2016 Presidential Campaign

[Rookie Okie]

I love how they refer to Christie as "scandal-plagued".  If he were a Democrat all the buzz about supposed scandals would be summarily dismissed as nothing but sheer hatred for fat people by the GOP.

C, CC is not using his weight to his advantage.  If he would have wisely used this time before the next election to continue his transition to portly (which apparently took a U-turn a year ago), this could have been viewed as very positive and deflected attention away from the scandal.  Health concerns will be an issue with his candidacy among voters.  This will be one of the key reasons why his Republican counterparts likely won't let him emerge from the party as the candidate.  Democrats can't and won't have to make an issue out of his size; Republicans will have already done the task.  No way around the proverbial you know what in the room.

[RecycleMichael]

Weight discrimination is very real.

But I have realized that some people don't like me for other reasons than I am fat.

[Gaspar]

I don't think his weight is an issue.  He had gastric bypass surgery this year and has been steadily loosing.

Why would anyone care?

[Conan71]

Or the GOP would actually have hatred for him because he was fat...or whatever else the GOP may hate a democrat for.  Who knows?

Are you saying that since this is not saying great things about the GOP that Yahoo is a lefty website?

If this story was reported on FOX or the Blaze...

No, not at all.  I just find it interesting that anyone is still referring to Christie as "scandal-plagued" as if "Bridgegate" compares to NSA spying, IRS targeting certain political groups, nearly a billion dollars spent on the ACA website (in a no-bid contract) which was not ready for roll-out and required millions more to fix, fabricating a cover story for Benghazi, the list goes on.

There's very clearly a machine in place to quickly and decisively besmirch a leading GOP candidate these days.  Did we ever hear any more about Romney being a tax cheat and possible felon?  What was that all about dragging out some bullying incident from his boarding school days?  Do we hear anything about "vulture capitalists" these days? 

It doesn't matter if Christie knew anything about the Fort Lee incident.  There's been plenty of innuendo floated out that "someone with ties to the governor can prove he knew about it" though that person is never outed nor are they vetted for veracity.  Sort of like Harry Reid claiming he had it on "good authority" from a "Bain investor" that Romney didn't pay taxes for ten years.

What's fascinating in all this is if you use the Google term: "Chris Christie, Scandal" you get hits from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Huffpoo.  Do the same for President Obama and the leading hits are from blogs or decidedly conservative sources.

I simply find it odd what the editors of what we are led to believe is "mainstream" media sources choose to include or exclude in their coverage and how long they care to cover it.  I also find it interesting that there would be an attempt to destroy a political career over a lane closure incident considering all the clearly corrupt things that go on daily within the federal government, state houses, and local governments daily.

[Townsend]

What's fascinating in all this is if you use the Google term: "Chris Christie, Scandal" you get hits from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Huffpoo.  Do the same for President Obama and the leading hits are from blogs or decidedly conservative sources.

I simply find it odd what the editors of what we are led to believe is "mainstream" media sources choose to include or exclude in their coverage and how long they care to cover it.  I also find it interesting that there would be an attempt to destroy a political career over a lane closure incident considering all the clearly corrupt things that go on daily within the federal government, state houses, and local governments daily.

It's the audience.  I'm guessing anyone who is not FOX news knows that FOX news has cornered the market on anything not progressive, middle of the road, or left leaning.

[Conan71]

It's the audience.  I'm guessing anyone who is not FOX news knows that FOX news has cornered the market on anything not progressive, middle of the road, or left leaning.

Out of curiosity, do you consider the Ft. Lee lane closures a "major scandal"?

[Townsend]

Out of curiosity, do you consider the Ft. Lee lane closures a "major scandal"?

No.  To my knowledge, it had no effect on me other than having to see it reported over and over.

However, I can't support the action if it was ever proven to be ordered by the NJ Governor.

[Rookie Okie]

What's fascinating in all this is if you use the Google term: "Chris Christie, Scandal" you get hits from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Huffpoo.  Do the same for President Obama and the leading hits are from blogs or decidedly conservative sources.

I simply find it odd what the editors of what we are led to believe is "mainstream" media sources choose to include or exclude in their coverage and how long they care to cover it.  I also find it interesting that there would be an attempt to destroy a political career over a lane closure incident considering all the clearly corrupt things that go on daily within the federal government, state houses, and local governments daily.

All of those conservative labeled "mainstream = liberal" outlets do quite a bit of criticizing of Democrats.  Inarguably, much more so than FOX ever does of Republicans.  You most certainly get reports critical of Obama outside of FOX, but virtually nothing related to the link between Christie and Ft. Lee on FOX or on those hate infused radio talk shows.

Any outlet that is not unabashedly against minorities or any issue positioned to the left of the far right edge of the universe is branded as liberal by conservatives.  However, this is becoming less of an issue these days since not much actual news is being reported by the main media outlets.  Consequently many people are abandoning them in droves for other sources.  But I guess the mean old FOX watchers are holding on trying to buck this trend.

[Townsend]

But I guess the mean old FOX watchers are holding on trying to buck this trend.

Not much of a reason for them to do so.  It's what they want to hear or they can't figure out how to use other sources.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I love how they refer to Christie as "scandal-plagued".  If he were a Democrat all the buzz about supposed scandals would be summarily dismissed as nothing but sheer hatred for fat people by the GOP.

The bridge thing is kindergarten stuff.  The one I want to see more about is the HUD investigation into his use of Fed money to get some ads made for his governor campaign - couched as PSA's....  The company he "chose" for the ads got about $4.5 million, while the next competitor would have done the job for $2 million - but would not have had Christie and his family in the ads during the campaign....

[heironymouspasparagus]

No, not at all.  I just find it interesting that anyone is still referring to Christie as "scandal-plagued" as if "Bridgegate" compares to NSA spying, IRS targeting certain political groups, nearly a billion dollars spent on the ACA website (in a no-bid contract) which was not ready for roll-out and required millions more to fix, fabricating a cover story for Benghazi, the list goes on.


I simply find it odd what the editors of what we are led to believe is "mainstream" media sources choose to include or exclude in their coverage and how long they care to cover it.  I also find it interesting that there would be an attempt to destroy a political career over a lane closure incident considering all the clearly corrupt things that go on daily within the federal government, state houses, and local governments daily.

Thought you were supposed to be "recovering"...


So...you wanna talk about no-bid, huh?  Kind of like the Christie "no-bid" $4.5 million PSA ad campaign (see above)...?

Or some real money - the $90 billion Halliburton no-bid awards complements of Dick Cheney....?  The ones where actual criminal activity occurred rather than just penny-ante incompetence?

Or the fabrication of the idea that something worse than the 31 killed under Baby Bush in undefended embassy attacks is somehow more newsworthy.  I am reminded of comments from our history - Fox NonNews and it's minions spews "an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea".....

I have always loved that quote... it so describes the RWRE!

[Gaspar]

No, not at all.  I just find it interesting that anyone is still referring to Christie as "scandal-plagued" as if "Bridgegate" compares to NSA spying, IRS targeting certain political groups, nearly a billion dollars spent on the ACA website (in a no-bid contract) which was not ready for roll-out and required millions more to fix, fabricating a cover story for Benghazi, the list goes on.

There's very clearly a machine in place to quickly and decisively besmirch a leading GOP candidate these days.  Did we ever hear any more about Romney being a tax cheat and possible felon?  What was that all about dragging out some bullying incident from his boarding school days?  Do we hear anything about "vulture capitalists" these days? 

It doesn't matter if Christie knew anything about the Fort Lee incident.  There's been plenty of innuendo floated out that "someone with ties to the governor can prove he knew about it" though that person is never outed nor are they vetted for veracity.  Sort of like Harry Reid claiming he had it on "good authority" from a "Bain investor" that Romney didn't pay taxes for ten years.

What's fascinating in all this is if you use the Google term: "Chris Christie, Scandal" you get hits from CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Huffpoo.  Do the same for President Obama and the leading hits are from blogs or decidedly conservative sources.

I simply find it odd what the editors of what we are led to believe is "mainstream" media sources choose to include or exclude in their coverage and how long they care to cover it.  I also find it interesting that there would be an attempt to destroy a political career over a lane closure incident considering all the clearly corrupt things that go on daily within the federal government, state houses, and local governments daily.

Speaking of scandals, the new brackets are ready.  Have you filled yours out yet?

[Conan71]

Thought you were supposed to be "recovering"...


So...you wanna talk about no-bid, huh?  Kind of like the Christie "no-bid" $4.5 million PSA ad campaign (see above)...?

Or some real money - the $90 billion Halliburton no-bid awards complements of Dick Cheney....?  The ones where actual criminal activity occurred rather than just penny-ante incompetence?

If there were criminal activity, don't you think Eric Holder would have long since prosecuted over it?

No bid contracts are up under Obama's stewardship despite his claims on the campaign trail in 2008, those days were over.  There's even been more money for Halliburton and it's subsidiaries.

No-bid U.S. government contracts jump 9 percent, despite push for competition

President Obama in 2009 told federal agencies that no-bid contracts were "wasteful'' and "inefficient.'' Four years later, his administration spent more money on non-competitive contracts than ever before.

Federal agencies awarded $115.2 billion in no-bid contracts in fiscal year 2012, an 8.9 increase from $105.8 billion from 2009, according to government data. The jump unfolded even as total contract spending decreased by about 5 percent. Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon were top recipients of sole-source contracts.

Those top Pentagon vendors and other large contractors can draw on established relationships with procurement officers to claim a greater share of non-competitive work, said Robert Burton, former acting administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under George W. Bush.

"It highlights a growing problem in the procurement system,'' said Burton, who represents contractors as a partner at Venable in Washington. "The pie is shrinking, but at the same time, the number of non-competitive awards has increased. That's a bad combination."

Joe Jordan, head of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, said the administration "believes in taking maximum advantage of competition, including efforts to reduce sole-source contracting, and this is an important component of our overall efforts to achieve the best value for the taxpayer.''

Record amount

Still, Obama ended his first term spending more on non-competitive orders. In 2009, contracts awarded without competition made up about 20 percent of total dollars awarded, compared with about 23 percent in fiscal 2012. The figures may be understated because the data excluded contracts for indefinite quantities of goods or services.

"While there is more work to be done, agency efforts have produced good results in our efforts to increase the use of competition,'' Jordan said in an e-mail.

He didn't answer questions about why no-bid contracts had increased during Obama's first term or describe any concrete steps taken to curb the awards.

Federal agencies consider just one company for a job when they need urgent action, when a vendor has specialized expertise or when they want to keep working with a proven supplier. Such contracts save time in procuring equipment and services, though they lack the competitive bidding that can drive down prices.

Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, the No.­ 1 U.S. contractor, captured the greatest share of no-bid contracts in the budget year that ended on Sept. 30, with about $17.4 billion. Boeing received the second-largest amount, about $17.1 billion. Raytheon in Waltham, Mass., was third with about $7.04 billion.

The Pentagon last year spent about $100 billion on no-bid contracts, the most of any federal agency, compared with $90 billion in fiscal 2009. The Department of Defense didn't provide a comment for this story.

"We compete for many of our contracts, while in other cases we are awarded single-source contracts in those situations where the government determines that is the best course for meeting their requirements," said Daniel Beck, a spokesman for Chicago-based Boeing.

"It is typical for a company to receive follow-on contract awards on programs that have been openly competed in the past,'' Melissa Hilliard, a spokeswoman for Lockheed, said in an e-mail. "Such follow-on contract awards would be considered non-competitive contracts." A spokesman for Raytheon didn't comment.

U.S. Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.), the chairman of the House Small Business Committee, said the increase in sole-source awards "is proof that this administration is paying lip service to small business and competition.''

Small business

Contracts awarded to small businesses fell by about 4 percent in Obama's first term, according to government data.

"It is unacceptable that noncompetitive awards grew by $9 billion while small business awards shrunk,'' Graves said in an e-mailed statement. "It will require more work from senior agency officials, and possibly the White House, but more must be done.''

In his March 2009 memo to agencies, Obama said a reliance on non-competitive orders "creates a risk that taxpayer funds will be spent on contracts that are wasteful, inefficient, subject to misuse, or otherwise not well designed to serve the needs of the Federal Government or the interests of the American taxpayer.''

Shifting to full and open competition "could result in savings of billions of dollars each year for the American taxpayer,'' he said.

The Office of Management and Budget released guidance on the contract awards process the following October, calling for agencies to evaluate their use of no-bid contracts.

The memo said that non-competitive "contracts carry risk of overspending because they have been negotiated without the benefit of a direct market mechanism.'' The document directed agencies to consider mitigating that risk by limiting the length of awards, ensuring fair prices and regularly assessing contractor performance.

Obama can "send out nice memos, telling agencies not to sole-source, but the law hasn't changed,'' said Joe Hornyak, a Tysons Corner-based partner at law firm Holland & Knight.

Hornyak said that by law, many sole-source contracts require the approval of a senior official, meaning that the administration could have crafted a better record on competition.

"I would expect senior officials to be more sensitive to the optics of a sole-source award under this administration,'' Hornyak said.

— Bloomberg Government http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/no-bid-us-government-contracts-jump-9-percent-despite-push-for-competition/2013/03/17/9f6708fc-8da0-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_story.html

[heironymouspasparagus]

If there were criminal activity, don't you think Eric Holder would have long since prosecuted over it?

No bid contracts are up under Obama's stewardship despite his claims on the campaign trail in 2008, those days were over.  There's even been more money for Halliburton and it's subsidiaries.

Holder is inept.  And if you go after Bush for his criminal activities, then ya got a whole lot of Congress to go after, too.  (Can you spell "Jim Inhofe"...?)


I have certainly never meant to imply that I am a big fan of Obama...but the piles of carp from the other direction still swamp the piles of carp from his direction.  And all those piles of carp from the RWRE have blinded so many of your kind to their reality, that I just feel obligated to try to bring some light into the dark, hidden corners of the RWRE world.  (And if Blowbama starts jacking his jaws about that nonsensical gun control bucket-o-shoot, then I will go back after him again.  It's called fair and balanced - the real world version, not Fox...)

But at least you give lip service to the concept of recovery, so I feel there is tremendous hope for you!!  Will welcome you gladly to the moderate center any time!!

[guido911]

I know someone that's getting a big fat IRS audit this Easter season:

To be fair, its just the rantings from some college age know-it-all, but still...