shot to boot!

You're pretty expert at mind reading aren't you. This was posted as a straight piece of news just as McClatchy wrote it. They're a long time Democratic news organization, for decades I might note.

I posted no comment on this, just the introduction. People had ready access to the link and they could decide.

Just a note for your understanding, the reason McClatchy used this headline, "Obama Appoints Conservatives.." is the "conservatives" is noteworthy. The president didn't have to appoint them, it is not mandatory. He had to achieve a bipartisan board. The president certainly didn't have to accept these atavistic, ultra right wing, Richard Melon Scaife funded wingnuts. But he did. That's why the headline tells part of the story - it captures the readers attention with the anomaly, "Obama" and "Conservative."

What a standard this is - attacking someone and making personal attacks based on posting a headline and a few paragraphs. What are you afraid of?

[SoxFan]

77. Let's try this again

"the board is required by law to be bipartisan"

[EFerrari]

78. I don't think anyone has disputed that.

[IndianaGreen]

79. Of all possible candidates, did he have to pick one of Mitch McConnell's bitches?

If he had to pick a Republican, couldn't Obama pick one less partisan?

[autorank]

81. That was my question

He could have just told htem to stuff it and come back with decent nominees. There would have been
huge support. Go figure. Now we have the rightest of the right, the Pacific Legal Foundation, on the board. Holy cow!

[whistler162]

91. Well given that it was porbably Mitch McConnell who

proposed her to fill the vacant slot!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Services_Corporation

"law the board is bipartisan; no more than six can come from the same party.<1> LSC has a president and other officers who implement those policies and oversee the corporation's operations.<2>"

But go ahead and keep up your whining and whining and whining.........!

[whistler162]

92. OH NO HE FOLLOWED THE LAW!!!!!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_Services_Corporation

"law the board is bipartisan; no more than six can come from the same party.<1> LSC has a president and other officers who implement those policies and oversee the corporation's operations.<2>"


PANIC PANIC PANIC!!!!!!!

[mcablue]

94. Obama should not have helped right-wingers

How Hamster-like of him.