Mood:  loud

Hunted and Assaulted

Three Republicans in Virginia were hunted down and assaulted by a man over their beliefs. Police in Fredericksburg, Virginia say 23-year-old Andrew Stone went to a nearby home after discovering one of the resident's names on a Republican Web site.

The resident and his two roommates engaged in a discussion with Stone, even though they had never met him before. The argument quickly got heated when Mr. Stone learned the three roommates had not enlisted in the military and "put their all" behind the Republican-led war in Iraq. The police were called after Stone refused to leave the premises, striking the roommates several times.

Stone was arrested on three counts of assault and battery. It's not known from the police report what political agenda Mr. Stone was supporting.

Fox News.com ~ Political Grapevine - Brit Hume ** Hunted and Assaulted

Yeah, "not known" what political agenda breeds this kind of unhinged hatred, huh? Take a wild guess, then see the complete story at:
Michelle Malkin.com ** Facebook nightmare: College Republican targeted by stalker speaks out

Posted by yaahoo_ at 9:39 AM EST

Updated: Friday, 23 February 2007 9:48 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

The Clinton-Geffen-Obama feud is a battle over the black vote;
Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Limbaugh offers to mediate...

It's War Within the Democrat Party

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to the Democrats. They gathered together in Carson City, Nevada, for a so-called forum -- (laughing) -- Democrat forum on the campaign. It was supposed to be a debate. You want to know what this is really about. Hillary's loser stance on the war dominated the first Democrat forum. “As the front-runner, Mrs. Clinton drew perhaps the closest scrutiny.” This is the LA Times reporting. "In particular, over the 2002 Senate vote to authorize the war. Unlike others in the field, she has not apologized or called the vote a mistake. Asked about that, Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut said Clinton will speak for herself, then mused on the difficulty public figures have acknowledging ignorance or error. Given her turn, Clinton was asked by ABC's [and the former Clinton White House lap dog] George Stephanopoulos about apologizing. ‘My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances I received at the time,’ [she lied,] ‘adding that the most important thing now was to focus on changing the direction of US policy.’” There were no assurances. We have the sound bites.

The Drive-Bys won't play it. They will not go out and repeat for you what her Senate floor speech before her vote was all about. She said she independently investigated all this. She's trying to now say she was tricked, that Bush misled her and so forth. We have a sound bite from Mrs. Clinton. And this, of course, was about Obama and the little spat that has erupted. I have to tell you something about this. There is a cardinal rule. What is Mrs. Clinton, 23, 24 points ahead of the guy in the polls? I've not totally abandoned my theory about the role of Obama in this campaign. I'll get to that in just a second, explain that to you again. But there's a cardinal rule, ladies and gentlemen, in all areas of competition, and that is when you're at the top, you don't talk about anybody else beneath you. All it does is elevate them and make them important. You ignore them. You don't dare mention them. It's only the riffraff at the bottom of the poll that start squawking and making noise about the team at the top. They're entitled to because they're at the bottom and it's not going to hurt them.

I don't understand, therefore, in one sense, although I do in many others, I don't understand Mrs. Clinton giving Obama the time of day on this David Geffen thing. I don't understand it. Ignore it. Who's David Geffen? But that's not the Clinton way. You don't diss Hillary Clinton. You don't disrespect Hillary Clinton. You do not criticize Hillary Clinton. You don't do it. You don't criticize her. If you're a Democrat, you don't criticize her husband. If you do, you are going to pay the price. It's a mistake for her to do this. Now, my theory about this, and I'm not wedded to it, but it's a possibility. Mrs. Clinton is the front-runner, she's come out of the gate the front-runner, she's entitled, she's presumptive as the nominee and all of this. You know what happens to front-runners. They generally fade because somebody comes out of the pack, big surprise, and knocks 'em off. Bill Clinton was not the front-runner in the Democratic battles in 1992. He came from behind, had the Whitewater stuff show up in the New York Times, and Clinton showed he could defeat those SOBs, however he did it. He showed that he can overcome this.

Hillary has to do the same thing. Obama is out there, and now Hollywood… (Gasping) … some parts of Hollywood out there as an obstacle for Mrs. Clinton to overcome. She's 23 points ahead of them! I'm not saying Obama is part of this, but the way the Clintons are reacting to this, it is as though Obama is a serious opponent and she's gotta knock him down to show she can do it; show other Democrats that she can do it. What's actually happened is that you have people out there saying, “Gosh, I like this Obama guy because he's not backing down to Clinton, Incorporated. He's not intimidated. He's firing right back at them.” And that's one thing he's gotta do. He's gotta show he's a tough guy. He's only been around, what, two years in the Senate? Besides that, nobody knows what he did. Well, we do in the Illinois Senate. Wait 'til you hear some of things this guy voted for. All of that is coming up later when it's important. I got e-mails from friends of mine last night, “I like this Obama guy.” Oh, no, no, no! Why?

You tell me the American people don't want to win? The American people are sick and tired of Clinton, Inc., the American people, some Democrats, too. I read some Democrat websites last night and they are sick and tired of the Clintons. They're tired of dynasties -- Bush, Inc., Clinton, Inc., whatever it is, and they like this guy Obama slapping back and not taking this. Mrs. Clinton was asked about this. This is Stephanopoulos. “Your campaign's gotten into a bit of a press release scuffle with the Obama campaign today. It began with comments by David Geffen,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, “but do you personally believe that Senator Obama should denounce David Geffen's remarks?”

HILLARY: I want to run a very positive campaign and I sure don't want Democrats or the supporters of Democrats to be engaging in the politics of personal destruction. I think we should say --

RUSH: Come on, what a --

HILLARY: -- what we're going to do for America, and, you know, I believe Bill Clinton was a good president, and I'm very proud of the record of his two terms.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Should he denounce it? Should Senator Obama denounce it?

HILLARY: Well, I'm going to leave that up to the other campaign.

RUSH: What do you mean leave it up to the other campaign? Your campaign's out there saying he should denounce it. What, are you not part of your campaign? You have Howard Wolfson suggesting that Obama is this or that, should stop, should shut up and make Geffen shut up, and he's also out there calling Geffen the campaign finance chair for the Obama campaign, which he's not. And that Obama should give back the money that Geffen raised! The problem is that Geffen's not the campaign chair, a woman named Penny Pritzker from Chicago is, and she's part of the Pritzker fortune, the family owns the Hyatt hotel chain. Last night on Hardboiled with Chris Matthews, he interviewed the Hillary Clinton communications campaign director Howard Wolfson. And Matthews said, “You find what Geffen said vicious, I guess?”

WOLFSON: I find it unacceptable political discourse, yes. Our expectation was that Senator Obama, who is running a campaign premised on changing our politics, who has decried the politics of slash-and-burn, would denounce the comments, say that these comments don't represent his thinking or his campaign. We were, frankly, surprised that he didn't do that. It makes you wonder whether or not he agrees with them.

RUSH: What Geffen said was not personal. What he said was not slash-and-burn. What he said was true politics: Clinton lies. Hillary Clinton lies. They find it easy. And, frankly, they're reckless, and I'm tired of them. There's no slash-and-burn -- you don't criticize the Clintons. No, no, no, no, no. You don't diss the Clintons. So Matthews said, “Well, Senator Clinton was on that panel today out in Nevada. She was asked by Stephanopoulos if she wanted the Obama campaign to denounce the words of Geffen. She said I'll leave it up to them. But you're not leaving it up to them. Are you saying what Hillary is thinking?”

WOLFSON: I'm saying what the campaign is thinking, exactly.

MATTHEWS: What's the campaign?

WOLFSON: Senator Clinton's campaign.

MATTHEWS: Is that different than her?

WOLFSON: Sometimes I'm going to speak, and sometimes she's going to speak.

MATTHEWS: Does it mean that Hillary Clinton wants Obama to give the money back?

WOLFSON: Yes. If -- if -- if the campaign -- the campaign speaks for Senator Clinton and speaks -- absolutely.

MATTHEWS: But she said today she doesn't care --

WOLFSON: Because she's in front of a group of people who have come to hear her and the other Democrats.

RUSH: Wait a minute. She can't be truthful in front of even Democrats? She leaves it up to you to tell the truth of what she thinks, but she don't have the guts to say it, and she wants to be president? Mr. Wolfson, are you going to be the guy negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. Once a Clintonista, by the way, always a Clintonista. Bill Richardson says Obama should denounce David Geffen. He was asked this at this Carson City, Nevada, forum yesterday.

RICHARDSON: Yes. Because I think that if we're going to win, we have to be positive. If there's anything about Democrats in the last few years, being a governor I felt this, we just can't criticize the president. There's plenty to criticize. We should advance our own policies, our own solutions.

RUSH: Yeah, well, do what you want to do, but look at this, “Stop criticizing each other! Stop criticizing each other!” Bill Richardson thinks that Mrs. Clinton shouldn't be attacked. Here's Obama last night in Iowa. He didn't even bother showing up at Carson City, Nevada, in this forum. Obama responding to the Clinton War Room criticism, and he does not denounce Geffen's comments.

OBAMA: My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons. That doesn't really have anything to do with our campaign. I've said repeatedly, I have the utmost respect for Senator Clinton and I considered her an ally in the Senate and will continue to consider her that way throughout this campaign.

RUSH: Not backing down to the Clintons. The Clintons have ordered him to renounce Geffen and give the money back, and Obama says, "No, not going to do it. I respect Mrs. Clinton." Obama, that won't buy you much with the Clintons. And of course Geffen also had to ream Carville, said he's tired of seeing James Carville on TV. Carville wasn't crazy about it. Wolf Blitzer said, “James, what do you think about Geffen's comments?”

CARVILLE: A Hollywood guy like that, you try to get him to open his wallet and shut his mouth, because, inevitably, he gets around Maureen Dowd, he's going to make a fool of himself. Geffen is a guy that he -- he -- as much as he knows about politics, he knows that little -- about Hollywood, he knows that little about politics. Somebody needs to say, hey, Bill Clinton has a 95 percent favorable among Democrats. This -- this -- this Geffen-led strategy of attacking Bill Clinton to win a nomination is -- is -- is indicative of -- of Mr. Geffen's political stupidity.

RUSH: Well, interesting, isn't it, that Carville's advice to Hollywood guys, “Open the wallet and shut up.” Now, they don't tell these people to shut up when they're out there bemoaning global warming or anything else, but don't talk about the Clintons, open your wallet and shut up. Wolf then said, “Well, here's what Geffen said, James, about you. He said he's basically tired of hearing James Carville on television.”

CARVILLE: That sentence is truly remarkable. People would say as annoying as I may be, how are you equating me with people like dying in a war. It goes -- again, it just goes to show you that this guy lives in some world, how do you go tell 3,100 widows that James Carville being on TV is -- it was --

BRAZILE: He might be jealous, James. He's jealous.

CARVILLE: I'll tell you what, Mr. Geffen. You can have my TV time. I'll take your money.

RUSH: Wait a minute, that was Donna Brazile saying that Geffen is jealous of Carville? How can it be? They're both bald. Well, shaved heads, what have you. But once again, he just thinks these Hollywood people are idiots. They're eating their own, ladies and gentlemen. They're eating their moneybags.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

A couple other thoughts occurred to me during the break that I want to comment on. This is Carville, he was with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, talking about the comments that David Geffen made about the Clintons and so forth after supporting Obama. By the way, have you noticed that all these liberals are now jumping the black guy. Here's Obama, he's black, and he's black because people made him feel that way when he was a kid, not black because he decided it. He said this. And all these libs are jumping the guy now. Hillary's jumping on the black guy, Bill Richardson jumping on the black guy. I mean, if liberals were honest, they would get out of the way and let him have the nomination, affirmative action. First black president and all that. Instead, they're jumping the guy. Anyway, here's the first Carville bite. Don't need to hear the questions - just a couple things occurred to me in the process of listening to these.

CARVILLE: A Hollywood guy like that, you try to get him to open his wallet and shut his mouth, because, inevitably, he gets around Maureen Dowd, he's going to make a fool of himself. Geffen is a guy that he -- he -- as much as he knows about politics, he knows that little -- about Hollywood, he knows that little about politics. Somebody needs to say, hey, Bill Clinton has a 95 percent favorable among Democrats. This -- this -- this Geffen-led strategy of attacking Bill Clinton to win a nomination is -- is -- is indicative of -- of Mr. Geffen's political stupidity.

RUSH: All right, what's the message? We're not supposed to attack Bill Clinton. We're not supposed to attack Bill Clinton. We're not supposed to call Clinton reckless. We're not supposed to say he and Hillary are good liars. We're not supposed to do that. No, no, no, no, not permitted in the Democrat Party. Here's the second Carville bite.

CARVILLE: That sentence is truly remarkable. People would say, as annoying as I may be, you know, how are you equating me with people, like, dying in a war? I mean, it goes to -- again, it just goes to show you that this guy lives in some world that is -- how do you go tell 3,100 widows that James Carville being on TV is -- it was...

BRAZILE: He might be jealous, James. He's jealous.

CARVILLE: I'll tell you what, Mr. Geffen. You can have my TV time. I'll take your money.

RUSH: What are we to conclude from this? Here's what we're to conclude. It's real simple. We can undermine the troops. We can undermine the commander-in-chief. We can demoralize the troops. We can threaten and promise a slow bleed of the troops. We can deny them reinforcements. We can deny them troop rotations. We can deny them upgrades in equipment and armor. We can lose the war, we should lose the war! America should lose because Democrats own defeat, and we can unleash a genocide in Iraq by pulling out. But whatever the hell you do, don't call Bill Clinton a liar. You can say whatever you want about Bush. You can say whatever you want about Limbaugh. You can say whatever you want about the troops. You can own defeat. You can rip your own country to shreds day in and day out. Don't you dare criticize Bill or Hillary Clinton. That, my friends, is what you conclude from that.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

There is a real war going on in the Democrat Party, and the media is trying to underplay this as, you know, like a cat fight and a skirmish, but I'm going to tell you what's really going on here. The Clintons are ticked off because Obama may in fact be the real first black president replacing the phony first black president, Bill Clinton. The whitest first black president from the scene. Make no mistake, this is about the black vote. This is all about the black vote. The Clintons, Hillary, not going to get anywhere without it. That's why all these stories, "Is Obama black enough?" You think these aren't coming from the Clinton War Room? Ha-ha. Guarantee you they are. Is Obama black enough? This is coming from the Drive-By Media! It's about the black vote, in the primaries.

Look, somebody needs to ride to the rescue here, my friends. I, as you know, have been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. As such, I am prepared to moderate the fight now going on between the first black president, who is a white guy, and the first would-be black president who is half white and half black. I can bring a perspective to this that perhaps the participants can't. I offer this, my peacemaking skills, to help the libs in this so that they end up embarrassing themselves further.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: More on the infighting going on now in the Democrat Party. It's more serious I think than anybody believes. We've been having a lot of fun with it ourselves, starting yesterday, when we first heard about the Geffen-Obama-Hillary contretemps. But let me tell you what this is akin to. Hillary's fight with Hollywood -- and that's what this is, a fight with Geffen is a fight with Hollywood -- would be just the same as Republicans fighting with the evangelical wing of the party. It's a very ominous sign for her that this is happening. It is truly ominous that a major Hollywood mogul is not just defecting, but is openly criticizing her and her husband. Think of McCain in 2000 and South Carolina ripping Bob Jones University and evangelicals and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, whoever, evangelical worshipers. That's what this is. If that were happening in place of this, you make book on the fact that the Drive-By Media would be talking about this, “A major, major rift. Can the party survive?” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Now, what Mrs. Clinton is trying to do is to isolate Geffen and make him the only Hollywood guy. They're attacking him, and they have Carville out there on him, and they have Howard Wolfson on him, they've got Terry McAuliffe, The Punk. You've got all these people out there focusing on Geffen sending a message to the Spielbergs and the Katzenbergs and the whoever elses out there, both the management types, the owners, the actors, the key grips, the best boys, the whole schmooze. They are sending a message. The Clinton team is sending a message: it's going to be only Geffen and they're trying to put this fire out before it spreads. The Drive-Bys are trying to downplay this a bit and trying to make it funny or curious or what have you. Then you have the black vote as a serious component. That's the thing the Clintons need. Bill Clinton is the first black president. He’s a white guy. And he's afraid of the first real black president maybe being elected, who's half white and half black, that would be Barack Obama.

Why do you think there are stories in the Drive-By Media about Obama not being black enough, as though Bill Clinton is but Obama isn't? You think that just happens? It doesn't just happen in Clinton, Inc. Also notice this. Who instigated this? Who really brought this to light? None other than MoDo, Maureen Dowd. Of what? The New York Times. Now, Maureen Dowd is a reliable whacked out liberal. It's a shame how unhappy she is. I am tempted to think I could change that with just one dinner. You know me. I'm an eternal optimist. Just one. It would never happen, but we can fantasize. Nevertheless, she's a reliable, whacked out lib. She was the voice for Geffen. She gave Geffen's words amplification in the New York Times. Now, where's the New York Times going to come down on this? The New York Times is now in the middle of a rift between the Clintons and Hollywood. They’re not going to get rid of her, don't misunderstand, but I'm just telling you this is far more serious, even though it's entertaining to us, it's far more serious than anybody really knows.

This was supposed to be Hillary's coronation. This whole thing, this whole campaign, this whole primary season, this was supposed to be her coronation. She wasn't supposed to have to answer tough questions. She's on the listening tour. She has the chat room there on her website. She's not supposed to be dealing with any of this. This is not what was intended. This is a coronation. She's angry that anyone would seriously contend her nomination. And so is Bill. This is every bit as much about him getting back to the White House as her. Don't doubt that for a second. Now, Los Angeles Times today, "Gentle Jabs Turned to Punches for Clinton-Obama." And get this, “Her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, recently warned donors that Clinton would remember those who did not back her. ‘You are either with us, or you're against us,’ McAuliffe told potential donors during a dinner at Haim Saban's house,” who is a big Hollywood producer and big honcho of the Clintons.

Now, when was the last time we ever heard you're with us or against us? George W. Bush. George W. Bush and the war. This was after 9/11 and he was telling the world, “You're either with us or you're against us,” you're with the terrorists or you're against us. It was a threat. The Democrats were just creaming him over it. They were just as mad as they could be. You don't threaten the world! Here's The Punk warning donors that Clinton, this is Hillary, would remember those who did not back her. You're either with us or against us. You know, folks, warning that she would remember those who did not back her. That's a threat. What does that mean? And whatever happened to diplomacy? Has anybody talked about diplomacy in solving this rift? I have. I offered myself to mediate.

I am a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. I would happily bring my peacemaking skills to this fight. Yeah, we could call it the Palm Beach Accords. They could come down here and they could talk at my estate. If they want a carbon fluorescent bulb in the room, I'll make adjustments. I'm not going to alter my house. I'll bring in a special lamp for it. But if they want, I will even do that. I will go that far for peace, the Palm Beach Accords. But they don't want peace and they don't want diplomacy. When fighting amongst themselves they're not utilizing any of the skills, requirements, policies, and techniques that they demand the country use in dealing with people that want to wipe us out. And The Punk telling people you have been warned? Mrs. Clinton will not forget those who were against her? (Gasping.) I just hope Obama and Geffen know those places in Washington to avoid.

END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...
(LA Times: Gentle jabs turn to punches for Clinton, Obama)
(NY Times: In Both Parties, Fierce Infighting (All Eyes on ’08)
(NYDN: It gets ugly early as Hil slams Bam)
(NewsMax.com: Bill Richardson: Obama Should Apologize)
(American Spectator: Obama and the Nevada Eight)
(NRO: Disingenuous Party - Victor Davis Hanson)
(RCP: Obama's Worn-Out Economic Ideas - Thomas Sowell)

*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
Rush Limbaugh.com ** It's War Within the Democrat Party

Posted by yaahoo_ at 7:01 AM EST

Updated: Friday, 23 February 2007 8:28 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

Madonna's dating ban for daughter

Madonna has banned her daughter from dating until she is 18.

The singer got worried when ten-year-old Lourdes attracted a lot of attention at the premiere of new animated film 'Arthur and the Invisibles' - in which Madonna voices a character - and has warned her to stay away from men until she is an adult.

A source told the National Enquirer magazine: "It must come from her strict Catholic upbringing.

"Everyone told Lourdes how gorgeous she is at the 'Arthur and the Invisibles' premiere, which sent a red alert to Madonna!

"It made her nervous to think that in just a few years guys would be hitting on her only girl."

Madonna has previously admitted to being a strict parent.

The 48-year-old singer has banned Lourdes and her younger brother Rocco from watching TV and eating junk food, makes them earn their treats, and if they leave clothes on the floor they end up in the trash.

Madonna - who is married to British film director Guy Ritchie - said: "My kids don't watch TV. We have televisions but they're not hooked up to anything but movies. TV is trash. I was raised without it. We don't have magazines or newspapers in the house either.

"My daughter has a problem picking things up in her room. So if you leave your clothes on the floor, we put them in a trash bag. She has to earn them back by being tidy. I'm a disciplinarian. Guy's the spoiler."

AZ Central.com ~ BANG Showbiz ** Madonna's dating ban for daughter

While I applaud any parent who tries to set guidlines for thier kids, isn't it just a little bit hypocritical and ironic for Madonna, pinup girl of corruption and decadence, to be trying to protect her daughter from corruption?

I loved this quote, "TV is trash. I was raised without it." ...And we all know how well she turned out! She was perfectly okay with parading her own sexual deviancy and perversions and promoting them all upon everyone else's youth but forbids the very same for her own child. It was okay to see mommy make out with that ho-bag Britney Spears on TV, wasnt it?

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 26 February 2007 11:58 PM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  chatty

Harry Reid would have a shit-fit...

Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch

By: Carrie Budoff

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut told the Politico on Thursday that he has no immediate plans to switch parties but suggested that Democratic opposition to funding the war in Iraq might change his mind.

Lieberman, a self-styled independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has been among the strongest supporters of the war and President Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 combat troops into Iraq to help quell the violence there.

"I have no desire to change parties," Lieberman said in a telephone interview. "If that ever happens, it is because I feel the majority of Democrats have gone in a direction that I don't feel comfortable with."

Asked whether that hasn't already happened with Iraq, Lieberman said: "We will see how that plays out in the coming months," specifically how the party approaches the issue of continued funding for the war.

He suggested, however, that the forthcoming showdown over new funding could be a deciding factor that would lure him to the Republican Party.

"I hope we don't get to that point," Lieberman said. "That's about all I will say on it today. That would hurt."

Republicans have long targeted Lieberman to switch – a move that would give them control of the Senate. And Time magazine is set to report Friday that there is a “remote” chance Lieberman would join the GOP.

(Read comments)
The Politico ~ Carrie Budoff ** Lieberman Says War Vote Could Prompt Party Switch

Remember when the lamestream media was cheerleading for Senator Jim Jeffords a few years back when he said that he may leave the Republican majority? Think they'll egg on Senator Joe... and push him to defy the Dems?

Don't get me wrong, I admire Lieberman for taking a stand against Demented-crat Party lunacy, but he is libtard through and through. But Lieberman wouldn't be any worse than Fucktard McCain, would he?

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

British Airways chooses Boeing 777s over Airbus

LONDON -- British Airways (BAY.L: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Wednesday it was choosing four Boeing 777 aircraft, with options for four more, ahead of Airbus A330s as it starts expanding its longhaul fleet.

"It was a very close decision between the Boeing 777s and Airbus A330s," said British Airways Commercial Director Robert Boyle.

"However, the ease of assimilating up to eight aircraft into our existing 777 fleet, rather than having a small number of A330s, swung the balance in Boeing's favor," he added.

"We already have 43 of the 777 aircraft, and that was the tipping factor."

The Boeing 777-200ER is a long-range, twin-engined plane that typically seats 301 passengers.

High oil prices have helped its sales as airlines look to replace older, less efficient older models. The airlines have shunned the nearest Airbus equivalent, the fuel-thirsty, four-engined A340.

The deal is further bad news for Airbus, which postponed a major announcement on job cuts this week, saying European nations could not agree how to share the work on the planemaker's next aircraft, the wide-body A350.

The surprise statement followed a stormy board meeting at parent EADS (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) on Sunday evening, at which the group failed to sign off on management's Power8 restructuring plans, seen as crucial to the future of Airbus, a source close to the matter said.

EADS shares were down 0.8 percent at 25.73 euros by 1230 GMT, while BA shares eased 0.5 percent to 570 pence.

FLEET RENEWAL
British Airways is starting a major program of fleet renewal and expansion, with 20 of its older 747s and 14 of its 767s due to be replaced.

Analyst Andrew Fitchie at Collins Stewart said Wednesday's deal signaled confidence at BA, as it had pledged to get on track to achieving a 10 percent margin target before placing any order.

Boyle told reporters the next big order would be made in the second half of 2007, at which point the ease of assimilating the planes would be less of an issue.

"The competition is still wide open," he said.

The four Boeing 777-200 ERs, worth about $800 million in total, are scheduled for delivery in early 2009, and options have been taken out for a further four to be delivered in 2010.

Industry sources said Airbus had faced a tough time trying to win the order as BA had excluded from its list of candidate aircraft the four-engined Airbus A340, a plane which competes directly with the twin-engined 777 but is more expensive to operate.

Airbus said on Wednesday it had sold four smaller single-aisle A320s to British Airways, worth about $270 million at list prices.

Airbus' problems this week also exposed continued tensions between the four countries where its plants are based -- Britain, France, Germany and Spain -- as the planemaker's chief Louis Gallois prepares to axe up to 10,000 jobs or a fifth of its workforce.

Airbus has been roiled by almost two years of management and shareholder disputes, changes in ownership and political tensions as the A380 superjumbo project turned sour.

British Airways said it was still negotiating with General Electric (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Rolls Royce (RR.L: Quote, Profile, Research) about which engines will be used for the new Boeing 777 aircraft.

Airbus (EAD.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) lost the annual battle for plane orders to Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) for the first time in six years in 2006, posting 790 net orders versus Boeing's 1,044.

(Additional reporting by Jason Neely)
Reuters ~ Pete Harrison ** British Airways chooses Boeing 777s over Airbus

I wonder how the socialist libtard left in the EU and here will manage to Blame President Bush for this???

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  party time!

The spin on this news is stong, attempting to downplay economic news that would be shouted from the rooftops if there was a Dem in the White House, I bet the writer was naseous...

US deficit is shrinking, for now

With the robust economy, tax revenues are pouring in. But rising costs lie ahead.

By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

The shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits generating a bigger flow of tax revenue. In turn, the Treasury's progress could help the economy by buoying investor confidence in the nation's fiscal position.

Although it is a welcome change, the improvement does little to stave off the long-run challenges to the nation's financial health, many economists say. Baby boomers are starting to retire, placing new demands on government. Costs for healthcare programs like Medicare are still projected to rise faster than overall inflation.

"The picture is getting brighter," and if there's no recession over the next several years "there are going to continue to be some good strides made," says Mark McMullen, a senior economist at Moody's Economy.com in West Chester, Pa. But "it's unlikely that we're going to see a balanced budget anytime in the near or long term."

Some experts say the budget could achieve balance in the short run of the next few years. In unveiling its proposed budget this month, the Bush administration forecast black ink on the federal ledger in 2012. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in its recent annual outlook, also shows a surplus for that year.

A year ago, the CBO's forecast for the 2007 fiscal year called for a deficit of $270 billion. In the annual outlook released last month, the 2007 gap is projected at $172 billion.

"Right now, we're in some sense in a relatively good spot," says Jim Horney, a budget analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington. "We're in the sixth year of an economic expansion," a time when federal revenues often rise along with a growing economy.

But both the CBO and the White House make important assumptions that are far from assured.

The CBO's annual outlook assumes that President Bush's tax cuts phase out in 2010 as scheduled, thus adding new tax revenues.

Mr. Bush's budget calls for the tax cuts to be made permanent, but foresees a surplus in 2012 thanks to a sharp fall in Iraq spending and robust productivity growth in the economy.

But several issues are unsettled. Among them: How much will military operations in Iraq and elsewhere cost? Will Congress make some of the Bush tax cuts permanent? Will Congress scale back the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which is poised to take a rising tax toll on middle-class Americans in the years ahead?

The answers will have a big impact on the budget, and may not be resolved before a new president takes office in 2009.

The long-term outlook remains sobering, all sides agree. The cost of Medicare, in particular, is slated to soar due to healthcare inflation and an aging population.

Even the near-term outlook comes with an asterisk. When Bush took office in 2001, the CBO was forecasting a decade of budget surpluses totaling more than $5 trillion. Then came a recession, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and enormous wartime spending. The Bush tax cuts helped to stimulate the economy, but at the cost of lower tax revenue.

"We had three years where revenues went down," says Mr. Horney. "All that has happened is that we have ... caught up from the really bad decline that we had."

Still, analysts say the recent budget gains are good news for the government and the economy.

The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since 1970, according to economist Michael Darda of MKM Partners in Greenwich, Conn. "At the current pace, the budget could move back into surplus as early as May 2008," Mr. Darda wrote in a report to clients last week.

That isn't a forecast, but it shows how the nation's fiscal health is closely related to that of the overall economy.

A more stable budget outlook, in turn, has benefits for the economy.

The less money the government has to borrow to pay its bills, the more is left for investment in new goods and services. Alternatively, the nation will be less reliant on foreign lenders to fund that investment – debt that siphons away a portion of national wealth.

"Unexpectedly strong revenue growth" has improved the outlook quite a bit, says Mr. McMullen.

In the CBO projections, for example, the nation's public debt is forecast to fall from 37 percent of GDP in 2006 to 30.5 percent of GDP in 2012.

In the longer run, the rise of entitlements such as Medicare could force difficult choices to keep that debt from rising again.

Conservatives say it will be vital to contain costs. "If nothing changes in Washington then both revenues and spending will be higher," says Chris Edwards, a tax expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. "It'll hammer the economy," he says, as government takes a larger share of GDP.

Others say the answer will probably involve tax hikes as well as some reductions in promised entitlement benefits – and that a modest increase in taxes need not damage economic growth.

Both sides agree on the need to tame medical inflation, if not on how to do it.

"If we were able to reduce the growth of the cost of healthcare," says Horney, "that would definitely be good for the economy."

Christian Science Monitor ~ Mark Trumbull ** US deficit is shrinking, for now

Posted by yaahoo_ at 12:01 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  d'oh

Hey Demented-crats! Take notice of what is happening in your beloved Europe...

One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study

One in six Europeans is living below national poverty thresholds, with children particularly vulnerable, according to the results of an official study.

The European Commission's annual report on "social protection and social inclusion" also found 10 percent of people living in households without anybody working as well as wide discrepancies between life expectancies between EU member states.

"Recent reforms to make national systems more fiscally and socially sustainable are encouraging, but there are still big challenges ahead," said EU Social Affairs Commissioner Vladimir Spidla.

"The facts are clear, 16 percent of Europeans remain at risk of poverty and 10 percent live in jobless households," he said of the data which will be formally presented to EU leaders at a summit in Brussels next month.

The study shows a 13-year gap between the highest and lowest life expectancies for men, and spending on health and long-term care in the EU ranging from five percent of GDP to 11 percent.

"But through mutual learning and by stimulating countries to set common goals, Europe can bring a real added value to national efforts to reinforce social cohesion," said Spidla.

In 2004, 16 percent of EU citizens lived under the poverty threshold defined as 60 percent of their country's median income, "a situation likely to hamper their capacity to fully participate in society."

The rate ranged from 9-10 percent in Sweden and the Czech Republic to 21 percent in Lithuania and Poland.

The figures, most from 2004, do not include Romania and Bulgaria which joined the EU last month.

Children are often at greater risk-of-poverty than the rest of the population, with 19 percent below the poverty threshold, according to the study results.

The share of children living in jobless households varies greatly across member states, ranging from less than three percent in Luxembourg to 14 percent or more in Britain and Bulgaria.

"Living in a household where no one works affects both children's current living conditions, and the conditions in which they develop by lack of an appropriate role model," according to the study.

Neither does having a job always protect people from the risk of poverty. In 2004 eight percent of EU workers lived under the poverty threshold, "thereby facing difficulties in participating fully in society."

European life expectancy levels have "increased spectacularly in the last half century," according to the report.

However, there are currently wide disparities, with men's life expectancies ranging from 65.4 (Lithuania) to 78.4 years (Sweden) and those of women from 75.4 (Romania) to 83.9 (Spain).

Breitbart ~ Agence France-Presse ** One in six Europeans living below poverty threshold: study

I thought socialism was supposed to end poverty as we know it. I guess they just haven't found the right "labour" leader in order to MAKE it work. Here's the socialist solution: RAISE MORE TAXES TO HELP THE POOR. Eurotards.

Posted by yaahoo_ at 4:00 AM EST

Updated: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 4:22 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  don't ask

Religious Argument Leaves One Hospitalized

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A local cab driver allegedly tried to run over two customers after a fight over religion became heated.

The incident happened early Sunday morning on the Vanderbilt campus and left one man hospitalized and a cab driver arrested, said police.

Two students visiting from Ohio were coming from a bar downtown when they got into an argument with their driver over religion, said police. After they paid the driver he allegedly ran them down in a parking lot.

Ibrihim Ahmned, of United Cab, was arrested and charged with assault, attempted homicide and theft. One of the passengers, Andrew Nelson, managed to outrun the cab but Jeremy Invus was taken to the Vanderbilt University Medical Center with serious injuries, said police.

Ahmed has been convicted of misdemeanors including evading arrest in a motor vehicle and driving on a suspended license, said police.

Ahmed was charged with theft because police said the license plate on his cab was listed as stolen. His bond is set at $300,000.

WSMV.com ~ NBC4 News - Nashville, TN ** Cabbie Runs Down Students

*GASP* Surely it wasn't the Religion of Peace ® again having violent tendencies. Who'da thunk that?

Posted by yaahoo_ at 6:55 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007 7:12 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  silly

Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton

By Bill Sammon

WASHINGTON -- If Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the presidency, some top Democrats would like to see her husband, former President Bill Clinton, appointed to serve out Hillary’s unexpired Senate term.

“As a senator, he’d be a knockout,” said Harold Ickes, who was once a top White House aide to Bill Clinton and now gives behind-the-scenes advice to Hillary. “He knows issues, he loves public policy and he’s a good politician.”

Some Democrats and political analysts say Bill Clinton would thrive in the world’s greatest deliberative body, much like Lyndon Johnson did before he became president.

“President Clinton would excel in the Senate,” said Paul Begala, who helped Bill Clinton get elected and served in the White House as a top aide.

“Why not?” Begala added. “He excelled as attorney general and governor of Arkansas, he excelled as president and he’s been a model of the modern Senate spouse.”

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, agreed.

“Clinton is a natural for the Senate,” Sabato said. “He loves to talk and schmooze. He could be a great vote-organizer. Majority Leader Clinton?”

Such a scenario is not beyond the realm of possibility now that the governor’s mansion in New York is occupied by a Democrat, Eliot Spitzer, who succeeded Republican Gov. George Pataki last month. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, Spitzer would likely appoint a fellow Democrat to take over her Senate seat.

So far, speculation about potential successors has focused on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father once held the same Senate seat.

But Spitzer could just as easily appoint Bill Clinton, who, under New York law, would fill his wife’s Senate seat through 2010. A special election would then be held, and the winner would serve the final two years of her term, which expires in 2012.

Although Ickes would love to see Bill Clinton in the Senate, he considers the scenario a long shot.

“I think there’d be a real call on [Spitzer] to appoint a black senator,” Ickes said. “I think there’d be a real call on him to appoint a Hispanic senator.”

Bill Clinton, who was once dubbed America’s “first black president” by author Toni Morrison, would not be the first former president to serve in Congress. John Quincy Adams had a long career in the House after his presidency, and Andrew Johnson served briefly in the Senate after a stint in the White House. Johnson and Clinton are the only two presidents in history to have been impeached by the House. Both were acquitted by the Senate.

Political analysts say a Senate seat for Bill would go a long way toward solving a potentially nettlesome problem for Hillary -- what to do with her husband if they return to the White House. The former president currently maintains an office in Harlem and a home with his wife in Chappaqua, N.Y.

“Nothing will solve the Bill problem entirely,” Sabato said. “He will be restless and underfoot for Hillary, in part because he is the more talented pol.”

There would also be financial ramifications.

“It would certainly lower the family income because there are restrictions on how much a senator can bring in on speeches and so forth,” said presidential scholar Stephen Hess of George Washington University. “Of course he’d have housing, because she’d put him up in the Lincoln Bedroom or something.”

bsammon@dcexaminer.com
The Examiner ~ Bill Sammon ** Some mull idea of Sen. Bill Clinton

Posted by yaahoo_ at 2:47 AM EST

Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007 3:03 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink

Mood:  special

ARKANSAS RAZORBACKS

Last Tuesday, as President Bush got out of his helicopter, Marine One, on the back White House lawn, he was carrying a tiny piglet under each arm.

The squared away Marine guard at the foot of the gangway snaps to attention, salutes, and says: "Nice pigs, sir."

The President replies, "Marine, these aren't pigs! These are genuine Arkansas Razorback Hogs. I got one for Senator Hillary Clinton, and I got one for Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi."

The squared away Marine clicks his heels, salutes again, and says, "Excellent trade, sir."

Posted by yaahoo_ at 2:17 AM EST

Share This Post

Permalink