BLACKMAIL IN HOBOKEN NJ? SAY IT ISN'T SO GOVERNOR!

BLACKMAIL NOW IN CHRISTIE'S BAG OF TRICKS?

Move over, Bridgegate. The Christie administration is now accused of using blackmail in Hoboken, telling Mayor Dawn Zimmer that she would not get Sandy aid for her town unless she approved a real estate project pushed by the Christie administration.

Zimmer, appearing on MSNBC this morning, said that Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno and Department of Community Affairs Commissioner Rich Constable each made the threat in person, explicitly linking Sandy aid for Hoboken, which was 80 percent under water after the storm, to her approval of a real estate project pushed by the Rockefeller Group, a New York firm represented by David Samson, a Christie intimate who is chairman of the Port Authority.

Is it true? Michael Drewniak, the governor's acerbic spokesman, scoffed at the idea. But then again, that's what Drewniak does. When he was first asked about Bridgegate, he called that accusation crazy. A spokesman for Constable denied it, but Constable himself assumed his usual position under the covers with no comment.

Zimmer says she's ready to take a lie detector test and challenged Guadagno and Constable to do the same. She showed TV-host Steve Kornacki diary entries expressing her shock and disappointment at the time, and multiple emails from Christie's crew pushing for approval of the project.

This one is beyond ugly. Because in the end, Zimmer did get shorted. Hoboken got $342,000, a pittance for a town that was 80 percent under water after the October 2012 storm. She had requested $127 million.

This is a credible charge. Zimmer is describing the same kind of thuggish behavior from the Christie administration that we saw during Bridgegate.

But this one cuts deeper. Leaving people stranded in horrid traffic for four days is bad enough. But denying aid to victims of Sandy as a means of leverage against an elected official is simply revolting. And surely illegal.

Time for U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman to jump on this. And the Legislature should ramp up an investigation as well.

In the meantime, what about it, Ms. Guadagno? If you are telling the truth, why don't you belly up and take that lie detector test? And how about you, Mr. Constable?

Did governor Kripsy Kreme hold super-storm Sandy relief funds hostage? If so, this by far trumps the "Bridge Over River Hubris" scandal.

Like all things tea bagger, I am sure Darrell Issa, and Lindsey Graham will somehow be able to tie all this to Obama and Benghazi.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

ITS ALL ABOUT ME

SANDYGATE AND BRIDGEGAZI CONSUME CHRIS CHRISTIE

The Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has opened a federal investigation into whether New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie improperly used Hurricane Sandy relief funds to produce commercials starring himself and his family ahead of his re-election campaign. Auditors will examine how the Christie administration used $25 million set aside for “a marketing campaign to promote the Jersey Shore and encourage tourism,” focusing on the bidding process awarding a $4.7 million contract to a politically connected firm that cast Christie and his family in the Sandy ads, while “a comparable firm proposed billing the state $2.5 million for similar work” but did not include Christie in the commercials.

The ads produced by the company, MWW, attracted significant criticism. The New Jersey Star Ledger accused Christie of siphoning off “money that was intended for victims of Sandy to promote himself in a series of TV ads,” and described the move as “offensive” and a ” new low.”

CHRIS CHRISTIE AD

Congress raised alarms about the ads in August. In August, Rep. Frank Pallone alerted the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that the Christie administration may have “irresponsibly misappropriated funding allocated by Congress from the Sandy aid package” and used funds set aside for promoting the state “for political purposes.” “The contract was awarded to a firm that is charging over $2 million more than the next lowest bidder to develop the marketing plan,” Pallone wrote, noting that “the winning bid proposed including Governor Chris Christie in the advertisements, while the lower cost proposal that was not selected did not.” “It is inappropriate for taxpayer-funded dollars that are critical to our state’s recovery from this natural disaster to fund commercials that could potentially benefit a political campaign.”

Conservatives questioned Christie’s staring role. In November, Sen. Rand Paul said Christie’s appearance in the television ads gave the recovery effort a “black eye.” “People running for office put their mug all over these ads while they were in the middle of a political campaign,” Paul said during a committee hearing. “In New Jersey, $25 million was spent on ads that included somebody running for political office. You think there might be a conflict of interest there? That’s a real problem and that’s why when people who are trying to do good and trying to use taxpayers’ money wisely, they’re offended to see our money spent on political ads. That’s just offensive.”

Chair of bidding committee has close ties to Christie. A six-member bid evaluation committee of Christie administration officials selected the higher price despite issuing a report that said Sigma’s proposal also “addressed the tasks and deliverables specified in the RFQ (request for quotation) … (and) could effectively meet the requirements of this RFQ.” Michele Brown, a close Christie aid, led the bid evaluation. “Brown is a former federal prosecutor in New Jersey but resigned that post in 2009 amid controversy over a loan of $46,000 from Christie,” Asbury Park Press reports.

The winning firm donated thousands to Republicans. The East Rutherford, New Jersey based MWW Firm has donated heavily to Democrats, but “MWW employees donated $1,000 to Christie’s 2009 Republican gubernatorial primary campaign and $1,500 to his 2010 inaugural committee.” The MWW Group PAC “spent $95,250 in the 2012 federal election cycle, with 73 percent of the money going to Democrats, though the largest single expenditure, $5,000, went to the National Republican Congressional Committee.” The losing ad firm, Sigma, did not make any political contributions.

The winning firm originally sought more money. Contract documents reveal that “MWW’s team had sought $5.2 million in labor costs and markups, with company CEO Kempner requesting his own compensation to be set at $595 per hour. After negotiations with state officials, MWW reduced its price and removed Kempner from the compensation list.”

Christie says he selected firm for its “statewide connections.” The Christie administration insists that MWW was the best choice, claiming that it had “statewide connections that would allow it to mobilize quickly to perform the high-stakes work of boosting tourism in the first summer season since superstorm Sandy.” “The size and scope of the PR campaign that MWW undertook was far larger and more labor-intensive than any other bidder’s,” said Michael Drewniak, a Christie spokesperson.

Christie has responded by attributing the ads to Obama: “The Stronger Than The Storm [ad] campaign was just one part of the first action plan approved by the Obama Administration and developed with the goal of effectively communicating that the Jersey Shore was open for business during the first summer after Sandy,” Christie spokesperson Colin Reed said in a statement. “We’re confident that any review will show that the ads were a key part in helping New Jersey get back on its feet after being struck by the worst storm in state history.” While the Obama administration approved a waiver to allow the state to spend $25 million on ads, it was not involved in the bidding process under federal review.

I am reminded that "Deep Throat" once told Bob Woodward. "follow the money" - apparently this is still prudent advice today. At this rate maybe we could get Christie to the big house, the gray bar hotel, jail.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT

Ever notice how all things good and bad are President Obama's fault?

According To Media Reports, Obama Is Responsible For At Least 8 ‘Katrinas’

On Friday, the New York Times ran a lengthy piece comparing the troubled roll-out of Obamacare — including a dysfunctional website and the cancellation of some existing individual insurance policies — to President Bush’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina, a tragedy which cost at least 1,833 people their lives. ABC’s Good Morning America featured a similar segment, and both outlets relied on former advisers of George W Bush to bolster their point. But this is just latest in a long line of “Katrinas,” that Barack Obama is responsible for, according to the media. Here is a sampling:

1. BP Oil Spill
“It’s getting baked in a little bit in the media that BP was President Obama’s Katrina.” [NBC News, Brian Williams, 8/29/10]

2. Bank Bailout

“A CHARMING visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. It would be foolish to dismiss as hyperbole the stark warning delivered by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif., in a letter to the editor published by The Times last week: ‘President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived.’” [New York Times, Frank Rich, 3/21/09]

3. Benghazi Consulate Attack And The IRS

“When House Republicans decided to reopen investigations into the White House and State Department response to the attacks on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, few thought it would inflict any serious damage to the president. Then came an admission from the IRS that it had unfairly singled out conservative groups for scrutiny during the 2012 campaign…This is President Obama’s Katrina moment. If he cannot regain control of the narrative, he will face the same loss of public confidence suffered by President Bush.” [Baltimore Sun, 5/19/13, Todd Eberly]

4. Hurricane Sandy

“I want to show you this report by our own David Lee Miller of a public housing unit in New Jersey, and — I’m sorry, in Brooklyn — devastated. This is Obama’s Katrina. And now the people are seeing that the gas lines and the suffering and the millions without power, the millions without heat, the millions — the ten and thousands that have lost their homes, and the cries for help.” [Fox News, Sean Hannity, 11/5/12]

5. Unemployment

“‘Will The Unemployment Crisis Be Obama’s Katrina?’ There’s a Category 5 storm about to make landfall, and the president and the officials in charge of preparing for the approaching disaster don’t seem to be particularly worried. Sound familiar? Just as Katrina exposed critical weaknesses in the priorities and competence of the Bush administration, the unfolding unemployment disaster is threatening to do the same for the Obama White House.” [Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington, 11/23/09]

6. The Underwear Bomber
“To the list of phrases it may be best for political leaders to avoid after a major security incident, add ‘the system worked’ right after ‘Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.’ Just as the public did not really share President George W. Bush’s assessment of how things were going after Hurricane Katrina, so too was there a good deal of skepticism when President Obama’s homeland security secretary declared faith in a system that failed to stop a guy who tried to blow up a passenger jet on Christmas Day.” [New York Times, 12/29/09]

7. Haiti Earthquake

“‘Haiti: Obama’s Katrina.’ Four years ago the initial medical response to Hurricane Katrina was ill equipped, understaffed, poorly coordinated and delayed. Criticism of the paltry federal efforts was immediate and fierce. Unfortunately, the response to the latest international disaster in Haiti has been no better, compounding the catastrophe.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/25/10]

8. Obamacare

“‘Health Law Rollout’s Stumbles Draw Parallels to Bush’s Hurricane Response.’ President Obama is now threatened by a similar toxic mix. The disastrous rollout of his health care law not only threatens the rest of his agenda but also raises questions about his competence in the same way that the Bush administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina undermined any semblance of Republican efficiency.” [New York Times, 11/14/13]

Four years ago, the New York Times derided comparing every Presidential error to Katrina as “a Category 5 cliché.” Melissa Harris Perry, writing in the Nation in 2010, was even harsher: “These metaphors reduce catastrophe to an object lesson, implying that the effects of the disaster have been resolved, that the plot has been resolved and that the continued suffering of our fellow citizens is little more than a literary device.”

For Louisiana Republicans, Hurricane Katrina is Obama’s Katrina — a recent poll found more blame Obama than Bush for the federal response to the 2005 tragedy.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

Binders Full O' Women Proves He Is 100% Schmuck

Binders Full O' Women Helping Victims His Own Way

BuzzFeed's McKay Coppins reports on the making of Mitt "Binders Full O' Women" Romney storm relief stunt (emphasis added):

The plan was for supporters to bring hurricane relief supplies to the event, and then deliver the bags of canned goods, packages of diapers, and cases of water bottles to the candidate, who would be perched behind a table along with a slew of volunteers and his Ohio right-hand man, Senator Rob Portman. To complete the project and photo-op, Binders Full O' Women would lead his crew in carrying the goods out of the gymnasium and into the Penske rental truck parked outside.

 But the last-minute nature of the call for donations left some in the campaign concerned that they would end up with an empty truck. So the night before the event, campaign aides went to a local Wal Mart and spent $5,000 on granola bars, canned food, and diapers to put on display while they waited for donations to come in, according to one staffer. (The campaign confirmed that it "did donate supplies to the relief effort," but would not specify how much it spent.)

Not that you needed any more evidence that Binders Full O' Women's event was more about helping his campaign than helping storm relief victims, but the fact is the only reason they collected supplies is because they thought it would make for a better picture than encouraging financial donations. The thing is that the Red Cross does not ordinarily accept physical goods because processing them is a logistical nightmare; instead, they ask for financial donations.

But apparently Binders Full O' Women campaign bullied the Red Cross into accepting the physical goods that they didn't want, because by the end of the day yesterday, the campaign was distributing a statement from the Red Cross thanking them for their donations.

Binders Full O' Women's campaign told reporters that a Red Cross warehouse in New Jersey was accepting the donation, and distributed a statement they attributed to the Red Cross.

"The American Red Cross appreciates the support from the Binders Full O' Women campaign and is working with the campaign to process this donation of supplies," the statement read. "We are grateful that both the Obama and Binders Full O' Women campaigns have also encouraged the public to send financial donations to the Red Cross. We encourage individuals who want to help to consider making a financial donation or making an appointment to give blood."

That statement is a polite way of saying: "Please don't do what the Binders Full O' Women campaign did with physical goods because we don't need the logistical challenge of processing donations of supplies. Instead, please make a financial contribution or donate blood." In other words, if Binders Full O' Women wanted to help he should have donated the $5,000 instead of spending it on props to make his storm relief photo op look good.

If you where a compassionate person, you might like to give folks like this assclown the benefit of doubt. I'd like to think that maybe Mitt is just being pulled in lot of different directions, then again, not! This story is the epitome of a desperate out of touch teapublican - and this story only confirms that binders full O' women is a true freaking schmuck!

How low can the binders full O' women campaign go? There appears to be no bottom to the depths they'll sink to make themselves look like something we all know that they are not. This desperate group maybe a bottomless pit. Are they incapable of embarrassment or shame? Oh, sigh, never mind.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

IS IT POSSIBLE TO REPSOND TO QUICKLY?

Failed FEMA Director Michael Brown

Former FEMA Director Michael Brown offered criticism of President Obama’s early responses to Hurricane Sandy yesterday, including a dig at the administration’s response to last month’s attack in Libya.

Yesterday, ahead of the storm’s pummeling of the eastern seaboard, Brown gave an interview to the local alternative paper, the Denver Westword, on how he believed the Obama administration was responding to Sandy too quickly and that Obama had spoken to the press about Sandy’s potential effect too early.

Brown turned then to a reliable right-wing attack on the President’s response to the attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that killed four Americans:

“One thing he’s gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [the hurricane] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in…Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas?” Brown says. “Why was this so quick?… At some point, somebody’s going to ask that question…. This is like the inverse of Benghazi.”

Conservatives have been hitting Obama for weeks on his attendance at a fundraiser in Nevada following the assault in Benghazi, claiming at alternate times that the President either cared more about politics than lives lost or that he was trying to downplay the attack’s significance. Now the critique has mutated into a belief that Obama is currently “playing President” to score points during disaster relief in the run-up to the election, in contrast to his actions in September.

Brown is not the only one making the insinuation that Obama and his administration are responding too quickly to Sandy only for political reasons. He’s joined in his accusations by such prominent right-wing commentators as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and columnist Charles Krauthammer.

However, Brown’s comments carry a special irony due to the role he played during the Hurricane Katrina debacle in 2005. As director of FEMA during the legendarily botched response, Brown, famously dubbed “Brownie” by President Bush, was in the center of criticism from both sides of the aisle that the Bush administration was too slow to respond. An internal review by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector-General following the disaster concluded, “Much of the criticism is warranted.” Brown resigned from his position as director less than two weeks after Katrina hit.



NFTOS
Editor-In-Chief
Roger West

FRANKENSTORM IS HERE, HOW WOULD BFOW RESPOND?

Don't expect this if Romney wins the Presidency

BFOW = "Binders Full Of Women"

The federal government’s ability to respond to natural disasters, like Hurricane Sandy currently bearing down on the East Coast, would be significantly hindered under a Romney-Ryan administration.

At least three times, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have publicly demanded that the federal government only disburse disaster relief funding if Congress agreed to offsetting budget cuts elsewhere. This would hold desperately-needed disaster relief funding hostage unless Congress agreed to cuts elsewhere in the budget, an extraordinarily difficult prospect even in normal circumstances.

Though GOP Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) became the public face of such intransigence in the wake of natural disaster last year, Romney and Ryan have repeatedly made clear they agree with Cantor’s position.

Last year, after a major tornado and flood struck the United States, Romney was asked in a debate about federal disaster relief funding. Romney not only suggested shuttering FEMA and sending responsibility for disaster relief “back to the private sector,” but also said it would be “immoral” for the federal government to fund disaster relief efforts without cutting the budget elsewhere. “It makes no sense at all,” Romney concluded.

Ryan’s 2012 budget took a similar approach to disaster funding. As The Hill noted in May 2012, Ryan’s budget called for any disaster relief funding to “be fully offset within the discretionary levels provided in this resolution.” In other words, Congress would have to agree on cuts elsewhere in the budget if it wanted to dole out funds after a disaster. This idea was so far out of the mainstream that even Republican legislators abandoned the idea. Ryan opposed Obama’s efforts to build significant funding for disaster relief into the budget, a move intended to avoid the kinds of delays forced by Cantor and the Tea Party last year.

This is not a new position for Ryan. Long before he entered the political limelight, Ryan was still pushing a similar line on disaster funding. In a March 23, 2004 speech on the House floor, Ryan proposed that any emergency spending legislation, including disaster relief, be automatically offset by an “across-the-board” budget cut. After proposing legally-binding spending limits, Ryan bemoaned the fact that these emergency spending items “do not have to be paid for under our current budget rules.” Automatic cuts, Ryan explained, would help Congress offset funding that went to disaster relief.


UPDATE: NFTOS HQ is in the middle of Frankenstorm, we may be down for a spell, but rest assure, if we got knocked off the grid, we will be back as soon as possible.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West