THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 5, 2009
President Obama to Request $50 Million to Identify and Expand Effective, Innovative Non-Profits
White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation to Coordinate Efforts
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama, in his FY2010 budget, will ask Congress to provide $50 million in seed capital for the Social Innovation Fund to identify the most promising, results-oriented non-profit programs and expand their reach throughout the country.
Many solutions to our nation’s most challenging social problems are being generated outside of Washington; the Social Innovation Fund will identify what is working in communities across the country, provide growth capital for these programs, and improve the use of data and evaluation to raise the bar on what programs the government funds.
"The idea is simple: to find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country that are facing similar challenges," First Lady Michelle Obama will say Tuesday at the Time 100 Most Influential People Awards in New York City, according to her prepared remarks. "By focusing on high-impact, result-oriented non-profits, we will ensure that government dollars are spent in a way that is effective, accountable and worthy of the public trust."
Melody Barnes, Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council, also highlighted the Fund Tuesday in a keynote speech to the Council on Foundations. "The Social Innovation Fund reflects the President’s new governing philosophy: finding and investing in what works; and partnering with and supporting others who are leading change in their communities," Barnes said. "We are also working with Federal agencies across the government to identify new solutions to problems that have resisted traditional approaches."
The Social Innovation Fund was authorized in the recent Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. The Fund will focus on priority policy areas, including education, health care, and economic opportunity. It will partner with foundations, philanthropists, and corporations which will commit matching resources, funding, and technical assistance.
The White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation will coordinate efforts to enlist all Americans –individuals, non-profits, social entrepreneurs, corporations and foundations – as partners in solving our great challenges. Located within the Domestic Policy Council, it will:
Catalyze partnerships between the government and nonprofits, businesses and philanthropists in order to make progress on the President’s policy agenda
Identify and support the rigorous evaluation and scaling of innovative, promising ideas that are transforming communities like, for example, Harlem Children’s Zone, YouthVillages, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Citizen Schools.
Support greater civic participation through new media tools
Promote national service.
Mrs. Obama’s full remarks at the Time 100 Most Influential People Awards in New York City will be released later in the day.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-to-
Request-50-Million-to-Identify-and-Expand-Effective-Innovative-Non
-Profits/
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Social Entrepreneur or Sociopath?
My Dear Fellow American Citizens:
Yesterday a nameless individual(s) on Craigslist called me a, "Sociopath" in response to my, "Sleepless in Seattle" post:
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pol/1845060414.html
At this time I would like to once again publicly state for the
record, I am a, "Social Entrepreneur" not a, "Sociopath" and
below for everyone's independent review, are the definitions
for each given title and I am perfectly willing to allow God, the
American People and History, to determine whether I, President
Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and/or all of my former bosses, and
business partners in Expotera, are the true, "Social Entrepreneurs"
or are the true, "Sociopaths" of our time?
Sincerely,
Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera
SO·CI·O·PATH
A person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath
Glibness and superficial charm, manipulative and conning.
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used.
Grandiose sense of self and feels entitled to certain things as, "their right."
Pathological lying. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis and can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.
Lack of remorse, shame or guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core.
Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow emotions. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.
Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for love and a callousness and lack of empathy. Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor behavioral controls and impulsive nature. Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim.
Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, irresponsibility, unreliability and not concerned about wrecking others lives and dreams and oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause.
Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial versatility and changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
SO·CIAL EN·TRE·PRE·NEUR
A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change (a social venture). Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social capital.
Thus, the main aim of social entrepreneurship is to further social and environmental goals. However, whilst social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, this need not necessarily be incompatible with making a profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.
Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
Social entrepreneurs often seem to be possessed by their ideas, committing their lives to changing the direction of their field. They are both visionaries and ultimate realists, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.
http://www.ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur
A social entrepreneur identifies and solves social problems on a large scale.
Just as business entrepreneurs create and transform whole industries, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss in order to improve systems, invent and disseminate new approaches and advance sustainable solutions that create social value.
Unlike traditional business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs primarily seek to generate "social value" rather than profits. And unlike the majority of non-profit organizations, their work is targeted not only towards immediate, small-scale effects, but sweeping, long-term change.
Social entrepreneurs identify resources where people only see problems. They view the villagers as the solution, not the passive beneficiary. They begin with the assumption of competence and unleash resources in the communities they're serving.
The job of a social entrepreneur is to recognize when a part of society is stuck and to provide new ways to get it unstuck.
He or She finds what is not working and solves the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires a committed person with a vision and determination to persist in the face of daunting odds.
Ultimately, social entrepreneurs are driven to produce measurable impact by opening up new pathways for the marginalized and disadvantaged, and unlocking society's full potential to effect social change.
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/whatis/
Yesterday a nameless individual(s) on Craigslist called me a, "Sociopath" in response to my, "Sleepless in Seattle" post:
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pol/1845060414.html
At this time I would like to once again publicly state for the
record, I am a, "Social Entrepreneur" not a, "Sociopath" and
below for everyone's independent review, are the definitions
for each given title and I am perfectly willing to allow God, the
American People and History, to determine whether I, President
Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and/or all of my former bosses, and
business partners in Expotera, are the true, "Social Entrepreneurs"
or are the true, "Sociopaths" of our time?
Sincerely,
Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera
SO·CI·O·PATH
A person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopath
Glibness and superficial charm, manipulative and conning.
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used.
Grandiose sense of self and feels entitled to certain things as, "their right."
Pathological lying. Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis and can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.
Lack of remorse, shame or guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core.
Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow emotions. When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person.
Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
Incapacity for love and a callousness and lack of empathy. Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
Poor behavioral controls and impulsive nature. Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim.
Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, irresponsibility, unreliability and not concerned about wrecking others lives and dreams and oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause.
Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial versatility and changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution.
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
SO·CIAL EN·TRE·PRE·NEUR
A social entrepreneur is someone who recognizes a social problem and uses entrepreneurial principles to organize, create, and manage a venture to make social change (a social venture). Whereas a business entrepreneur typically measures performance in profit and return, a social entrepreneur focuses on creating social capital.
Thus, the main aim of social entrepreneurship is to further social and environmental goals. However, whilst social entrepreneurs are most commonly associated with the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors, this need not necessarily be incompatible with making a profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems. They are ambitious and persistent, tackling major social issues and offering new ideas for wide-scale change.
Rather than leaving societal needs to the government or business sectors, social entrepreneurs find what is not working and solve the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
Social entrepreneurs often seem to be possessed by their ideas, committing their lives to changing the direction of their field. They are both visionaries and ultimate realists, concerned with the practical implementation of their vision above all else.
http://www.ashoka.org/social_entrepreneur
A social entrepreneur identifies and solves social problems on a large scale.
Just as business entrepreneurs create and transform whole industries, social entrepreneurs act as the change agents for society, seizing opportunities others miss in order to improve systems, invent and disseminate new approaches and advance sustainable solutions that create social value.
Unlike traditional business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs primarily seek to generate "social value" rather than profits. And unlike the majority of non-profit organizations, their work is targeted not only towards immediate, small-scale effects, but sweeping, long-term change.
Social entrepreneurs identify resources where people only see problems. They view the villagers as the solution, not the passive beneficiary. They begin with the assumption of competence and unleash resources in the communities they're serving.
The job of a social entrepreneur is to recognize when a part of society is stuck and to provide new ways to get it unstuck.
He or She finds what is not working and solves the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution and persuading entire societies to take new leaps.
Identifying and solving large-scale social problems requires a committed person with a vision and determination to persist in the face of daunting odds.
Ultimately, social entrepreneurs are driven to produce measurable impact by opening up new pathways for the marginalized and disadvantaged, and unlocking society's full potential to effect social change.
http://www.pbs.org/opb/thenewheroes/whatis/
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Sleeping with the Enemy
from tony whitcomb
to minneapolis@ic.fbi.gov
cc stacy ming
date Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM
subject: Stephanie Devaan/Stephanie Devann Illegal Campaign Contributions
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Could you please forward this e-mail containing the below additional information related to, "Jon Devaan" on to your Election Fraud Agent.
Thank You,
Tony Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera
Stephanie Devaan
Political Campaign Contributions
2010 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$2,350
2006 Transaction Count/Amount4/$7,100
2004 Transaction Count/Amount5/$11,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Stephanie Devaan Contribution List in 2010
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devaan, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self/Artist $1,000 06/23/2009 P DELBENE FOR CONGRESS - Democrat
DEVAAN, STEPHANIE
MEDINA, WA
98039 SELF/ARTIST $1,000 03/07/2009 P FRIENDS OF BLANCHE LINCOLN - Democrat
Devaan, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self/Print Artist $1,000 03/06/2009 P WASHINGTON WOMEN FOR CHOICE
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/stephanie-
de-vaan.asp?cycle=10
Stephanie Devann
Political Campaign Contributions
2004 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount2/$3,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Stephanie Devann Contribution List in 2004
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devann, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self Employed/Artist $1,000 10/19/2004 P MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC FARMER LABOR PARTY - Democrat
Devann, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self employed/Print Artist $2,000 07/10/2004 P ALBEN2004 - Democrat
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/stephanie-
devann.asp?cycle=04
to minneapolis@ic.fbi.gov
cc stacy ming
date Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:31 PM
subject: Stephanie Devaan/Stephanie Devann Illegal Campaign Contributions
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Could you please forward this e-mail containing the below additional information related to, "Jon Devaan" on to your Election Fraud Agent.
Thank You,
Tony Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera
Stephanie Devaan
Political Campaign Contributions
2010 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$2,350
2006 Transaction Count/Amount4/$7,100
2004 Transaction Count/Amount5/$11,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Stephanie Devaan Contribution List in 2010
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devaan, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self/Artist $1,000 06/23/2009 P DELBENE FOR CONGRESS - Democrat
DEVAAN, STEPHANIE
MEDINA, WA
98039 SELF/ARTIST $1,000 03/07/2009 P FRIENDS OF BLANCHE LINCOLN - Democrat
Devaan, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self/Print Artist $1,000 03/06/2009 P WASHINGTON WOMEN FOR CHOICE
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/stephanie-
de-vaan.asp?cycle=10
Stephanie Devann
Political Campaign Contributions
2004 Election Cycle
Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount2/$3,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
Download all contribution records for this person
from 1999 to present
To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Stephanie Devann Contribution List in 2004
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar
Amount Date Primary/
General Contibuted To
Devann, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self Employed/Artist $1,000 10/19/2004 P MINNESOTA DEMOCRATIC FARMER LABOR PARTY - Democrat
Devann, Stephanie
MEDINA, WA
98039 Self employed/Print Artist $2,000 07/10/2004 P ALBEN2004 - Democrat
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/stephanie-
devann.asp?cycle=04
Monday, July 12, 2010
Corporate Special Interest for Controls on Campaign Spending?
Corporate Special Interests for Controls on Campaign Spending?
By James Love
Director, Knowledge Ecology International
Posted: April 10, 2010 07:31 AM
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the US Supreme Court has presented the United States with an astonishing future -- one of unlimited spending on campaigns by corporations.
No developed country has faced this possibility -- it is really uncharted waters, even for a political system as openly corrupt as the current one. We are facing the possibility of a true failed state, which can lose any semblance of ethics or democratic responsiveness to the public interest or good government.
In the past presidential election, the Obama ticket spent about $730 million, and the McCain ticket spent about $333 million, or $1.063 billion. The combined total was less than one month of the sales of Lipitor, a single patented pharmaceutical drug sold by Pfizer, or a little more than one percent of sales for Exxon Mobil in the 4th quarter of 2009.
The total spending on the 2006 Congressional election was $2,9 billion, less than one quarter of revenue for Haliburton, a firm heavily dependent upon government policy and contacts.
Given the benefits of "owning" shares of members of Congress, it is hard to predict the equilibrium of this market, but it certainly will involve corruption of biblical proportions, bad government decision making, and vast outlays to exercise parity with competing "investors" in influence.
Clearly there is a need for reform. The traditional civil society sector where I work is weak these days, and no one high up in the White House or the Congress seems to be breaking a sweat to fix the problem either.
One possible strategy for reform is to mobilize political support from the very entities that have created the mess in the first place -- the corporate special interests. The argument runs as follows.
While there may be short term gains in openly buying influence, the longer run scenario makes everyone worse off. Over the top corruption has hardly been good for economic development anywhere. And, when everyone can do it, the competition will drive up the price of influence, dissipating the very profits companies hope to make.
Right now the U.S.A. is the biggest profit center in the world for most companies. Can they really afford for the United States to enter a predictable slide into a third rate economic power? And how much of their quarterly profits do they want to allocate to financing television ads for politicians who rarely stay bought.
Maybe as the momentous consequences of the Citizens United Decision become more obvious and concrete, Exxon, Pfizer, Disney and others will start bribing Congress and the President to put some reasonable limits on the amount of the bribes it is legal to accept -- acting not out of concern for democracy or the public interest, but for the bottom line.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/corporate-special-inter
es_b_532789.html
By James Love
Director, Knowledge Ecology International
Posted: April 10, 2010 07:31 AM
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the US Supreme Court has presented the United States with an astonishing future -- one of unlimited spending on campaigns by corporations.
No developed country has faced this possibility -- it is really uncharted waters, even for a political system as openly corrupt as the current one. We are facing the possibility of a true failed state, which can lose any semblance of ethics or democratic responsiveness to the public interest or good government.
In the past presidential election, the Obama ticket spent about $730 million, and the McCain ticket spent about $333 million, or $1.063 billion. The combined total was less than one month of the sales of Lipitor, a single patented pharmaceutical drug sold by Pfizer, or a little more than one percent of sales for Exxon Mobil in the 4th quarter of 2009.
The total spending on the 2006 Congressional election was $2,9 billion, less than one quarter of revenue for Haliburton, a firm heavily dependent upon government policy and contacts.
Given the benefits of "owning" shares of members of Congress, it is hard to predict the equilibrium of this market, but it certainly will involve corruption of biblical proportions, bad government decision making, and vast outlays to exercise parity with competing "investors" in influence.
Clearly there is a need for reform. The traditional civil society sector where I work is weak these days, and no one high up in the White House or the Congress seems to be breaking a sweat to fix the problem either.
One possible strategy for reform is to mobilize political support from the very entities that have created the mess in the first place -- the corporate special interests. The argument runs as follows.
While there may be short term gains in openly buying influence, the longer run scenario makes everyone worse off. Over the top corruption has hardly been good for economic development anywhere. And, when everyone can do it, the competition will drive up the price of influence, dissipating the very profits companies hope to make.
Right now the U.S.A. is the biggest profit center in the world for most companies. Can they really afford for the United States to enter a predictable slide into a third rate economic power? And how much of their quarterly profits do they want to allocate to financing television ads for politicians who rarely stay bought.
Maybe as the momentous consequences of the Citizens United Decision become more obvious and concrete, Exxon, Pfizer, Disney and others will start bribing Congress and the President to put some reasonable limits on the amount of the bribes it is legal to accept -- acting not out of concern for democracy or the public interest, but for the bottom line.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/corporate-special-inter
es_b_532789.html
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Sleepless in Seattle
from tony whitcomb
to seattle.fbi@ic.fbi.gov
cc stacy ming
date Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM
subject FBI Election Fraud Agent/Illegal Campaign Contributions Microsoft
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Federal Bureau of Investigation:
My name is Tony Whitcomb and this is my former boss/business partner, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/devaan/
Below is a list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. Devaan has made to the Democratic Party going back to the year 2000 under the correct spelling of his last name, "Devaan."
On this list you will see in 2008, Mr. Devaan donated $28,500.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on March 31, 2008.
Below this list is another list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. Devaan made in 2008 to the, "Obama Victory Fund" on July 25, 2008 for another, $28,500.00.
But you will notice Mr. Devaan made this second large political campaign contribution to the Obama Victory Fund under a slightly different spelling of his last name, "Devann?"
You will also notice, "Mr. Devann" has all of the same address and employment information as, "Mr. Devaan" but, "Mr. Devann" has only donated money in the 2008 election cycle while, "Mr. Devaan" has donated money in every election cycle going back to the year 2000.
I am not an attorney, but is it normal/legal for a private citizen to be able to make multiple large political campaign contributions under two different spellings of their last name?
It is my understanding the following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices:
$2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
$30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees.
$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee.
It is also my understanding that, "No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person."
And it is also my understanding, "It is a federal crime to evade the following donation limits listed above through a straw donor scheme" which is exactly what I think Mr. Devaan may have been a part of through the 4th largest contributors to President Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign, Microsoft.
Upon your request I can provide the FBI with a copy of a $10,000,000.00 Confidential Private Placement Memorandum that Mr. Devaan and I put together back in 2007 in regards to my Intellectual Property called Expotera to help you verify my relationship to Mr. Devaan and his relationship to me.
Thank you for your time and for your immediate considerations into these matters and if you should need any additional information from me you can feel free to reach me via this e-mail address.
Sincerely,
Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera
Jon Devaan Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$33,100
2006 Transaction Count/Amount5/$13,300
2004 Transaction Count/Amount12/$50,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2000 Transaction Count/Amount4/$4,000
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Jon Devaan Contribution List in 2008
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To
DEVAAN, JON MEDINA, WA 98039 MICROSOFT/SENIOR VP OF ENGINEERING
$28,500 03/31/2008 P DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE - Democrat
DEVAAN, JON S MEDINA, WA 98039 MICROSOFT CORP./EXECUTIVE
$2,3000 3/12/2007 P AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor
DEVAAN, JON S MEDINA, WA 98039 MICROSOFT CORP./EXECUTIVE
$2,3000 3/12/2007 G AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/jon-devaan
.asp?cycle=08
Jon Devann Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount2/$30,800
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Jon Devann Contribution List in 2008
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To
Devann, Jon S Mr.MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$28,5000 7/25/2008 P OBAMA VICTORY FUND - Democrat
DeVann, Jon S MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$2,300 12/27/2007 P OBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/jon-devann
.asp?cycle=08
Barack Obama (D)Top Contributors this table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=
N00009638
to seattle.fbi@ic.fbi.gov
cc stacy ming
date Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM
subject FBI Election Fraud Agent/Illegal Campaign Contributions Microsoft
mailed-by gmail.com
Dear Federal Bureau of Investigation:
My name is Tony Whitcomb and this is my former boss/business partner, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/devaan/
Below is a list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. Devaan has made to the Democratic Party going back to the year 2000 under the correct spelling of his last name, "Devaan."
On this list you will see in 2008, Mr. Devaan donated $28,500.00 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on March 31, 2008.
Below this list is another list of Political Campaign Contributions Mr. Devaan made in 2008 to the, "Obama Victory Fund" on July 25, 2008 for another, $28,500.00.
But you will notice Mr. Devaan made this second large political campaign contribution to the Obama Victory Fund under a slightly different spelling of his last name, "Devann?"
You will also notice, "Mr. Devann" has all of the same address and employment information as, "Mr. Devaan" but, "Mr. Devann" has only donated money in the 2008 election cycle while, "Mr. Devaan" has donated money in every election cycle going back to the year 2000.
I am not an attorney, but is it normal/legal for a private citizen to be able to make multiple large political campaign contributions under two different spellings of their last name?
It is my understanding the following limits apply to contributions from individuals to candidates for all Federal offices:
$2,400 per Election to a Federal candidate -- Each primary, runoff, and general election counts as a separate election.
$30,400 per calendar year to a national party committee -- applies separately to a party's national committee, and House and Senate campaign committee.
$10,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committees.
$5,000 per calendar year to state, district & local party committee.
It is also my understanding that, "No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person."
And it is also my understanding, "It is a federal crime to evade the following donation limits listed above through a straw donor scheme" which is exactly what I think Mr. Devaan may have been a part of through the 4th largest contributors to President Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign, Microsoft.
Upon your request I can provide the FBI with a copy of a $10,000,000.00 Confidential Private Placement Memorandum that Mr. Devaan and I put together back in 2007 in regards to my Intellectual Property called Expotera to help you verify my relationship to Mr. Devaan and his relationship to me.
Thank you for your time and for your immediate considerations into these matters and if you should need any additional information from me you can feel free to reach me via this e-mail address.
Sincerely,
Tony E. Whitcomb
Founder/CEO Expotera
Jon Devaan Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount3/$33,100
2006 Transaction Count/Amount5/$13,300
2004 Transaction Count/Amount12/$50,000
2002 Transaction Count/Amount3/$3,000
2000 Transaction Count/Amount4/$4,000
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Jon Devaan Contribution List in 2008
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To
DEVAAN, JON MEDINA, WA 98039 MICROSOFT/SENIOR VP OF ENGINEERING
$28,500 03/31/2008 P DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE - Democrat
DEVAAN, JON S MEDINA, WA 98039 MICROSOFT CORP./EXECUTIVE
$2,3000 3/12/2007 P AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor
DEVAAN, JON S MEDINA, WA 98039 MICROSOFT CORP./EXECUTIVE
$2,3000 3/12/2007 G AL FRANKEN FOR SENATE - Democrat Farm Labor
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/jon-devaan
.asp?cycle=08
Jon Devann Political Campaign Contributions 2008 Election Cycle Contribution Totals
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
2010 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2008 Transaction Count/Amount2/$30,800
2006 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2004 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2002 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
2000 Transaction Count/Amount0/$0
Download all contribution records for this person from 1999 to present To a Spreadsheet or Other File Type
Jon Devann Contribution List in 2008
Name & Location Employer/Occupation Dollar Amount Date Primary/General Contributed To
Devann, Jon S Mr.MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$28,5000 7/25/2008 P OBAMA VICTORY FUND - Democrat
DeVann, Jon S MEDINA, WA 98039 Microsoft Corp/Executive
$2,300 12/27/2007 P OBAMA FOR AMERICA - Democrat
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/jon-devann
.asp?cycle=08
Barack Obama (D)Top Contributors this table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2008 election cycle.
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=
N00009638
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Microsoft's secret 'screw Google' meetings in D.C.
Microsoft's secret 'screw Google' meetings in D.C.
By Sam Gustin Posted 1:25 PM 08/28/09
Microsoft's chief Washington lobbyist has been convening regular meetings attended by the company's outside consultants that have become known by some beltway insiders as "screw Google" meetings, Daily Finance has learned.
The meetings are part of an ongoing campaign by Microsoft (MSFT), other Google (GOOG) opponents, and hired third parties to discredit the Web search leader, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.
"Microsoft is at the center of a group of companies who see Google as a threat to them in some combination of business and policy," said a source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to avoid retribution. "The effort is designed make Google look like the big high-tech bad guy here."
The meetings have occurred as frequently as once a week, sources with knowledge of the meetings say.
Microsoft employs several D.C.-based public relations firms, including Law Media Group, a secretive outfit founded by former Democratic operative Julian Epstein, and the Glover Park Group, which the software giant retains for issues related to "public policy and governmental affairs," according to Microsoft's website. LMG declined to discuss its work for Microsoft; GPG says it had never been involved with any "screw Google" meetings.
Nevertheless, one source familiar with the meetings says, "Law Media Group has several people who work full-time on Google-bashing. Everybody knows Microsoft is trying to throw roadblocks at Google and knock them off their game. Microsoft is trying to harm Google in the regulatory, legal, and litigation arenas because they're having problems with Google in the competitive marketplace."
"This is textbook Microsoft," the source adds. "Microsoft has got some of the best, highest-priced lobbyists that money can buy in Washington."
The meetings have been led by Fred Humphries, Microsoft's chief lobbyist in D.C. Ginny Terzano, Microsoft's Washington spokesperson, acknowledged that Google has come up in Microsoft meetings with "lawmakers, regulators, and our own consultants.
"But of Humphries's alleged "screw Google" meetings, she says,
"This is absurd. While Google is a healthy competitor, Fred is
focused on advancing policies that benefit our partners and
consumers, and not running meetings of the type you describe.
Your sources are badly misinformed, and your information is wrong."
"As you would expect, Microsoft and Fred are working to educate policymakers and regulators about the benefits of the Microsoft/Yahoo deal," Terzano says. "When you talk about the Microsoft/Yahoo deal, of course Google is going to come up."
A source with knowledge of the matter called Terzano's statement a "non-denial denial," saying, "This is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that they are indeed having 'screw Google' meetings."
Microsoft is working to allay Justice Department antitrust concerns over its proposed 10-year web search tie-up with Yahoo (YHOO), which would unite the No. 2 and 3 competitors in the space.
The new details about Microsoft's D.C.-based efforts to undermine Google shine a light on the role of third-party firms, funded by tech giants, that engage in activities such as astroturfing, corporate propaganda, and misinformation. Media reports have hinted at a "whisper campaign" undertaken by entities acting at Microsoft's behest to undermine Google, both with policymakers and the public.
In recent months, two heavily detailed, annotated versions of
confidential Google slide presentations -- one dealing with
competition issues, the other with behavioral targeting -- have
been published by a Santa Monica–based group called Consumer
Watchdog. The annotations are highly critical of Google and
seek to rebut the search giant's arguments. Consumer Watchdog
has thus far declined to reveal the source of the documents.
"We consulted with someone outside our organization who did the mark-ups. We published them because we thought they were right on the issue," says John M. Simpson, who leads coverage of issues related to Google at Consumer Watchdog. Microsoft and its PR firms LMG and GPG deny any involvement in producing the annotated Google presentations.
Simpson says the news of the "screw Google" meetings comes as "no surprise whatsoever." "I suspect that such meetings are happening at Microsoft, and I would suspect that Google has had similar meetings," Simpson says. "It's obvious that Microsoft is engaged in some sort of organized campaign to undermine Google."
That there is no love lost between the two companies is well-documented.
Microsoft chieftain Steve Ballmer once famously hurled a chair
across his office during an anti-Google tirade in which he raged,
"I'm going to f*cking kill Google."
The incident was revealed in court documents related to Google's
poaching of Microsoft's former point man in China, Li Kai-Fu.
Google lured Li to head its effort there, leading to a lawsuit
from Microsoft, which Google won.
Of course, just as Microsoft holds Washington meetings to discuss its Google strategy, Google does the same. The two companies compete on multiple fronts, and each seeks to enhance its own position while undermining its rival.
"Of course we keep an eye on what's happening in the industry," Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich says, "but the focus of our Washington advocacy has always been advancing good public policy for the Internet and our users."
In less than a decade, Google has become nearly as dominant in
the Internet search market as Microsoft is in desktop software.
Microsoft recently launched a high-profile foray into the search
market with a new search engine, Bing, and it seeks to partner
with Yahoo to mount a stronger challenge.
But Google, with nearly 70 percent of the search ad market, has little to fear from Bing or the planned joint partnership, and that dominance remains an immense source of Microsoft's frustration.
Microsoft and Google are also gearing up for an intense showdown over the very future of the PC operating system.
Google recently said it plans to introduce a new web-based operating system based on its Chrome browser (though to date, Chrome has barely dented Microsoft Internet Explorer's lead in the browser market).
Google's fundamental strategy to shift the focus of computing onto in the Internet, and into "the cloud," represents an ambitious assault on Microsoft's dominance of the desktop-based operating system market.
With billions of dollars at stake, the sophisticated D.C. operations and message machines are an inevitable result of Google and Microsoft's epic struggle for dominance.
With the Obama administration perceived as "Google-friendly," despite ongoing federal inquests into Google on antitrust grounds, Microsoft has little choice but to ensure that its voice is heard amid the cacophony of Capitol Hill lobbying.
And if secret "screw Google" meetings are any indication, this could get very ugly -- and very entertaining.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/microsofts-secret-screw-google
-meetings-in-d-c/19143135/
By Sam Gustin Posted 1:25 PM 08/28/09
Microsoft's chief Washington lobbyist has been convening regular meetings attended by the company's outside consultants that have become known by some beltway insiders as "screw Google" meetings, Daily Finance has learned.
The meetings are part of an ongoing campaign by Microsoft (MSFT), other Google (GOOG) opponents, and hired third parties to discredit the Web search leader, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the matter.
"Microsoft is at the center of a group of companies who see Google as a threat to them in some combination of business and policy," said a source familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to avoid retribution. "The effort is designed make Google look like the big high-tech bad guy here."
The meetings have occurred as frequently as once a week, sources with knowledge of the meetings say.
Microsoft employs several D.C.-based public relations firms, including Law Media Group, a secretive outfit founded by former Democratic operative Julian Epstein, and the Glover Park Group, which the software giant retains for issues related to "public policy and governmental affairs," according to Microsoft's website. LMG declined to discuss its work for Microsoft; GPG says it had never been involved with any "screw Google" meetings.
Nevertheless, one source familiar with the meetings says, "Law Media Group has several people who work full-time on Google-bashing. Everybody knows Microsoft is trying to throw roadblocks at Google and knock them off their game. Microsoft is trying to harm Google in the regulatory, legal, and litigation arenas because they're having problems with Google in the competitive marketplace."
"This is textbook Microsoft," the source adds. "Microsoft has got some of the best, highest-priced lobbyists that money can buy in Washington."
The meetings have been led by Fred Humphries, Microsoft's chief lobbyist in D.C. Ginny Terzano, Microsoft's Washington spokesperson, acknowledged that Google has come up in Microsoft meetings with "lawmakers, regulators, and our own consultants.
"But of Humphries's alleged "screw Google" meetings, she says,
"This is absurd. While Google is a healthy competitor, Fred is
focused on advancing policies that benefit our partners and
consumers, and not running meetings of the type you describe.
Your sources are badly misinformed, and your information is wrong."
"As you would expect, Microsoft and Fred are working to educate policymakers and regulators about the benefits of the Microsoft/Yahoo deal," Terzano says. "When you talk about the Microsoft/Yahoo deal, of course Google is going to come up."
A source with knowledge of the matter called Terzano's statement a "non-denial denial," saying, "This is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that they are indeed having 'screw Google' meetings."
Microsoft is working to allay Justice Department antitrust concerns over its proposed 10-year web search tie-up with Yahoo (YHOO), which would unite the No. 2 and 3 competitors in the space.
The new details about Microsoft's D.C.-based efforts to undermine Google shine a light on the role of third-party firms, funded by tech giants, that engage in activities such as astroturfing, corporate propaganda, and misinformation. Media reports have hinted at a "whisper campaign" undertaken by entities acting at Microsoft's behest to undermine Google, both with policymakers and the public.
In recent months, two heavily detailed, annotated versions of
confidential Google slide presentations -- one dealing with
competition issues, the other with behavioral targeting -- have
been published by a Santa Monica–based group called Consumer
Watchdog. The annotations are highly critical of Google and
seek to rebut the search giant's arguments. Consumer Watchdog
has thus far declined to reveal the source of the documents.
"We consulted with someone outside our organization who did the mark-ups. We published them because we thought they were right on the issue," says John M. Simpson, who leads coverage of issues related to Google at Consumer Watchdog. Microsoft and its PR firms LMG and GPG deny any involvement in producing the annotated Google presentations.
Simpson says the news of the "screw Google" meetings comes as "no surprise whatsoever." "I suspect that such meetings are happening at Microsoft, and I would suspect that Google has had similar meetings," Simpson says. "It's obvious that Microsoft is engaged in some sort of organized campaign to undermine Google."
That there is no love lost between the two companies is well-documented.
Microsoft chieftain Steve Ballmer once famously hurled a chair
across his office during an anti-Google tirade in which he raged,
"I'm going to f*cking kill Google."
The incident was revealed in court documents related to Google's
poaching of Microsoft's former point man in China, Li Kai-Fu.
Google lured Li to head its effort there, leading to a lawsuit
from Microsoft, which Google won.
Of course, just as Microsoft holds Washington meetings to discuss its Google strategy, Google does the same. The two companies compete on multiple fronts, and each seeks to enhance its own position while undermining its rival.
"Of course we keep an eye on what's happening in the industry," Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich says, "but the focus of our Washington advocacy has always been advancing good public policy for the Internet and our users."
In less than a decade, Google has become nearly as dominant in
the Internet search market as Microsoft is in desktop software.
Microsoft recently launched a high-profile foray into the search
market with a new search engine, Bing, and it seeks to partner
with Yahoo to mount a stronger challenge.
But Google, with nearly 70 percent of the search ad market, has little to fear from Bing or the planned joint partnership, and that dominance remains an immense source of Microsoft's frustration.
Microsoft and Google are also gearing up for an intense showdown over the very future of the PC operating system.
Google recently said it plans to introduce a new web-based operating system based on its Chrome browser (though to date, Chrome has barely dented Microsoft Internet Explorer's lead in the browser market).
Google's fundamental strategy to shift the focus of computing onto in the Internet, and into "the cloud," represents an ambitious assault on Microsoft's dominance of the desktop-based operating system market.
With billions of dollars at stake, the sophisticated D.C. operations and message machines are an inevitable result of Google and Microsoft's epic struggle for dominance.
With the Obama administration perceived as "Google-friendly," despite ongoing federal inquests into Google on antitrust grounds, Microsoft has little choice but to ensure that its voice is heard amid the cacophony of Capitol Hill lobbying.
And if secret "screw Google" meetings are any indication, this could get very ugly -- and very entertaining.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/microsofts-secret-screw-google
-meetings-in-d-c/19143135/
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Obama vs. Obama
Obama vs. Obama
By Michael Brenner
Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
Posted: February 12, 2010 01:29 PM
The enigma that is Barack Obama grows day by day. Contradiction after contradiction, abrupt gear shifts, perpetual motion that never reaches a destination.
'Obscene' Wall Street bonuses suddenly transmute into well earned rewards for a good guy golfing buddy; the imperative to act boldly on the jobs crisis means placing it the callous hands of Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley of health care fame; the plotting of exit strategies from Afghanistan by 2011 becomes a 'long as we have to' occupation.
All these contrapuntal reversals against a sound track of non-stop exhortation and a restless shuttling from one photo-op to another.
Who is this guy, anyway?
A few elements of Obama's personality are now evident: a strong narcissistic streak, an ingrained sense of superiority, a nimbleness - intellectual and political - enabled by the incredible lightness of his conviction about anything, an audacious ambition yet no gumption for a fight.
Behind these traits, there is something even more basic discernible. Obama is two people, one superimposed on the other. The visible, surface man is the epitome of an enlightened, Ivy League, socially responsible liberal.
This is Obama the community organizer (albeit an exceptionally non-confrontational one), Obama the African American political activist who attends Jeremiah Wright's cosmopolitan church, Obama the orator who routinely hits the high 'Cs' of the call to conscience, Obama the optimist who appeals to, and for the better angels of our idealistic American selves.
This is Obama the African-American who moved enough voters to be elected President of the United States.
To this portrait, we must juxtapose the other Barack Obama - the Barack Obama who has surfaced as he quickly shed his 'liberal' skin amidst the trappings of the White House.
This other personality, I contend, is the underlying one - truer to the man's core nature.
This is the Obama who twice in his young career sought out positions in big corporate law firms; this is the Obama who was raised by three Kansans who instilled in him conservative heartland values; this is the Obama who relishes wealth and what it can buy; this is the Obama who feels more at ease with his Wall Street buddies (Jaime Dimon, et al) playing golf than with anyone of the Move On American crowd; this is the Obama who chose as his trusted confidant that unscrupulous, liberals-be-damned fixer - Rahm Emanuel; this is the Obama who absorbed the spirit of Ronald Reagan's America he himself has said stands as the model of inspirational leadership.
Far-fetched? Let's take a clear eyed look at what President Obama actually has done and said.
He placed his supposedly signature health care reform initiative in the hands of those dedicated to thwarting it, he has curried favor with the criminally incompetent financial establishment, he orphaned the proposal to help underwater homeowners through the bankruptcy courts, he stiffed the trade unions on the loosening of rules for organizing workers, he has retained all of Bush's policies on surveillance, he has refused the slightest chastisement of the CIA and their mercenaries, he has retained Bush's practice of Executive statements interpreting legislation, he has followed a behind closed doors style of policy-making, he has followed the Pentagon hawks in escalating the war in Afghanistan, he has made repeated advances toward the evangelical right.
This is the behavioral pattern of a deeply conservative personality and conventional thinker who tips his hat to every establishment he encounters.
The evidence supports my thesis that this latter Obama is the truer personality, and that it has liberated itself now that the man is at the apex of his achieved ambition.
There is, of course, a more prosaic explanation of Obama's repudiation of the ideas and outlook that won him the White House.
It argues that his about faces and incongruous acts merely reflect practical political calculations.
That argument does not stand up to scrutiny, though. First, Obama's conduct in the White House has severely weakened his political position to the point where he managed to resuscitate a moribund Republican Party while putting at risk reelection of the Democratic Congress and himself.
Second, Obama initiated most of these reversals in the early months of his administration when he was still riding high in the polls and had every opportunity to take the initiative.
The unhappy conclusion is that we have in Obama a President who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct.
Moreover, someone who is very much a man of his times - those times being the 1980s and 1990s.
That means suspicions of government programs (last week Obama declared that New Deal thinking wasn't applicable to day's problems), a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans (Obama's push for a Bipartisan Commission to recommend budget cutting measures to be voted 'up or down' by Congress clearly had Social Security in its sights).
Abroad, Obama is ready to deploy military might in dubious causes defined by the country's hawkish defense establishment.
The implication for progressives?
Let Barack Obama know in no unspoken terms that if he wants to revel in the White House for a full eight years he has to garb himself in that old liberal persona.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/obama-vs-obama
_b_460354.html
By Michael Brenner
Senior Fellow, the Center for Transatlantic Relations
Posted: February 12, 2010 01:29 PM
The enigma that is Barack Obama grows day by day. Contradiction after contradiction, abrupt gear shifts, perpetual motion that never reaches a destination.
'Obscene' Wall Street bonuses suddenly transmute into well earned rewards for a good guy golfing buddy; the imperative to act boldly on the jobs crisis means placing it the callous hands of Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley of health care fame; the plotting of exit strategies from Afghanistan by 2011 becomes a 'long as we have to' occupation.
All these contrapuntal reversals against a sound track of non-stop exhortation and a restless shuttling from one photo-op to another.
Who is this guy, anyway?
A few elements of Obama's personality are now evident: a strong narcissistic streak, an ingrained sense of superiority, a nimbleness - intellectual and political - enabled by the incredible lightness of his conviction about anything, an audacious ambition yet no gumption for a fight.
Behind these traits, there is something even more basic discernible. Obama is two people, one superimposed on the other. The visible, surface man is the epitome of an enlightened, Ivy League, socially responsible liberal.
This is Obama the community organizer (albeit an exceptionally non-confrontational one), Obama the African American political activist who attends Jeremiah Wright's cosmopolitan church, Obama the orator who routinely hits the high 'Cs' of the call to conscience, Obama the optimist who appeals to, and for the better angels of our idealistic American selves.
This is Obama the African-American who moved enough voters to be elected President of the United States.
To this portrait, we must juxtapose the other Barack Obama - the Barack Obama who has surfaced as he quickly shed his 'liberal' skin amidst the trappings of the White House.
This other personality, I contend, is the underlying one - truer to the man's core nature.
This is the Obama who twice in his young career sought out positions in big corporate law firms; this is the Obama who was raised by three Kansans who instilled in him conservative heartland values; this is the Obama who relishes wealth and what it can buy; this is the Obama who feels more at ease with his Wall Street buddies (Jaime Dimon, et al) playing golf than with anyone of the Move On American crowd; this is the Obama who chose as his trusted confidant that unscrupulous, liberals-be-damned fixer - Rahm Emanuel; this is the Obama who absorbed the spirit of Ronald Reagan's America he himself has said stands as the model of inspirational leadership.
Far-fetched? Let's take a clear eyed look at what President Obama actually has done and said.
He placed his supposedly signature health care reform initiative in the hands of those dedicated to thwarting it, he has curried favor with the criminally incompetent financial establishment, he orphaned the proposal to help underwater homeowners through the bankruptcy courts, he stiffed the trade unions on the loosening of rules for organizing workers, he has retained all of Bush's policies on surveillance, he has refused the slightest chastisement of the CIA and their mercenaries, he has retained Bush's practice of Executive statements interpreting legislation, he has followed a behind closed doors style of policy-making, he has followed the Pentagon hawks in escalating the war in Afghanistan, he has made repeated advances toward the evangelical right.
This is the behavioral pattern of a deeply conservative personality and conventional thinker who tips his hat to every establishment he encounters.
The evidence supports my thesis that this latter Obama is the truer personality, and that it has liberated itself now that the man is at the apex of his achieved ambition.
There is, of course, a more prosaic explanation of Obama's repudiation of the ideas and outlook that won him the White House.
It argues that his about faces and incongruous acts merely reflect practical political calculations.
That argument does not stand up to scrutiny, though. First, Obama's conduct in the White House has severely weakened his political position to the point where he managed to resuscitate a moribund Republican Party while putting at risk reelection of the Democratic Congress and himself.
Second, Obama initiated most of these reversals in the early months of his administration when he was still riding high in the polls and had every opportunity to take the initiative.
The unhappy conclusion is that we have in Obama a President who is what we used to call a moderate Republican before the species became extinct.
Moreover, someone who is very much a man of his times - those times being the 1980s and 1990s.
That means suspicions of government programs (last week Obama declared that New Deal thinking wasn't applicable to day's problems), a strong belief that we should always give private interests the benefit of the doubt, an assumption that the rich deserve their riches, and an insensitivity to the plight of salaried Americans (Obama's push for a Bipartisan Commission to recommend budget cutting measures to be voted 'up or down' by Congress clearly had Social Security in its sights).
Abroad, Obama is ready to deploy military might in dubious causes defined by the country's hawkish defense establishment.
The implication for progressives?
Let Barack Obama know in no unspoken terms that if he wants to revel in the White House for a full eight years he has to garb himself in that old liberal persona.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/obama-vs-obama
_b_460354.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
