Your opinion on the job that President Obama is doing so far (1 Viewer)

[Nancy Pelosi]

Obama's Lesson Of The Midterms Is That He Needs To Speak To You Idiots Slower And Use Smaller Words

“I think that’s a fair argument. I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation. That it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone,” Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

Really? You think none of the 54 speeches you've given on healthcare were enough?

In the words of your avatar.....DEAL WITH IT

 

[Statorama]

Obamanomics making the economy worse

There's actually some interesting stuff in here about why it was easier for Clinton to move to the center than Obama.

The conventional wisdom among the Wall Street wise men is that gridlock in Washington -- the kind that Tuesday's election results promise to produce -- is good for the economy and great for the markets. But actual businessmen aren't so sure -- and for good reason.

Yes, divided government gave us the '90s economic boom, and Wall Street obviously thinks that magic will work again. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen steadily since the summer (it's up around 18 percent with yesterday's near-200-point rally), as a GOP takeover of the House became more likely.

The Fed's policy of zero interest rates helped, too -- but traders and investors were also looking forward to the derailing of President Obama's plans to spend the country into oblivion.

But conventional wisdom on Wall Street is often wrong -- and disastrously so. (As you may remember, the whole financial industry nearly collapsed two years ago.) And the traders are wrong on this one as well.

The problem is that Obamanomics has placed the US economy in a hole so deep that it will take more than easy money coupled with political gridlock to fix. To lower unemployment in a meaningful way, Washington needs to unwind the trillions of new debt, higher taxes and new mandates that it's given us over the last two years. The GOP's gains this week aren't enough to make that happen.

How do I know this? It's the assessment made by just about every businessman I spoke to before and after Tuesday's voting. (Almost no one speaks on the record these days, for fear of political retribution. But that's another column.)

Unlike traders, people who run businesses actually have a sense of history. They know the Reagan boom wasn't produced by the former president warring with congressional leaders, but by the tax cuts that passed with bipartisan support.

And they know that the '90s boom came after President Bill Clinton and Republicans found ways to work together. After the GOP took Congress in 1994, Clinton moved from the center-left to the center-right, and we got welfare reform, tax cuts for businesses and investing and lower deficits.

But no one expects the guy wielding the veto pen this time around to make the same shift. Clinton took office as a moderate Democrat -- a former governor who'd needed to balance his budgets and learned early on how to moderate his liberal leanings, if only to attract businesses and investment to his state. Obama's background is a much more rigid and left-wing.

Only an ideologue would entertain the idea of raising taxes when the economy remains frighteningly weak -- even if, after the GOP's landslide, he now says he's open to extending the Bush-era tax rates for even highest-income people.

More important, Clinton's first two years did nothing like the damage of Obama's $800 billion stimulus (massive debt with little if any job creation), to say nothing of ObamaCare.

Republicans in Congress tell me they know they'll have an uphill agenda reversing Obamanomics, and have set out on a course of merely slowing things down. They also mean to soften the job-killing, anti-business impact of the new health-care and financial-oversight laws.

But that's about where their clout stops. The president, with his (albeit thinner) majority in the Senate, will thwart any serious attempt to roll back ObamaCare or the myriad of new regulations and tax hikes that businesses point to when you ask them why they're not hiring.

The Federal Reserve's new $600 billion "quantitative easing" won't save us, either. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke can print money -- but that only gets you so far when banks are still fearful to lend to businesses and consumers. In fact, I think Bernanke's move for "monetary stimulus" is the ultimate sign of desperation that the end of Obamanomics isn't coming anytime soon.

Bernanke is risking massive inflation and a further devaluation of the dollar in order to save the country from a double-dip recession because he knows without a clear governing majority -- and that includes a new president -- undoing what was done over the past two years will be nearly impossible. Businesses will remain reluctant to spend and hire; unemployment won't budge much from its current levels.

For that reason, you might want to get used to 9.5 percent unemployment, no matter how much money Bernanke pumps into the banks. It's probably going to be around as long as the president.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Another "stimulus and green jobs" failure

Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company's plans to hire 1,000 workers.

Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.

The moves mean that instead of having 2,000 workers in Fremont, Solyndra will cap its work force at 1,000, which is about the current level. Solyndra also will, over the next several weeks, eliminate 155 to 175 jobs in Fremont. That includes 135 contract employees and 20 to 40 full-time workers, said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman.

Here's their mistake:

The newspaper explains that competition from other solar panel makers is a major culprit, with manufacturers in China offering hard-to-beat prices.

Solyndra designs and manufactures solar PV systems for the large commercial rooftop market.

Using proprietary cylindrical modules and thin-film technology, Solyndra provides rooftop solar systems. Lightweight and non-penetrating, Solyndra panels require no ballast in winds up to 130 mph. and the cylindrical design allows the system to capture more energy on most rooftops.

Solyndra manufactures all of its solar panels in the United States.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Only an ideologue would entertain the idea of raising taxes when the economy remains frighteningly weak -- even if, after the GOP's landslide, he now says he's open to extending the Bush-era tax rates for even highest-income people.

Only an ideologue would entertain the idea of lowering taxes when the national debt remains frighteningly high.

 

[jon_mx]

Only an ideologue would entertain the idea of raising taxes when the economy remains frighteningly weak -- even if, after the GOP's landslide, he now says he's open to extending the Bush-era tax rates for even highest-income people.

Only an ideologue would entertain the idea of lowering taxes when the national debt remains frighteningly high.

Getting the economy kicking again has to come first. And even then, raising taxes on the rich has diminishing returns.

 

[Statorama]

Obama bows to Indian parliment

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

 

[Statorama]

Poll: Hillary would beat Obama by 20 points

Newsmax Poll: Hillary Would Defeat Obama by 20 Points

Sunday, 07 Nov 2010 03:45 PM Article Font Size

Hillary Clinton would trounce fellow Democrat President Barack Obama by a 20-percentage-point margin in a head-to-head race for the presidency, according to a Newsmax/SurveyUSA poll conducted after Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Newsmax conducted the survey to find out how several well-known political and celebrity figures, ranging from Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Bill Gates to Warren Buffett, Donald Trump, and Glenn Beck, would fare if they ran against Obama for the White House.

The survey of 1,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 3-4, after Republicans won the House and gained six seats in the Senate — results widely interpreted as a rejection of Obama and raising questions about whom the Democrats might field as a candidate in 2012.

In the poll, respondents were asked: “If there were an election for president of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, whom would you vote for?”

The poll found that, overall, 60 percent of respondents chose Secretary of State Clinton, while 40 percent chose Obama.

There was virtually no difference between male and female respondents in the poll — 60 percent of women and 59 percent of men chose Clinton over Obama.

Older voters were more likely to vote for Clinton — 67 percent of respondents 65 and older and 60 percent of those 50 to 64 chose Clinton. But even among the youngest age group that was considered solid Obama territory, 18- to 34-year-olds, a majority of 54 percent opted for Clinton.

Clinton also polled strongly among Hispanic voters (55 percent), independents (60 percent), Republicans (74 percent) and conservatives (82 percent).

Obama polled strongest among blacks (65 percent) and liberals (55 percent).

Clinton has said in recent interviews that she has no plans to run for president again and seemingly ruled out such a bid until 2016. But there has been talk — fueled partly by her fellow Democrats’ losses in the midterm elections — that she might embark on a new race, and the Newsmax poll suggests she could pose a serious challenge to Obama in 2012.

“These numbers underscore President Obama’s challenges going forward as he faces the final two years of his term and begins gearing up for his re-election effort,” Democratic pollster and Fox News commentator Doug Schoen told Newsmax.

“The re-election prospects of President Obama have only been made more difficult by the Democrats’ drubbing in this week’s midterm elections.”

Not all potential Democratic presidential candidates fared as well against Obama in the Newsmax poll, however.

Retiring Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana has stockpiled more than $10 million in campaign cash he could use to challenge Obama for the nomination in 2012.

But in the Newsmax survey, Obama outpolled Bayh 59 percent to 41 percent.

Obama fared strongly among women (65 percent), young voters aged 18 to 34 (62 percent), blacks (75 percent), liberals (87 percent), and most importantly, Democrats (84 percent).

Newsmax will reveal other results of hypothetical races between Obama and other famous Americans in the coming days.

SurveyUSA is an independent research company that conducts public opinion polls for media and academic institutions, and conducts private market research for commercial clients and nonprofit organizations.

 

[Phil Elliott]

There must of been some kind of deal with India. You just don't go begging another country to start buying your stuff. Did Obama offer health care coverage to India?

 

[Statorama]

Obama Press Secretary Demands to be Pictured with Indian Leader

What a bunch of freaking hillbillies.

The Washington Post’s Scott Wilson—who was on White House pool duty Monday and filed the report for theWhite House press corps—wrote that “Gibbs announced loudly and persistently on steps of Hyderabad House that he would pull” President Obama out of the meeting “unless ‘the White House 8,’ as we’ve come to be known, were all allowed in.”

As the discussion continued, Gibbs grew more animated.

“At one point, Gibbs literally had his foot lodged in the closing front door, asking if the Indian security officials pushing hard to shut it were going to break his foot,” Wilson continued. “More angry words ensued, and after Gibbs convinced them, through high volume and repetition, that he was serious” about pulling Obama, the press secretary had the security retinue’s full attention.

Gibbs’ intervention worked: The Indian officials eventually allowed the full American press delegation into the event, along with a larger group of Indian reporters.

 

[RCon]

Obama bows to Indian parliment

I'm not exactly an Obama fan, but I fail to see why anyone makes a big deal of this. Isn't bowing basically the local version of shaking hands? Would we be upset if Obama shook hands with the president of Italy or France?More importantly, when opponents of Obama's policies get themselves all bent out of shape over silly stuff like this, it makes real criticisms of his policies less likely to be taken seriously. Sort of a boy-who-cried-wolf thing.

 

[Phurfur]

Obama bows to Indian parliment

I'm not exactly an Obama fan, but I fail to see why anyone makes a big deal of this. Isn't bowing basically the local version of shaking hands? Would we be upset if Obama shook hands with the president of Italy or France?More importantly, when opponents of Obama's policies get themselves all bent out of shape over silly stuff like this, it makes real criticisms of his policies less likely to be taken seriously. Sort of a boy-who-cried-wolf thing.

Then why didn't he bow to the Queen of England?

 

[timschochet]

MUMBAI, India — Indian and U.S. companies have discussed or signed over $14.9 billion in deals around President Barack Obama's trip that will support 53,670 U.S. jobs, the White House said.

Boeing Co. and General Electric Co. walked away with the richest deals, worth $6.8 billion and $1.6 billion, respectively.

The biggest single deal is Boeing's long-discussed sale of 10 C-17 transport aircraft, which will give the Indian Air Force the largest fleet of Long Beach-built C-17 s outside the U.S., according to the White House. The preliminary agreement values the sale at $4.1 billion, less than the anticipated $5.8 billion. Boeing says the sale will support 22,160 U.S. jobs.

The agreement is expected to keep the Long Beach plant and its 5,000 workers humming through 2013. The deal also boosts prospects for other foreign orders and shores up support for the cargo jet as domestic purchases dry up.

Indian airline SpiceJet also agreed to buy 30 B737-800 planes from Boeing, in a $2.7 billion transaction that will support 12,970 jobs. The U.S. export content of the deals, estimated at $9.5 billion, won't go far to settle America's trade deficit, which was $46.3 billion in August alone, butthe numbers are testament to India's growing importance as a global market and have provoked a swell of pride here.

"I want to be able to say to the American people when they ask me, well, why are you spending time with India, aren't they

taking our jobs?" Obama told reporters in New Delhi Monday. "I want to be able to say, actually, you know what, they just created 50,000 jobs. And that's why we shouldn't be resorting to protectionist measures. We shouldn't be thinking that it's just a one-way street."

KPMG India executive director Pradeep Udhas, who is also president of the Indo-U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the deals are significant less for their absolute value than their message.

"A two-way street between the U.S. and India has started," he said. "It's important in terms of sending out a message to U.S. constituencies that India is not just some Third World country. It's actually a huge market."

India is also a growing investor in the U.S. From 2004-2009, Indian companies invested over $26 billion in the U.S., creating more than 55,000 jobs,according to KMPG.

"For five decades after Independence, Indians looked up to the rest of the world for aid, technology and capital. Now, the world looks upon India as adynamic creator of jobs and income opportunities," India's Economic Times editorialized Monday.

"It would, at this point of time, be safe to say that the U.S. needs India more," Anil Padmanabhan wrote in the Indian business daily, Mint, on Monday.

GE was selected last month to provide the Indian Aeronautical Development Agency with 107 F414 engines for Tejas light combat aircraft, in a deal tentatively valued at $822 million, which will support 4,440 jobs in the U.S.

India's Ministry of Railways also selected GE Transportation and LaGrange, Illinois-based Electro-Motive Diesel as the two sole bidders to make 1,000 diesel locomotives over the next decade, in a deal that could be worth over $1 billion.

On Saturday, Reliance Power signed a $750 million turbine deal with General Electric, and on Sunday finalized an agreement with the U.S. Export-Import

Bank to provide up to $5 billion in financing for U.S. exports.

Reliance Power said it is negotiating an additional $1.25 billion worth of equipment deals with U.S. companies which it declined to name.

Those deals pale in comparison with Reliance Power's recent China purchases. Less than two weeks ago, Reliance Power announced a $10 billion order for power generation equipment for its coal-based power plants from China's Shanghai Electric Group Co. Ltd., and secured a $12 billion financing package for Chinese exports from a consortium of Chinese banks.

Still, the flurry of activity may help ease the dismay GE and other private companies have felt at India's strict nuclear liability law, which extends liability to suppliers of nuclear plants, stymieing their efforts to participate in India's multibillion nuclear reactor build-out. America led the diplomatic push to restartnuclear trade with India, despite its weapons program.

 

[timschochet]

This is incredibly great news, especially for my local area, where we rely on Boeing for a significant chunk of our economy. It is also quite cheering to hear Obama speak against protectionism.

Why don't people focus more on this stuff? Why do they care about incredibly insignificant issues like who Obama bowed to? Everyone who appreciates free trade and wants employment to rise should celebrate the job that Obama is doing in India.

 

[Statorama]

MUMBAI, India — Indian and U.S. companies have discussed or signed over $14.9 billion in deals around President Barack Obama's trip that will support 53,670 U.S. jobs, the White House said.

Curious that they used the terminology "support" instead of "create".All that aside though, great news and a great share Tim! This thread is for both the good and bad things involving President Obama.

ETA: The bowing post is an on going thing. Obama seems to bow to everyone, which keeps afloat the meme that he feels the US is subserviant to every other country.

 

[timschochet]

MUMBAI, India — Indian and U.S. companies have discussed or signed over $14.9 billion in deals around President Barack Obama's trip that will support 53,670 U.S. jobs, the White House said.

Curious that they used the terminology "support" instead of "create".All that aside though, great news and a great share Tim! This thread is for both the good and bad things involving President Obama.

ETA: The bowing post is an on going thing. Obama seems to bow to everyone, which keeps afloat the meme that he feels the US is subserviant to every other country.

The reason they used the word "support" is because the jobs are already there as a result of the U.S. still buying C-17s. However, that was about to end, so these jobs were going to be lost. The idea that Obama believes the US is "subserviant" is insipid.

 

[flufhed]

which keeps afloat the meme that he feels the US is subserviant to every other country.

Only if you are a reactionary moron, though.Not saying you are - i am saying that the people that buy into this "meme" are.

 

[Fennis]

Greetings gate

all of the Obamas bows, handshakes, and touchings that upset the Religious Right all in one article.

Michelle Obama Handshake the Latest First Family Greeting Mishap

 

[Statorama]

MUMBAI, India — Indian and U.S. companies have discussed or signed over $14.9 billion in deals around President Barack Obama's trip that will support 53,670 U.S. jobs, the White House said.

Curious that they used the terminology "support" instead of "create".All that aside though, great news and a great share Tim! This thread is for both the good and bad things involving President Obama.

ETA: The bowing post is an on going thing. Obama seems to bow to everyone, which keeps afloat the meme that he feels the US is subserviant to every other country.

The reason they used the word "support" is because the jobs are already there as a result of the U.S. still buying C-17s. However, that was about to end, so these jobs were going to be lost. The idea that Obama believes the US is "subserviant" is insipid.

If you listen to the guy's speeches, he never misses an opportunity to blame America for something or another. Just saying, as far as Presidents go, he's not the bullhorn of American exceptionalism.

 

[Statorama]

Obamacare mandate challenge could prevail

Fairfax, Va. --

When 21 states and several private groups initiated lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care law earlier this year, critics denounced the suits as frivolous political grandstanding. But it is increasingly clear that the plaintiffs have a serious case with a real chance of victory.

The suits focus primarily on challenges to the new law's "individual mandate," which requires most American citizens to purchase a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014 or pay a fine. One of the cases was filed by 20 state governments and the National Federation of Independent Business in a federal court in Florida. Another was initiated by the Commonwealth of Virginia in a federal court in this state, and a third by the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan.

The judges considering the Florida and Virginia cases have both issued rulings rejecting the federal government's motions to dismiss the suits and indicating that the mandate can't be upheld based on current Supreme Court precedent. By contrast, Michigan district Judge George Caram Steeh wrote a decision concluding that the mandate is constitutional. But even he agreed that the case raises an "issue of first impression."

In the most recent of the three rulings, Florida federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson wrote that the government's claim that the mandate is clearly authorized by existing Supreme Court precedent is "not even a close call." He points out that "[t]he power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent," because no previous Supreme Court decision ever authorized Congress to force ordinary citizens to buy products they did not want.

An August ruling in the Virginia case by federal District Judge Henry Hudson reached the same conclusion. As Judge Hudson points out, "[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court" has ever ruled that Congress' powers "include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product."

The federal government claims that Congress has the power to impose the mandate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Tax Clause of the Constitution. On the first two claims, Judge Vinson ruled that Supreme Court precedent doesn't clearly support the government, thereby enabling the plaintiffs' lawsuit to go forward. He outright rejected the government's claim that the mandate is constitutional because it is a "tax." It is instead a financial penalty for refusing to comply with a federal regulation. As Judge Vinson pointed out, congressional leaders consistently emphasized before the law's enactment that it was not a tax.

In September 2009, President Obama himself noted that "for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase." He was right. If the mandate qualifies as a tax merely because it punishes violators with a fine, then Congress could require Americans to do almost anything on pain of having to pay a fine if they refuse. It could, for example, force citizens to buy virtually any product, such as purchasing General Motors cars for the purpose of helping the struggling auto industry.

The government's Commerce Clause argument is equally dubious. The Clause gives Congress authority to regulate "Commerce . . . among the several states." But the individual mandate regulates that which is neither commercial nor interstate.

Virtually all purchases of health insurance are intrastate because a combination of state and federal law makes it illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines. Moreover, the object of the mandate isn't even commerce at all. Instead of regulating pre-existing commerce, the bill forces people to engage in commercial transactions they would have otherwise avoided.

A series of flawed Supreme Court decisions have expanded Congress' Commerce Clause authority well beyond what the text of the Constitution permits. These rulings allow the federal government to regulate almost any "economic activ ity." But, as Judge Vinson emphasized, even they do not give Congress the power to regulate people "based solely on citizenship and on being alive." Far from engaging in "economic activity," people who decide not to purchase health insurance are actually refraining from doing so.

In his decision in the Michigan case, Judge Steeh argued that the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because deciding not to purchase health insurance is an "economic decision."

"Economic decisions," he reasoned, include decisions not to engage in economic activity. This approach would allow the Commerce Clause to cover virtually any choice of any kind. Any decision to do anything is necessarily a decision not to use the same time and effort to engage in "economic activity."

If I choose to spend an hour sleeping, I necessarily choose not to spend that time working or buying products. Under Judge Steeh's logic, the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to force workers to get up earlier in the morning so that they would spend more time on the job.

Some defenders of the law claim that the individual mandate is similar to federal laws banning racial discrimination against customers by businesses such as motels and restaurants. But federal antidiscrimination laws apply only to existing businesses already engaged in commercial activity in the regulated industry. By contrast, uninsured individuals are not businesses and, by definition, are not participating in the insurance industry.

The federal government also argues that the mandate is authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which gives Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" other powers Congress is granted by the Constitution.

Even if the mandate is "necessary," it is not "proper" under our constitutional system of limited federal authority. If the Clause allows Congress to adopt the individual mandate, the same logic would justify almost any other requirement Congress might impose on individuals, thereby gutting the principle of limited federal power.

The legal battle over the mandate is far from over. The Florida and Virginia rulings are not final decisions. Both cases, as well as the Michigan decision, are sure to be appealed to the federal courts of appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

The anti-mandate plaintiffs still face an uphill struggle. Courts are rarely willing to strike down a law that is a centerpiece of the political agenda of the president and his party. Nonetheless, it is increasingly clear that lawsuits are far from "frivolous" and have a real chance to prevail.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Greetings gate

all of the Obamas bows, handshakes, and touchings that upset the Religious Right all in one article.

Michelle Obama Handshake the Latest First Family Greeting Mishap

Why would the Religious Right as you put it take any offense, it is the Muslim Fundamentalist that this offends. This is headline news in the Muslin world.

 

[EasyMorningRebel]

Greetings gate

all of the Obamas bows, handshakes, and touchings that upset the Religious Right all in one article.

Michelle Obama Handshake the Latest First Family Greeting Mishap

The religious right? Oh...fishing. Right.

 

[flufhed]

Greetings gate

all of the Obamas bows, handshakes, and touchings that upset the Religious Right all in one article.

Michelle Obama Handshake the Latest First Family Greeting Mishap

The religious right? Oh...fishing. Right.

Huh?Isn't it the religious right that comes unglued at all things Obama, or have I been watching a spoof television show for the last couple years.

 

[Statorama]

If you listen to the guy's speeches, he never misses an opportunity to blame America for something or another. Just saying, as far as Presidents go, he's not the bullhorn of American exceptionalism.

Just one example Obama's UN speech dissected

Obama’s UN Speech, Dissected

Peter Wehner - 09.23.2009 - 5:30 PM

In the UN speech earlier today, President Obama once again succumbed to what has become almost a clinical addiction: criticizing the United States in front of an international audience.

In the latest stop on his American Apology Tour, Obama aimed his fire at America on the issue of global warming (“the days when America dragged its feet on this issue are over”) and democracy (“in the past America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy”). And Obama, after humbly declaring at the outset of his speech that “I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world . . . they are also rooted in hope—the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change,” went on to say this:

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. This has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for our collective inaction.

Where oh where to begin? How about by pointing out that America did not act unilaterally in Iraq or anywhere else during the Bush presidency. For example, and for the record, more than 35 countries gave crucial support—from the use of naval and air bases to help with intelligence and logistics to the deployment of combat units. President Bush answered the “unilateral” charge in his 2004 State of the Union address:

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices.

Second, the United States actually did have in mind the interests of others—beginning with 25 million Iraqis—when it acted. The Iraq war, whatever you think about its wisdom and execution, was in part a war of liberation, undertaken for noble purposes: to liberate a captive people and to depose an aggressive dictator. We know about the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein; it was one of the most brutal and malevolent in modern history. The fact that we believed the Iraq war advanced America’s national interests doesn’t mean it was a war waged without regard for the interests of others. And for Obama to allow this misperception of America to go unchallenged—indeed, to give such a false and malicious charge legitimacy—is disturbing.

Third, in his speech the President said, “I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights.” Oh really? If so, then why was he so reluctant to speak out for the brave Iranians who rose up against the brutal rule of President Ahmadinejad? Because of his fear not to offend the Iranian regime, he essentially put America on its side rather than on the side of the Iranians who stood up for their dignity and rights. In addition, Obama and his secretary of state are purposefully downplaying human rights in their dealings with China—including refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama. It is no secret that Obama—in an effort to distance himself from his predecessor—has very few words, and none memorable, to say on behalf of basic human rights. He will from time to time mouth empty slogans so he can check off the “human-rights box,” but he does not give any evidence that he feels these values deep in his bones.

There is more to be said about the Obama speech—including the president’s tiresome pretense that he and he alone will lead the world out of its cul-de-sac, where “we bicker about outdated grievances.” But I cannot escape a depressing thought, one I hope is proved to be wrong over time: that Barack Obama, even though he is the leader of America, is constantly placing himself above it. His criticisms of our country are now part of a troubling routine, so much so that Obama is now winning the applause of people who genuinely hate America (like Fidel Castro, who complimented Obama for his “brave gesture” and “courage” in criticizing the United States at the UN).

Obama not only fails to strongly defend the United States; he is actually adding brush strokes to a portrait of our country that diminishes its achievements and standing. He seems unable or unwilling to speak out—in a heartfelt and passionate way—on its behalf. He is, of course, too clever not to ever say a word of praise for America; no, this sophisticated wordsmith and smooth politician, this cool customer ever in search of The Golden Mean, can speak in both text and subtext. He says just enough to deny the charge that he is not a strong defender of the country he leads. But by now we’re on to the game.

No one believes America’s history is pristine; we are all familiar with the catalogue of our own sins, beginning with slavery. Other presidents have recognized them, and a few have given voice to them. But it was done in the context of a reverence for America—for what it has been and stands for, for what it is and can be. Think of the words of George Washington, who said of America, “I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love.” That is a noble sentiment from a man whose love of country knew no bounds. They are also words that I cannot imagine President Obama saying, at least with conviction. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t like his country or admire things about it; it means that he has yet to really speak out for it. And it means that he has shown, so far at least, that he is more interested in advancing his interests than in speaking on behalf of the nation that elected him. There are enough critics of America in the world; we don’t need to add America’s president to that list.

Perhaps Mr. Obama will come to understand that there is a problem when the president of the United States—an “inestimable jewel,” Lincoln called her—has harsher things to say about his own country than he does about many of the worst regimes on Earth.

It is all quite disturbing, and to have to say this about an American president almost makes me sick.

 

[timschochet]

I couldn't disagree with Mr. Wehner more. I don't read Obama's speech as being critical at all. He makes some observations about public perception of America abroad, and all of it is largely true. Mr. Wehner (and you, Stat) seem to want what George Bush did: a constant bellowing of our greatness to the world, and a refusal to discuss any critical issues that might lead to criticism of the United States. All this has gotten us is resentment. I much prefer Obama's style and method.

 

[Jewell]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

 

[timschochet]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

 

[Phurfur]

Greetings gate

all of the Obamas bows, handshakes, and touchings that upset the Religious Right all in one article.

Michelle Obama Handshake the Latest First Family Greeting Mishap

The religious right? Oh...fishing. Right.

Huh?Isn't it the religious right that comes unglued at all things Obama, or have I been watching a spoof television show for the last couple years.

Yup, spoof television. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and the best part is that you believe them.

 

[Phurfur]

I couldn't disagree with Mr. Wehner more. I don't read Obama's speech as being critical at all. He makes some observations about public perception of America abroad, and all of it is largely true. Mr. Wehner (and you, Stat) seem to want what George Bush did: a constant bellowing of our greatness to the world, and a refusal to discuss any critical issues that might lead to criticism of the United States. All this has gotten us is resentment. I much prefer Obama's style and method.

Which has gotten us is resentment. Did you see the UN on Friday?

 

[Phurfur]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

You are just cracking me up. The Dems didn't even read it!

"But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it." - Nancy Pelosi

 

[bueno]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim, Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

That's funny. My answer to both questions would have been yes.

 

[timschochet]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

You are just cracking me up. The Dems didn't even read it!

"But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it." - Nancy Pelosi

You're too smart a poster for this. Forget the rhetoric for a second. We've all heard that quote, but do you TRULY believe that the healthcare bill was voted on without people knowing what it contained? I mean, really?

 

[timschochet]

I still don't understand why we are blaming unemployment on Obama.

Tim, Don't you think Obama has to take ownership of the fact that he guaranteed that if we passed his stimulus bill unemployment would not exceed 8%?

Should Bush take ownership of the fact that he and his people stated the overall cost of the Iraq war would be less than 1 billion?My answer to both questions is no. Rhetoric is part of politics. If the stimulus bill signficantly hurt our economy, then THAT'S what he should take ownership of. But I have seen no evidence that it has.

That's funny. My answer to both questions would have been yes.

And you're too smart for this too. Obama has very little to do with the unemployment rate, and Bush couldn't control the cost of the war. To hold them accountable for these issues is completely unfair. Now, it's perfectly fine to hold Bush accountable for going to war, or to hold Obama accountable for healthcare or the stimulus package. But not this stuff.

 

[bg0546]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

You are just cracking me up. The Dems didn't even read it!

"But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it." - Nancy Pelosi

You're too smart a poster for this. Forget the rhetoric for a second. We've all heard that quote, but do you TRULY believe that the healthcare bill was voted on without people knowing what it contained? I mean, really?

It's a 2000 page document with references to another 20,000+ pages in regulations that it works with or modifies. Absolutely I believe many of them voted on it without reading it. Why would they when they're just going to vote the party line anyways? You're naive if you think they all read it and understood it.

 

[bueno]

This is incredibly great news, especially for my local area, where we rely on Boeing for a significant chunk of our economy. It is also quite cheering to hear Obama speak against protectionism.Why don't people focus more on this stuff? Why do they care about incredibly insignificant issues like who Obama bowed to? Everyone who appreciates free trade and wants employment to rise should celebrate the job that Obama is doing in India.

So can the President influence employment or not?

 

[timschochet]

This is incredibly great news, especially for my local area, where we rely on Boeing for a significant chunk of our economy. It is also quite cheering to hear Obama speak against protectionism.Why don't people focus more on this stuff? Why do they care about incredibly insignificant issues like who Obama bowed to? Everyone who appreciates free trade and wants employment to rise should celebrate the job that Obama is doing in India.

So can the President influence employment or not?

Not in a big way.

 

[Jewell]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

The key word in Obama's quote and my rephrasing of it is "belief". Do I believe that Dems voted for the healthcare bill "without regard for the interests of others"? Yes and no. I believe they voted for it because, as you correctly point out, they philosophically believe that it's in the best interests of most Americans. But I also believe that they voted for it without considering fully Republicans' interests. That's fine because to the victors go the spoils, and the Democrats won the '08 elections.

It's also true, though, that actions have consequences and the Democrats' decision to not fully consider opposing views on the healthcare bill came back to haunt them in 2010. Whether it's actually true that Democrats disregarded opposing views is a moot point now. The fact is that many people believed that to be the case, and sometimes perceptions become reality in voters' eyes. That definitely played a role in the midterms.

The same splitting-of-hairs can be applied to Obama's speech. Whether the U.S. actually acted unilaterally or without regard for the interests of others is almost irrelevant. What is relevant to the crowd that Obama is addressing is their belief that the U.S. acted unilaterally and against the interests of others. Same dynamic.

 

[timschochet]

It's a 2000 page document with references to another 20,000+ pages in regulations that it works with or modifies. Absolutely I believe many of them voted on it without reading it. Why would they when they're just going to vote the party line anyways? You're naive if you think they all read it and understood it.

Whenever a bill comes out that people don't like, one of the constant complaints is that it's thousands of pages long. In truth, the actual meat of the bill is usually a couple of hundred pages, and the rest is devoted to a list of companies or concerns or current local laws that are excluded, or else some sort or earmarks or pork that specifically applies to one state or region. The actual context of the bill was nowhere near that long. I don't have a lot of respect for congressmen or senators. I was opposed to this bill, and remain so. But did they and their staffs actually read the crux of the bill? Silly to assume they didn't.

 

[videoguy505]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

You are just cracking me up. The Dems didn't even read it!

"But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it." - Nancy Pelosi

You're too smart a poster for this. Forget the rhetoric for a second. We've all heard that quote, but do you TRULY believe that the healthcare bill was voted on without people knowing what it contained? I mean, really?

I can't explain Stupak's vote without assuming he has no idea how government, politics, and the legal system work at all.

 

[timschochet]

Since you're trying to catch me in a contradiction, Bueno, let me make myself clear: there are some things that Obama can do to help, like the C-17s deal, and I highly approve. That's not going to dent the overall percentages, though. Long term, Obama can really hurt our economy by giving into the unions and accepting protectionism. The fact that he has chosen not to do this is very good news IMO. But that's not going to affect short-term unemployment percentages either. There is NOTHING he can do, IMO, that will make those better or worse.

 

[timschochet]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

The key word in Obama's quote and my rephrasing of it is "belief". Do I believe that Dems voted for the healthcare bill "without regard for the interests of others"? Yes and no. I believe they voted for it because, as you correctly point out, they philosophically believe that it's in the best interests of most Americans. But I also believe that they voted for it without considering fully Republicans' interests. That's fine because to the victors go the spoils, and the Democrats won the '08 elections.

It's also true, though, that actions have consequences and the Democrats' decision to not fully consider opposing views on the healthcare bill came back to haunt them in 2010. Whether it's actually true that Democrats disregarded opposing views is a moot point now. The fact is that many people believed that to be the case, and sometimes perceptions become reality in voters' eyes. That definitely played a role in the midterms.

The same splitting-of-hairs can be applied to Obama's speech. Whether the U.S. actually acted unilaterally or without regard for the interests of others is almost irrelevant. What is relevant to the crowd that Obama is addressing is their belief that the U.S. acted unilaterally and against the interests of others. Same dynamic.

OK, I can accept this argument. I just don't believe that the Dems voted for it in ignorance, without paying attention, and with a "#### you" attitude to the nation. That's the spin that a lot of conservative types are spreading these days, and I think it's bunk.

 

[Fennis]

Greetings gate

all of the Obamas bows, handshakes, and touchings that upset the Religious Right all in one article.

Michelle Obama Handshake the Latest First Family Greeting Mishap

Why would the Religious Right as you put it take any offense, it is the Muslim Fundamentalist that this offends. This is headline news in the Muslin world.

I don't know why, I just know they do. Obama bows to the Japanese dude and the religious right freaks out.

 

[bg0546]

It's a 2000 page document with references to another 20,000+ pages in regulations that it works with or modifies. Absolutely I believe many of them voted on it without reading it. Why would they when they're just going to vote the party line anyways? You're naive if you think they all read it and understood it.

Whenever a bill comes out that people don't like, one of the constant complaints is that it's thousands of pages long. In truth, the actual meat of the bill is usually a couple of hundred pages, and the rest is devoted to a list of companies or concerns or current local laws that are excluded, or else some sort or earmarks or pork that specifically applies to one state or region. The actual context of the bill was nowhere near that long. I don't have a lot of respect for congressmen or senators. I was opposed to this bill, and remain so. But did they and their staffs actually read the crux of the bill? Silly to assume they didn't.

So you've read this bill in it's entirety?

 

[timschochet]

It's a 2000 page document with references to another 20,000+ pages in regulations that it works with or modifies. Absolutely I believe many of them voted on it without reading it. Why would they when they're just going to vote the party line anyways? You're naive if you think they all read it and understood it.

Whenever a bill comes out that people don't like, one of the constant complaints is that it's thousands of pages long. In truth, the actual meat of the bill is usually a couple of hundred pages, and the rest is devoted to a list of companies or concerns or current local laws that are excluded, or else some sort or earmarks or pork that specifically applies to one state or region. The actual context of the bill was nowhere near that long. I don't have a lot of respect for congressmen or senators. I was opposed to this bill, and remain so. But did they and their staffs actually read the crux of the bill? Silly to assume they didn't.

So you've read this bill in it's entirety?

Gee, Strike, as I recall I resigned from Congress prior to the vote on that particular bill.

 

[Phurfur]

Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others.

I find it interesting that if you substitute in "Democrats have" instead of "America has" in this part of Obama's speech, you have a reasonable explanation for what happened during the midterms.

No it isn't. I was as opposed to the healthcare bill as you were. But do you really believe that Dems voted for it "without regard for the interests of others?" They voted for it because they believed in it, because they have a different philosopy about government than you (or I) do.

You are just cracking me up. The Dems didn't even read it!

"But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it." - Nancy Pelosi

You're too smart a poster for this. Forget the rhetoric for a second. We've all heard that quote, but do you TRULY believe that the healthcare bill was voted on without people knowing what it contained? I mean, really?

Yes!

 

[bg0546]

It's a 2000 page document with references to another 20,000+ pages in regulations that it works with or modifies. Absolutely I believe many of them voted on it without reading it. Why would they when they're just going to vote the party line anyways? You're naive if you think they all read it and understood it.

Whenever a bill comes out that people don't like, one of the constant complaints is that it's thousands of pages long. In truth, the actual meat of the bill is usually a couple of hundred pages, and the rest is devoted to a list of companies or concerns or current local laws that are excluded, or else some sort or earmarks or pork that specifically applies to one state or region. The actual context of the bill was nowhere near that long. I don't have a lot of respect for congressmen or senators. I was opposed to this bill, and remain so. But did they and their staffs actually read the crux of the bill? Silly to assume they didn't.

So you've read this bill in it's entirety?

Gee, Strike, as I recall I resigned from Congress prior to the vote on that particular bill.

So in other words you're just generalizing again when you suggest that the meat of the bill is only a couple of hundred pages? I mean, we are used to your generalizations so it's not out of character or anything. Also, as a follow up, are you suggesting that ALL members of congress read the entirety of EVERY bill they vote on?

 

[bg0546]

It's a 2000 page document with references to another 20,000+ pages in regulations that it works with or modifies. Absolutely I believe many of them voted on it without reading it. Why would they when they're just going to vote the party line anyways? You're naive if you think they all read it and understood it.

Whenever a bill comes out that people don't like, one of the constant complaints is that it's thousands of pages long. In truth, the actual meat of the bill is usually a couple of hundred pages, and the rest is devoted to a list of companies or concerns or current local laws that are excluded, or else some sort or earmarks or pork that specifically applies to one state or region. The actual context of the bill was nowhere near that long. I don't have a lot of respect for congressmen or senators. I was opposed to this bill, and remain so. But did they and their staffs actually read the crux of the bill? Silly to assume they didn't.

So you've read this bill in it's entirety?

Gee, Strike, as I recall I resigned from Congress prior to the vote on that particular bill.

And why do you keep calling me Strike?

 

[Eric Stratton]

It's a 2000 page document with references to another 20,000+ pages in regulations that it works with or modifies. Absolutely I believe many of them voted on it without reading it. Why would they when they're just going to vote the party line anyways? You're naive if you think they all read it and understood it.

Whenever a bill comes out that people don't like, one of the constant complaints is that it's thousands of pages long. In truth, the actual meat of the bill is usually a couple of hundred pages, and the rest is devoted to a list of companies or concerns or current local laws that are excluded, or else some sort or earmarks or pork that specifically applies to one state or region. The actual context of the bill was nowhere near that long. I don't have a lot of respect for congressmen or senators. I was opposed to this bill, and remain so. But did they and their staffs actually read the crux of the bill? Silly to assume they didn't.

For someone to claim that they follow politics you don't have a clue.

 

[Statorama]

Obama's big government in action : Federal Employees making over $150K has doubled under Obama

Aww, look at the USA Today doing some reporting. Kinda cute.

ALL this in the face of double digit unemployment in the private sector, and while YOU are being asked to tighten YOUR belt.

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers. ..

•Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.

•Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.

•Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005

 

[Statorama]

Obama Administration lied in Gulf Oil Spill report

Edit to add: Thousands of people lost their jobs due to this.

The White House rewrote crucial sections of an Interior Department report to suggest an independent group of scientists and engineers supported a six-month ban on offshore oil drilling, the Interior inspector general says in a new report.

In the wee hours of the morning of May 27, a staff member to White House energy adviser Carol Browner sent two edited versions of the department report’s executive summary back to Interior. The language had been changed to insinuate the seven-member panel of outside experts – who reviewed a draft of various safety recommendations – endorsed the moratorium, according to the IG report obtained by POLITICO.

“The White House edit of the original DOI draft executive summary led to the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer-reviewed by the experts,” the IG report states, without judgment on whether the change was an intentional attempt to mislead the public.