Category Archives: Barack Obama
Obama’s Deadly Deadline: What President Obama Really Wants In Afghanistan
Obama’s Dilemma: Heavy Leadership Responsibility – Light Leadership Aptitude
The president’s recent disappointing oval office speech elicited a chorus of criticism from across the political spectrum. For some reason the speech seems to have put a spotlight on the president as a leader, whereas other misjudgments in which he was directly involved in making policy had not. The oil spill, which was certainly no fault of Mr. Obama, seems to have finally caused the public and many of his cheerleaders among the pundits to focus on the president’s substance and not his style. That has been the unspoken, elephant-in- the-room, concern throughout his presidency, his aptitude for leadership. We are reminded of the lead-in lyrics to the signature song Ethel Merman belts out in Gypsy… “Curtain up…light the lights…you either got it…or you ain’t.”
President Obama seems to have the curtain up, light the lights part down pat. The dramatic campaign and convention stage sets, his world photo-op tours, his big oval-office backdrop to his little oval-office speech, and his ever-masterful use of the teleprompter have all produced a “strike-up-the-band” expectation whenever and wherever he appears. It’s the “you either got it, or you ain’t” part that seems finally to have focused the public on the president’s aptitude for leadership.
The befouling glob that threatens hundreds of miles of coast or, as Peggy Noonan put it recently so aptly in the Wall Street Journal, “the monster from under the sea,” seems to be a metaphor for the president’s inability to shape the world as he wants it to be. Speeches are not a substitute for coherent policy. The president, with the entire world watching his prime time speech, essentially punted. He pulled from the presidential duck-and-cover arsenal the time-tested, yawn producer of presidents bereft of solutions to all manner of problems…the formation of a new blue-ribbon commission. This was the cornerstone of his “battle plan” to face down the “siege” of big oil’s attack on our Gulf coast.
There is nothing more to be said about the quality of Mr. Obama’s oval-office speech debut. It seems as if all the commentators from Chris Mathews, Keith Olberman and Jon Stewart on the left, to Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer and Karl Rove on the right have already done that. Besides, there is something much more revealing that is apparent here. It isn’t about the delivery by the man who gave the speech; it is, rather, about the man who delivered the speech. The disappointing oval-office moment was more than just a lack of writing skill by some wordsmith presidential speechwriter; it focused the attention of the American people on the man himself and on what they hoped just wasn’t so; an apparent lack of the leadership aptitude which a president must possess if he or she is to succeed.
The evidence of weak leadership skills was there before but it became shrouded in the president’s rock star image. The fact is that there was very little about Barack Obama’s pre-presidential career that suggested any real aptitude for leadership. There was always plenty of “curtain up, light the lights” but the demonstration of leadership part was always a bit like a clock striking thirteen. That is to say, not quite reassuring.
His career as a legislator in Illinois, while always well hyped, was less than impressive. His biggest legislative achievement in Illinois seems to be the nearly 130 times he chose to vote “present” rather than “yea” or “nay” on major bills. And yes, we’ve heard or read the standard excuse for this apparent ambivalence. “It’s the way things are often done in the Illinois Senate,” we’re told. But since when has doing things the way they are done in Illinois met the definition of leadership anywhere outside of that state.
Besides, some of the “present” votes then state-Senator Obama chose to cast while in the Illinois legislature are quite revealing, if not troubling. For example, in 1999 he was faced with a difficult vote, to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults. Understandably, many African-Americans were opposed to the bill. On the other hand, Mr. Obama was trying to hone an image of a tough-on crime candidate. It was a difficult political call for him; so, he voted “present.”
According to the New York Times, on at least 36 occasions state-Senator Obama was either the only state senator to vote “present” or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. Politically, the option to vote “present” provides a certain amount of cover. It is a way for the faint of heart, in effect, to say, “I don’t particularly like this bill, but I don’t want to take the political risk of taking a stand.”
The juvenile crime bill was to allow offenders as young as 15 to be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on, or near, schools. Both houses passed the measure handily. State-Senator Obama justified his “present” vote by opining there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime. Mr. Obama’s aides said he was more concerned about whether the bill would be effective rather than with its political consequences. They did not explain, however, why he did not just vote “no”.
There were other “present” votes, in which part-time law-lecturer Obama, according to the New York Times, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions. Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote “yea” or “nay” on a bill that would allow certain victims of sex crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted “present” on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence.
On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone “present” vote in a 58-to-0 vote. When it appeared that this vote might become an issue in the presidential race Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill had passed 112-0-0 in the Illinois House and 58-0-1 in the state Senate. Again, why didn’t he just vote, “no”?
In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were “present”, including Mr. Obama’s. Mr. Obama’s campaign said he voted present to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together. He believed (hold on to your hat) the bill was rushed to the floor and that lawmakers were deprived of time to consider it. Oddly, this hasn’t been a problem for the president with bills passed in the House and Senate of the United States.
The Times also reported that Mr. Obama was the sole “present” vote on a bill that easily passed the Illinois Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted “present” on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship, which ultimately did not pass the Illinois Senate. In both of those cases, his campaign said (hold on to your hat again) he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities. This from, now, President Obama, who has gone on, arguably, to impose the greatest funded and unfunded mandates on local authorities in the nation’s history.
But enough of ancient history. Fast forward to the centerpiece of his first year in office, health-care reform. Many on the left, and even some on the right, suggest that this massive legislative “achievement” is proof that President Obama is a formidable leader. We beg to differ. It may, indeed, prove that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority leader Harry Reid can effectively lead their party’s foot soldiers over any cliff they choose, but it really doesn’t say much about President Obama’s leadership aptitude. Quite the opposite. Apparently misreading the lessons of President Clinton’s terribly misdirected attempt at health-care reform, President Obama delegated the entire effort to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. He sat by as they cobbled together (in his name) the horrific 2700-page health-care reform legislation that a substantial majority of the people consistently said they did not want and consistently continue to say they now want repealed and which a third of the states are now fighting to stop in federal court. Real leadership of the type he promised, but apparently cannot deliver, would have brought both sides together instead of putting the nation through some of the worst acrimony we can ever remember.
The curtains up…light the lights first-day-in-office announcement that the prison housing terrorists at Guantanamo Bay would be closed within a year, was an early lesson that Ruffles and Flourishes without leadership aptitude is, well, just music. The world apology tour for American foreign policy under the Bush Administration, the Cairo speech, the presidential outstretched hand to our adversaries and the long-lapsed ultimatum for a reciprocal handshake in return, the puzzling back of the hand treatment to Britain, our closest friend since the end of World War II, the insulting treatment of our friends such as South Korea, Columbia, Honduras, and Israel, and the skyrocketing spending and the attendant ever-mounting deficits all call into question the aptitude for leadership that prevails (or is absent) at the White House.
Les Gelb wrote of Obama, “He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion. Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn’t — and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have.” Mr. Obama is beginning to look to more and more of the people who were dazzled by his meteoric rise and who were looking for the political equivalent of a messiah, as a growing disappointment. It turns out that Mr. Obama cannot by his charm, his gift-of-gab, his oratorical skills and his considerable intelligence will into reality policies that the people won’t accept and that many across the political spectrum here and abroad seriously question.
Which brings us full circle back to where we began… the growing fiasco that continues to assault the gulf coast. “What could the President have done to avoid the blowout at the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform?” the Administration’s defenders indignantly ask. Nothing. But that is the wrong question. The more telling question would be “what could the President have done to mitigate the damage?” And the answer to that seems to be, “plenty.”
He had the authority to waive the ridiculous and long-outdated, protectionist Jones Act that would have allowed significant expertise and siphoning capacity to be on location in the Gulf weeks ago mitigating the damage that now seems unstoppable. But, so as not to offend labor unions or domestic shipping interests, he turned down the offers. He could have immediately authorized Governor Bobby Jindal to begin deploying barriers parallel to the gulf coast as the governor was begging for permission to do (and for which he was still begging last week). He could, and should, have immediately designated the most operationally competent person he could find to take charge of containment operations and to report progress to him on a daily basis.
Instead, seven weeks into this debacle, when discussing why safety precautions were not in place, Mr. Obama assured the American people “that he wants to know why.” Of course, the answer he will soon provide is quite predictable since we have heard it many times before. The problem, we will be told, rests with the previous Administration. Blaming Bush, or industry or political opposition seems to be his answer for every problem. “I inherited this mess,” he often tells us. In short, the President is not providing the leadership one would expect from a chief executive running the country. Instead, he has responded as one would expect from a chief executive running a think tank.
Enough curtain up…light the lights. The curtain has been up and the lights have been lighted since January 20th, 2009. Show us you got it, Mr. President. Not that you ain’t.
By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter
Wash. Post Cries: White ‘Hate’ Groups Increasing! Says Who?
Jon Stewart Asks David Axelrod: Has This Government Proven Itself Competent Enough To Regulate Industry?
Jon Stewart on Monday asked David Axelrod a truly extraordinary question: has this government proven itself competent enough to regulate industry?
Speaking to President Obama's senior advisor on "The Daily Show," the Comedy Central star was in the middle of a rather interesting discussion when he surprisingly said, "It's clear that this administration believes that government can have a stronger hand in regulating Wall Street, in regulating energy, in doing these things."
"But, has government during this time proved itself competent? And are our only two choices sort of an incompetent bureaucracy that doesn't quite regulate properly or free market anarchy?" he asked.
When Axelrod predictably tried to blame all the problems in the country on the previous administration's supposed lack of regulation and oversight, Stewart wasn't having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary, relevant section at 1:50):
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
Wait until you hear what Axelrod used as an example of the Obama administration's competence:JON STEWART, HOST: It's clear that this administration believes that government can have a stronger hand in regulating Wall Street, in regulating energy, in doing these things. But, has government during this time proved itself competent? And are our only two choices sort of an incompetent bureaucracy that doesn't quite regulate properly or free market anarchy? Before you can make the case that this administration and government can effectively regulate shouldn't they, you know, the MMS case makes a pretty clear point that the regulatory system is somewhat broken, and you guys had a chance to...
DAVID AXELROD, SENIOR OBAMA ADVISOR: The answer Jon is not to abandon the notion that there have to be rules and oversight. The answer is to make it, to make it work better. There's a long legacy there at MMS, and frankly at other agencies of government because the last administration wasn't really interested in regulating.
STEWART: But why then, why not then go in and really, with the urgency? You know, the fear is the government is not agile enough, is not urgent enough to deal with things like a catastrophic oil spill.
AXELROD: There is, there is no doubt that in retrospect we would have liked to move faster on the MMS situation, but understand that we were also dealing with the economic crisis, and, and, and, and, and the wars, and a whole range of issues, and we, that was, that was a defect that we're correcting and moving aggressively to correct now. But the answer isn't to walk away from it. I think we tested the proposition of what no regulation means. What you get, you get the leak, you get the mine disaster in West Virginia, and you get an economic crisis. And everybody recognizes that government has to play a role. It shouldn't be an oppressive role, but there has to be some firm oversight and some rules of people respond to. These, you know, it's pretty clear the oil industry is not going to regulate itself.
STEWART: But do you think, I guess my point is before you have the opportunity, before you can earn the ability to go in and, and, and do that, don't, don't we have to show a certain baseline level of competence.
AXELROD: Yeah, well I mean, I would argue that we have shown a baseline level of competence. The thing is that when you show a level of competence, it doesn't become a story. It only becomes a story when there are problems. Take the H1N1 flu for example. We jumped on that quickly. Some people criticized us for being too aggressive on it, but I think we averted a larger public health disaster.
Yeah, they sure did a GREAT job with that swine flu scaring the heck out of people over what turned out to be nothing just like in the 70s.
If that's what this White House considers competence, we're REALLY in trouble.
As for Stewart, that's one heckuva good job by a comedian. Makes the clowns at MSNBC look like the real jokers, doesn't it?
What really made this so marvelous is that he went in a direction most journalists today would eschew at all costs.
Consider that today's liberal media members view industry as the enemy that needs to be vigorously constrained by government, but they never ask if government is competent enough to do it.
Obviously this oil spill has to raise some uncertainty in this regard, and Stewart marvelously challenged a senior administration official to explain why this White House is up to the task.
On the other hand, he better be careful with this line of questioning or he just might get thrown off the liberal reservation as Keith Olbermann recently was when he dared criticize Obama.
Maybe that would be a good thing for Stewart who then would really be free to ask the questions of this administration most so-called journalists won't.
A man can dream, can't he?
Is President Obama Trying To Kill The Gulf State Economies?
‘Conservative’ NYT Columnist Douthat: Right-Wingers Don’t Realize Hawaii’s A State
Over the weekend, Dave Weigel resigned as WaPo's house chronicler of conservatives after revelations of his antipathy toward the people he was covering. Tonight brings us the spectacle of Ross Douthat, an ostensibly conservative columnist at the New York Times. Appearing on MSNBC's Ed Schultz show, Douthat proffered precisely zero criticism of anyone or anything liberal. But he did manage to mock Mike Huckabee as "passive-aggressive." For good measure, Douthat suggested that "right-wing" people who question Barack Obama's place of birth are too dense to realize that Hawaii is a state of the union.
The Nation's Chris Hayes, subbing for Schultz tonight, didn't have to strain to elicit criticism of conservatives from Douthat. After playing a clip of Huckabee stating the apparent fact that he polls better than other Republicans against Obama, Douthat opined.
View video here.
ROSS DOUTHAT: I think that's classically Huckabee. It's sort of charmingly passive-aggressive.In the clip, Huckabee criticized no one. What's "passive-aggressive" about observing that one's leading in some polls?
Later, Hayes invited Douthat to riff off a poll that showed 24% of Americans don't think Pres. Obama was born in the U.S.
DOUHAT: There are two ways to read it, right? Clearly on the one hand it's illustrative of a certain kind of paranoia among many Americans, right-wing Americans about Barack Obama. On the other hand, I really think you can overstate the importance of these polls. There are polls every year that show 42% of Americans believe in UFOs.Douthat was interrupted, but his point was clear. Right-wingers: too thick to realize that Hawaii's a state. Ross sounds like the quintessential NYT/MSNBC "conservative": one most interested in ingratiating himself with his liberal masters.
HAYES: Also disturbing!
DOUTHAT: Also disturbing. But I also wonder, if you took that 21% [sic] and polled them and said what percentage know that being born outside the US --
HAYES: Disqualifies --
DOUTHAT: Is a disqualification for the presidency. Or if you polled them and said, what percentage know that Hawaii is actually a state? That sounds like a joke, but-- that sounds like a joke --
Beer Monday*: Chump Who Skyrocketted Deficit Says He’s Serious About Reducing It
Beer Monday*: Chump Who Skyrocketted Deficit Says He’s Serious About Reducing It
Beer Monday*: Chump Who Skyrocketted Deficit Says He’s Serious About Reducing It
ObamaCare Failing On Deadlines, Costs
ObamaCare Failing On Deadlines, Costs
ObamaCare Failing On Deadlines, Costs
Arizona Needs Help. Obama’s Answer? Signs, Lawsuits and More Incompetence
Geithner Miscasts the 1930s at the G-20 Summit; AP’s Aversa Lets Him Get Away With It
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is admonishing the leaders of other countries attending the G-20 summit in Toronto to keep spending like there's no tomorrow, because if they spend like there's no tomorrow, there will still be a tomorrow. But in the gospel according to Geithner, if they don't spend like there's no tomorrow, there really won't be a tomorrow.
With such blubbery logic, is it any wonder that America's stature with the rest of the world is plummeting?
Earlier this evening, Brent Baker at NewsBusters pointed to an ABC report warning that a second recession might be on the horizon if the G20 nations don't follow the spend-spend-spend recommendations of the Obama administration.
In his attempt to convince the rest of the world of the folly of being fiscally responsible, Geithner has invoked a supposed "lesson" from the 1930s. Back in mid-May, I happened to stumble on the fundamental untruth of his assertion, and will demonstrate it shortly.
The Associated Press's Jeannine Aversa let Geithner's contention pass without challenge in her Saturday report on the summit. Here are the three relevant paragraphs from her report:
Asked if the global economy could slip back into another "double dip" recession, Geithner said the answer to that question hinges on decisions made by world leaders. "It is within the capacity of the people who are going to be in those rooms together in the next few days to avoid that outcome," he said.
One of the mistakes made in the 1930s was that countries pulled back their recovery efforts too soon, prolonging the Great Depression, he said.
Geithner said the United States doesn't want to see that happen again. "What we want to do is continue to emphasize that we are going to avoid that mistake," he said. "It's only been a year since the world economy stopped collapsing ... it will take some time to heal."
What follows is a chart showing U.S. spending and GDP from 1923 to 1940, with a partial list of unemployment rates from roughly the same time frame immediately to its right:
Hoover began the federal spending ramp-up in 1931 and 1932, but Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his New Deal took spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) to the 9%-11%, well over double the level of the Coolidge years. He kept it there until 1940, after which pre-war and wartime spending kicked in. Despite all of what FDR did and tried, unemployment stayed persistently and unacceptably high.
The gospel according to Geithner, as well as hard-core Keynesians like Paul Krugman at the New York Times, would tell us that FDR held up his end of the bargain by keeping the spending spigots open during the eight years that ended in 1940, and that it was the Europeans pulling back who prolonged the recession (Krugman even believes that FDR didn't spend enough). One would therefore expect that folks living in countries that didn't hold up their end of the spend-spend-spend bargain during that decade must have endured even more hardships than U.S. citizens did.
The trouble is, as I discovered quite by accident on May 13, is that this isn't at all what happened. In a Wall Street Journal column, Daniel Henninger quoted an eminent European economist who had passed away less than two years earlier. In the process of making a point that Henninger used about the mediocre performance of Europe during the 1990s, this historian also, when seen in the context of the graphics just presented, also made a huge point about the Europe of the 1930s:
Angus Maddison, the eminent European historian of world economic development who died days before Europe's debt crisis, wrote in 2001: "The most disturbing aspect of West European performance since 1973 has been the staggering rise in unemployment. In 1994-8 the average level was nearly 11% of the labor force. This is higher than the depressed years of the 1930s."
Whoa. Maddison's assertion leads to these key factoids and points:
- Europe's unemployment during the 1930s seldom if ever topped 11%.
- U.S. unemployment during the 1930s was always above Europe's level by a few points; another source I found indicates that U.S. unemployment at one point dropped to about 12% in 1937, but the point still stands.
- Europe's "failure" to spend as Geithner thinks it should have during the 1930s doesn't seem to have hurt it nearly as much as FDR's insistence on continued spending hurt us.
- If there's a lesson here, it's that, absent contrary evidence, Tim Geithner is wrong and the Europeans of the 1930s were right.
- It would also seem that Europe's renewed intent to rein in government spending is a wiser course than the spend-spend-spend strategy of the Obama administration (how serious the European countries are about restraining spending remains to be seen; if Europe tries to solve its problem primarily with tax increases, all bets are off).
Jeannine Aversa's relay of Geithner's more than likely false assertion about the 1930s deserved much more skepticism that it received.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Welcome to East Germany on the Potomac
Obama Fail: Hundreds of Oil Skimmers NOT Being Used in Gulf
Biden Visits Custard Stand, Mistakes It For An Ice Cream Parlor
Chris Matthews: ‘Is Sarah Palin The Most Important Republican In The Country?’
A truly extraordinary thing happened on this weekend's "The Chris Matthews Show": the host asked his panel if former Alaska governor Sarah is the most important Republican in the country right now.What made this even more surprising was how his guests -- CNN's Gloria Borger, Politico's John Harris, the BBC's Katty Kay, and former "CBS Evening News" host Dan Rather -- seemed to feel she was.
Most bullish on Palin was Rather who said, "I wouldn't underestimate her...If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination."
For his part, Matthews played a little bit of a misdirection with his viewers by predictably bashing Palin during the program's introduction (multiple videos follow with highlights and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: She was a governor that couldn't take it anymore. Ridiculed as a Bozo, all she could do was cash in get what she could on the way off the stage. But a year later, with zillions in her pocket, she's an even better bet to run.
As the opening segment about President Obama and Generals McChrystal and Petraeus came to an end, Matthews told his viewers:
What followed was one of Letterman's typically derogatory "Top Tens" about Palin:MATTHEWS: Before we break, it was a year ago that Sarah Palin called that surprise news conference out there in the lawn in Wasilla to announce she was quitting as Alaska governor. David Letterman had a lot of fun with that.
After the commercial, Matthews played a clip from Palin's resignation speech last July:
SARAH PALIN: With this announcement that I'm not seeking re-election, I determined it is best to transfer the authority of governor, to Lieutenant Governor Parnell.
MATTHEWS: Transfer the authority? Well, she quit. A lot of people thought that was a short-sighted move, that quitting would end her career as an elected politician. Well, a year since then Palin's made well over $12 million. Her first book "Going Rogue" was the year's number one best-seller, made her $7 million in the advance. She gets $100,000 a speech, and Fox signed her to a TV deal. Besides getting to be rich, has she become, I would ask you open-ended, is she the most important Republican right now in the country?
Kay was the first to answer, making some surprisingly positive comments about the former Governor and her success assisting Republican candidates in recent primaries.
When Matthews commented that Palin seems to be only backing winners, Borger countered that maybe they're winning BECAUSE of her support.
For his part, Harris was a little less enthusiastic, but also gave an uncharacteristically upbeat view of the former vice presidential candidate.
But the best was yet to come when Rather got his turn:
DAN RATHER: Well, she's not running at the moment for President. But I wouldn't underestimate her. She's a version now of a Deacon with four aces. She can go a lot of different ways. She is playing an almost perfect hand. If she wants to stay a power in the Party, make a lot of money and not run, she can do that. I wouldn't underestimate her even for 2012 for one second. If she decides to run, it would be hard to bet against her for the nomination.
MATTHEWS: Good point. Is she Richard Nixon? Is she going around and picking up chits, proving that she can deliver, carefully selecting winners, avoiding losers when they're on the right, so that day after this election, like Nixon did in '66, "Look what I did for the party, I should be the nominee?"
RATHER: And goes into the convention with maybe thirty percent of the votes.
Imagine that.
For approaching two years, America's press have been mercilessly eviscerating this woman with every opportunity.
Now, with Obama plummeting in the polls, and Democrats looking like they're in a lot of trouble in the upcoming midterm elections, suddenly Palin is not only possibly the most important Republican in the country, but is also a legitimate candidate for President.
Is hell freezing over, or is something else at play here?
George Will Schools NYT’s Sanger: Extending Unemployment Benefits Doesn’t Stimulate Economy
George Will on Sunday gave a much-needed economics lesson to New York Times Washington correspondent David Sanger that greatly demonstrated the difference between how conservatives and liberals view unemployment benefits.
As the Roundtable segment of ABC's "This Week" shifted to the G20 summit in Toronto, Sanger said, "Just the day before [Barack Obama] left, Congress could not come to an agreement on a very small extension of unemployment benefits, you know, the most basic stimulus effort that the President tried to push."
Host Jake Tapper asked, "George, why can't they pass this extension?"
With the ball sitting up nicely on the tee, Will smacked it out of the park (video follows with transcript and commentary, relevant section at 4:10):
DAVID SANGER, NEW YORK TIMES: The President's also in the position in Canada of saying, "Don't do as I do, do as I say." I mean, just the day before he left, Congress could not come to an agreement on a very small extension of unemployment benefits, you know, the most basic stimulus effort that the President tried to push.
JAKE TAPPER, HOST: 1.2 Million Americans are going to lose their unemployment extensions, or unemployment benefits this week.
SANGER: That's right. So there's a fundamental stimulus action and the President had to go up and tell the Europeans they were not doing enough for stimulus.
TAPPER: George, why can't they pass this extension? I don't understand. The Republicans say, "Let spending cuts should pay for this." The Democrats say, "No, it's emergency spending." It seems that this is something where there could be a compromise.
GEORGE WILL: Well, partly because they believe that when you subsidize something, you get more of it, and we're subsidizing unemployment. That is the long-term unemployment, those unemployed more than six months is at an all-time high. And they want, they do not think that it is stimulative because what stimulates is the consumer and the saver's sense of permanent income. And everyone knows that unemployment benefits are not permanent income.
Indeed.
Unfortunately, much of America's media have the same misconception that extending unemployment benefits helps the economy.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth for those receiving such benefits aren't going to increase their spending because they don't know how long they'll be unemployed. Beyond this, they feel little need to get back into the workforce until their benefits expire.
This means that despite what folks like Sanger believe and write about, extending unemployment benefits has no economically stimulative impact.
As such, calling this extension an economic stimulus is like calling an ox a bull: he's thankful for the compliment, but would much rather have back what is rightfully his.
Nice job, George.
CNN Plays NewsBusters TV Clips Touting Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Choice of Petraeus, But Miss the Point
On Sunday’s Reliable Sources on CNN, host Howard Kurtz played a portion of a video montage that was posted both on NewsBusters and on NB’s parent organization the Media Research Center’s Web site showing that correspondents on several broadcast and news networks lavished excessive praise on President Obama by calling his decision to replace General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraeus a "brilliant" move. The CNN host played the portion of the clip that was shown on Thursday's The O'Reilly Factor on FNC.
But, as he brought up the montage with guest Lara Logan of CBS News, Kurtz missed the point as he suggested that the MRC/NewsBusters was somehow complaining that the "liberal media are in love with David Petraeus and they’re falling into line," when, in reality, the point was journalistic infatuation with Obama illustrated by so many media figures using the same word, "brilliant," and that since Petraeus is so obviously well qualified for the position it hardly takes genius to name him to the post.
Logan, accepting Kurtz’s flawed premise, responded: "Well, if they had said it was a bad decision, then it would be 'the liberal media hate David Petraeus and they’re not falling into line.'" She later concluded that the decision was, indeed, "brilliant" on Obama’s part: "The only way he had to ensure, to silence the critics and really to move on, this reassured the troops, this reassured the commanders, this reassured people who were in favor of it – the Afghans, the allies. That’s why people are calling it brilliant, maybe because it was brilliant."
Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the June 27 Reliable Sources on CNN:
HOWARD KURTZ: Bill O’Reilly, on his Fox News show, played a clip – some clips had been put together by the conservative Media Research Center, the Newsbusters site. I want to show that to you now.
CHIP REID, CBS NEWS : Sounds like a pretty brilliant decision really.
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI. NBC NEWS : This is nothing less than a stunning development, Brian, and, quite frankly, at a quick glance, almost brilliant.
CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS : Politically, in this town, it’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President-
WOLF BLITZER, CNN: -a very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus-
KURTZ: So the suggestion is that the liberal media are in love with David Petraeus and they’re falling into line.
LARA LOGAN, CBS NEWS: Well, if they had said it was a bad decision, then it would be "the liberal media hate David Petraeus and they’re not falling into line." The one line is it’s very hard to find something wrong with this decision by the President because there was only one general in the United States Army who has the political weight and influence in Washington to survive this. Anyone else going into that position who wasn’t tested, who wasn’t proven, who didn’t have political connections, would have been a lame duck. They would have been able to do nothing. President Obama faced a serious choice here. Was his strategy going to die with General McChrystal? Because there’s a lot of opposition from very powerful people in Washington who want to move to a very different model of counterterrorism and not counterinsurgency. The only way he had to ensure, to silence the critics and really to move on, this reassured the troops, this reassured the commanders, this reassured people who were in favor of it – the Afghans, the allies. That’s why people are calling it brilliant, maybe because it was brilliant.
The fattest cats of all
Obama’s Former Rev. Wright Gives Seminar Bashing Whites and Jews, Media Mum
President Obama's former spiritual advisor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, gave a seminar at the University of Chicago last week in which he made numerous anti-Semitic remarks while once again attacking white people.
According to the New York Post, during the five-day course that cost up to $1,000, Wright claimed "whites and Jews are controlling the flow of worldwide information and oppressing blacks in Israel and America."
"White folk done took this country," Wright said. "You're in their home, and they're gonna let you know it."
Despite the astonishingly racist comments during this week-long event, as well as his former connection to the current President of the United States, not one media outlet besides the Post reported what transpired at the Chicago Theological Seminary on the university campus. Not one!
For those that can stand it, here are some more disgraceful things uttered by the man our President worshiped with for twenty years (h/t Weasel Zippers):
"You are not now, nor have you ever been, nor will you ever be a brother to white folk," he said. "And if you do not realize that, you are in serious trouble."
He cited the writings of Bill Jones -- author of the book "Is God a White Racist?" -- as proof that white people cannot be trusted. "Bill said, 'They just killed four of their own at Kent State. They'll step on you like a cockroach and keep on movin', cause you not a brother to them.' "
Wright referred to Italians as "Mamma Luigi" and "pizzeria." He said the educational system in America is designed by whites to miseducate blacks "not by benign neglect but by malignant intent."
He said Ethiopian Jews are despised by white Jews: "And now the Knesset [Israeli parliament] is meeting with European Jews, voting on whether or not these African Jews can get into [Israel]."
The civil-rights movement, Wright said, was never about racial equality: "It was always about becoming white . . . to master what [they] do." Martin Luther King, he said, was misguided for advocating nonviolence among his people, "born in the oven of America."
"We probably have more African-Americans who've been brainwashed than we have South Africans who've been brainwashed," he said, and seemed to allude to President Obama twice: "Unfortunately, I got in trouble with a fella for saying this . . . All your commentaries are written by oppressors." At the mention of Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan -- whom Obama disavowed during the campaign -- black leaders "go cuttin' and duckin'," he said.
As media ignore the disgusting things this man says, they are complicit in separating him from the man he once advised spiritually.
It's as if Obama never sat in the pews of the Trinity Church and his Reverend never existed.
Moonbats On The March: Violence At G20
Obama Ditches Press Corps (See Also: Corpse) Once Again
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Now that they’re being shunned fairly regularly, at some point, will the majority of the mainstream media ever regret doing Obama’s bidding-by-not-digging and helping carry him into the White House on their shoulders?
Holed up with seven other global leaders in the woods of Muskoka, Canada, President Barack Obama gave the White House press corps the slip last night.
The president is attending the G-8 and G-20 summits with his global counterparts this weekend. The G-8 began yesterday in Muskoka in Huntsville, Ont., and ends today. The G-20 is in Toronto, about 150 miles away, and starts this afternoon.
Last night, the White House sent the press corps — which by agreement stays close to the president in order to report on any incident — back to Toronto, leaving the president 150 miles behind. In the wee hours of this morning, the crew of a dozen or so reporters and photographers in the press corps got back on a bus and returned to Muskoka for the day’s events.
It’s possible the president had another soccer game to attend, but given the fact that Obama was praising Huntsville’s golf courses means that he might have ditched the Press Corps (see also: corpse) to do some night-putting.
My own guess is that the president was meeting some foreign dignitaries that night, felt another bow coming on, and didn’t want yet another photo added to the wall of the Barack H. Obama Museum of Genuflection (right across the street from Apology Hut).
(h/t JWF)
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Chris Matthews: Republicans Are Suicide Bombers Trying To Destroy Government
Chris Matthews on Friday said Republicans are like suicide bombers trying to destroy the government for their own political benefit.
In a "Hardball" discussion with Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Politico's Jim VandeHei, Matthews said, "Republicans have been able to get up in the morning every day saying our goal is to destroy the government. That`s our job. And somehow its cheering section back home says, 'Good work. Keep trying to destroy the government.'"
After VandeHei said the strategy might be working because the GOP looks to do well this November, Matthews asked, "Well, what good does it do the country for the Republicans to pick up 30 seats in the House?"
VandeHei responded, "I don`t know if it does anything good for the country...Right now, we have an entire system, we have a media system, we have a culture, we have technology that really I think rewards the incendiary, rewards conflict."
This led Matthews to amazingly say, "Being a suicide bomber is the new political role model. Just kill everything, destroy everything. Blow it up. Nothing gets done. You`re dead, but who cares?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, what is interesting is the -- I don`t how you start this, Jim. It`s not you or my job to do it, but somewhere along the line, it seems somebody has got to say the United States government is based on the idea you have a minority and a majority.
It`s not based on the idea you have got one party trying to do something, the other party trying to kill them.
REP. JIM MORAN (D), VIRGINIA: Right.
MATTHEWS: It`s based on one party being the senior partner, and the other trying to get its oar in and make some amendments and try to change some things its way. The minority`s job is not to destroy the United States government every time it gets up in the morning.
And yet, the Republicans have been able to get up in the morning every day saying our goal is to destroy the government. That`s our job. And somehow its cheering section back home says, good work. Keep trying to destroy the government.
It`s an amazing definition of the opposition.
(CROSSTALK)
JIM VANDEHEI, POLITICO.COM: I don`t know if it`s necessary destroy the government, but it`s definitely they wake up -- it`s destroy any policy from Obama. There`s no doubt, Chris, that is the strategy.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Isn`t that new in American politics to try to destroy anything that comes out of the White House?
VANDEHEI: It certainly works.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEHEI: And part of it -- it`s worse now mostly because most of the moderates that used to live inside the Republican Party that lived up in the Northeast were purged out of the party over the last three or four elections.
So, there`s very few moderates per se left. There might be three or four left in the Senate. And those are the ones that Democrats are working over to make sure that they have enough votes to get this financial bill through.
So, the only way you are going to have any Republicans who want to work with Democrats or if Republicans actually pick up a bunch of seats in some of those swing districts and bring in some voices of moderation that want to work with Democrats, but right now there`s no incentive in the mind of Republicans to do anything to help Obama or to help Democrats, because they feel that they have the momentum. They feel that they can easily win 30 seats and quite likely pick up many more if they play their cards right.
So, there`s no way that they`re suddenly going to say, hey, wait a second, let`s work with Obama. That`s just not -- that`s not the mind-set for them.
MATTHEWS: To what effect? Well, what good does it do the country for the Republicans -- just to ask the question, what good does it do the country for the Republicans to pick up 30 seats in the House?
VANDEHEI: I don`t know if it does anything good for the country.
(LAUGHTER)
VANDEHEI: But it might do...
MATTHEWS: I mean, it`s a reasonable question to ask.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEHEI: You might have more people that would be willing to work with Obama, and you might have Obama more willing to work with Republicans.
Right now, we have an entire system, we have a media system, we have a culture, we have technology that really I think rewards the incendiary, rewards conflict. And, therefore, Republicans right now don`t see any incentive to work with him.
And that`s not going to change between now and Election Day. It might not change Election Day. Heck, it could get a lot worse, if you look at some of the senators who might get elected, especially from the Republican side.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Being a suicide bomber is the new political role model. Just kill everything, destroy everything. Blow it up. Nothing gets done. You`re dead, but who cares?
Thank you, Congressman Jim Moran.
Thank you, Jim VandeHei of the Politico, the very hot Politico.
Wow!
The partisanship demonstrated by Matthews and VandeHei here was almost astonishing.
Is this really the state of journalism in America today when two members of the media have a discussion with a Democrat wherein they can't see any good coming from Republicans winning in an upcoming election and actually refer to elected officials on the right side of the aisle as suicide bombers?
How did we get to this point in our history when so many members of the press are clearly just shills for the Party on the left?
Maybe more importantly, how do we rectify this condition so that such activism in the media is frowned upon rather than celebrated?
Chris Matthews: Republicans Are Suicide Bombers Trying To Destroy Government
Chris Matthews on Friday said Republicans are like suicide bombers trying to destroy the government for their own political benefit.
In a "Hardball" discussion with Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Politico's Jim VandeHei, Matthews said, "Republicans have been able to get up in the morning every day saying our goal is to destroy the government. That`s our job. And somehow its cheering section back home says, 'Good work. Keep trying to destroy the government.'"
After VandeHei said the strategy might be working because the GOP looks to do well this November, Matthews asked, "Well, what good does it do the country for the Republicans to pick up 30 seats in the House?"
VandeHei responded, "I don`t know if it does anything good for the country...Right now, we have an entire system, we have a media system, we have a culture, we have technology that really I think rewards the incendiary, rewards conflict."
This led Matthews to amazingly say, "Being a suicide bomber is the new political role model. Just kill everything, destroy everything. Blow it up. Nothing gets done. You`re dead, but who cares?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You know, what is interesting is the -- I don`t how you start this, Jim. It`s not you or my job to do it, but somewhere along the line, it seems somebody has got to say the United States government is based on the idea you have a minority and a majority.
It`s not based on the idea you have got one party trying to do something, the other party trying to kill them.
REP. JIM MORAN (D), VIRGINIA: Right.
MATTHEWS: It`s based on one party being the senior partner, and the other trying to get its oar in and make some amendments and try to change some things its way. The minority`s job is not to destroy the United States government every time it gets up in the morning.
And yet, the Republicans have been able to get up in the morning every day saying our goal is to destroy the government. That`s our job. And somehow its cheering section back home says, good work. Keep trying to destroy the government.
It`s an amazing definition of the opposition.
(CROSSTALK)
JIM VANDEHEI, POLITICO.COM: I don`t know if it`s necessary destroy the government, but it`s definitely they wake up -- it`s destroy any policy from Obama. There`s no doubt, Chris, that is the strategy.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Isn`t that new in American politics to try to destroy anything that comes out of the White House?
VANDEHEI: It certainly works.
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEHEI: And part of it -- it`s worse now mostly because most of the moderates that used to live inside the Republican Party that lived up in the Northeast were purged out of the party over the last three or four elections.
So, there`s very few moderates per se left. There might be three or four left in the Senate. And those are the ones that Democrats are working over to make sure that they have enough votes to get this financial bill through.
So, the only way you are going to have any Republicans who want to work with Democrats or if Republicans actually pick up a bunch of seats in some of those swing districts and bring in some voices of moderation that want to work with Democrats, but right now there`s no incentive in the mind of Republicans to do anything to help Obama or to help Democrats, because they feel that they have the momentum. They feel that they can easily win 30 seats and quite likely pick up many more if they play their cards right.
So, there`s no way that they`re suddenly going to say, hey, wait a second, let`s work with Obama. That`s just not -- that`s not the mind-set for them.
MATTHEWS: To what effect? Well, what good does it do the country for the Republicans -- just to ask the question, what good does it do the country for the Republicans to pick up 30 seats in the House?
VANDEHEI: I don`t know if it does anything good for the country.
(LAUGHTER)
VANDEHEI: But it might do...
MATTHEWS: I mean, it`s a reasonable question to ask.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
VANDEHEI: You might have more people that would be willing to work with Obama, and you might have Obama more willing to work with Republicans.
Right now, we have an entire system, we have a media system, we have a culture, we have technology that really I think rewards the incendiary, rewards conflict. And, therefore, Republicans right now don`t see any incentive to work with him.
And that`s not going to change between now and Election Day. It might not change Election Day. Heck, it could get a lot worse, if you look at some of the senators who might get elected, especially from the Republican side.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Being a suicide bomber is the new political role model. Just kill everything, destroy everything. Blow it up. Nothing gets done. You`re dead, but who cares?
Thank you, Congressman Jim Moran.
Thank you, Jim VandeHei of the Politico, the very hot Politico.
Wow!
The partisanship demonstrated by Matthews and VandeHei here was almost astonishing.
Is this really the state of journalism in America today when two members of the media have a discussion with a Democrat wherein they can't see any good coming from Republicans winning in an upcoming election and actually refer to elected officials on the right side of the aisle as suicide bombers?
How did we get to this point in our history when so many members of the press are clearly just shills for the Party on the left?
Maybe more importantly, how do we rectify this condition so that such activism in the media is frowned upon rather than celebrated?
Janeane Garofalo’s a Racist Redneck: Expresses Disappointment With Obama
If Janeane Garofalo says something bad about the Obama administration, does that mean she's a racist redneck?
After all, she's been telling people almost since Inauguration Day that anyone that disagrees with this president does so because of the color of his skin.
So when she told the A.V. Club Friday, "There are so many things in the Obama administration to be sick over that certainly didn't change" and "I was surprised how disappointing the Obama administration has turned out to be," there has to be a racist element in play, right?
Not surprising to folks that have followed the career of this shameless left-wing activist, this wasn't the only glaring hypocrisy in this interview (h/t Big Hollywood):
AVC: You gave an interview several years back, deep in the heart of the Bush administration, where you said that the reason that you didn't do stand-up as much then was that you didn't find anything funny anymore. So can we assume that you're ready to laugh again?
JG: Yeah, there was so much stuff that broke my heart during the Bush years that I honestly could not do stand-up without going down one of those tangents and getting very strident. But also I was working at Air America five nights a week, so it was very difficult to do stand-up, because I wasn't leaving Air America until 11 p.m. So there was that. Now, granted, there are still as many heartbreaking things going on. There are so many things in the Obama administration to be sick over that certainly didn't change. And also our media, if it's possible, seems to be getting even worse. The alleged news media. And then there are the teabag racists adding insult to injury. But I don't have that same heartbreak anymore, because it's not fresh heartbreak anymore. It's like I'm used to it. I'm sure we all are just used to it.
I have to say I was surprised how disappointing the Obama administration has turned out to be. That did take me by surprise.
Readers should recall what Garofalo said about folks expressing their displeasure with the Obama administration in April 2009:
Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.
So, when white conservatives express their displeasure with the Obama administration, it's "racism straight up."
But when she does it, not so much.
Not seeing the hypocrisy, Garofalo moments later reiterated her position about Tea Party members:
AVC: You did spend last year as a very visible target of right-wing hate because of that comment you made about teabaggers.
JG: But I don't know if it's on anybody's mind. It's on the teabagger-type mind, but I don't know if it's on normal people's minds. Does that make sense? The teabagger thing and the right-wing thing-they pick easy targets, and a female in the entertainment industry is low-hanging fruit. It's very easy to mock and marginalize people in general who are in the entertainment industry, for some reason. But then definitely there's the double standard and the misogyny that goes through it as well. They've got no problem with Will Ferrell or Alec Baldwin or Viggo Mortensen, but they tend to take issue when a female says something. It's just an easier person to bully. And they just love making mountains out of molehills. It's just a fact. If you don't recognize the racist element in the teabag movement, you're either dishonest, or you've never seen the teabag movement, or heard of it, or been acquainted with it in any way.
Ah, so the reason folks on the right go after her is because they're misogynists.
Let's add up the paranoia at play: when conservatives attack Obama, they're racists; when they attack her, they're sexists.
Honestly, this is a woman in SERIOUS need of psycho-therapy.
Regardless, let's address her misogyny theory, shall we?
Garofalo claimed the right-wing has no problem with Alec Baldwin. Maybe she ought to check our Alec Baldwin page to get a clue, as he's been the subject of almost twenty reports since NewsBusters' inception.
We've also done pieces about Will Ferrell's stupidity.
As for Viggo Mortensen, if he's said anything you feel we need to address, Janeane, please feel free to send it to our tips line.
But I digress:
AVC: You've also been called out by name and invited to tea parties by people like Deroy Murdock and other African-Americans within the Tea Party-people who probably don't know you from anything else-ostensibly just so they can prove to you that there are minorities involved, so therefore they aren't racists.
JG: But not really. They've put that out on their side. They have never really invited me. They claim that they have, but they really haven't. And having said that, I would never go. They will always say, "I invited so and so, and she declined," when they've never gotten in touch with me. [Laughs.] But then also, a lot of the things they say I say, I've never said. They just make things up whole cloth.
Really? You were never invited?
Well, Garofalo appears to be conveniently forgetting that she was invited to attend the Dallas Tea Party's gathering on July 4, 2009. They even put the invitation on YouTube:
Did they make this up?
Certainly not. Garofalo just refused to show up!
Too bad, because as the following answer demonstrated, this woman doesn't know anything about the movement she regularly disparages:
AVC: Last year, Lou Dobbs accused you of being hypocritical for encouraging people to protest during Bush's administration, but then dismissing the Tea Party protests. How would you say the situations are different?
JG: First of all, Lou Dobbs is ridiculous. Secondly, there was plenty to protest for the Bush administration. Protesting the color of a man's skin is not a worthy protest. That's what the teabaggers are about. The first Tea Party protest was scheduled for Inauguration Day. So what were they upset about? Which part of the job he was doing before he even did it were they upset about? Secondly, if they claim to be upset with government corruption, government takeover, crazy spending, where were they from 2000 to 2008?
The first Tea Party protest was scheduled for Inauguration Day?
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Tea Party's roots go back to Florida in 1983.
According to Wikipedia, there were Tax Day protests associated with the Tea Party throughout the '90s.
Furthermore, the modern iteration of this movement is tied to Ron Paul's presidential campaign when a fundraiser in December 2007 was set up to commemorate the 235th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.
As for Garofalo's claim that there was a Tea Party event the day Obama was inaugurated, Wikipedia lists the first such gathering in 2009 happened on February 10 in Fort Myers, Florida.
As with just about everything this comedian says, whether intended or not, it's typically a joke not to be taken at all seriously.
Geraldo Rivera Compares Rolling Stone Writer To Al Qaeda Terrorists
Geraldo Rivera on Friday excoriated Rolling Stone writer Michael Hastings actually comparing him to al Qaeda terrorists.
Discussing the article that effectively destroyed General Stanley McChrystal's career, Rivera told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, "These guys, particularly the staffers who gave the most damning statements about the civilians in office, including the vice president of the United States, these guys had no idea that they were being interviewed by this guy."
Rivera then made a staggering analogy (video after the break with full transcript and commentary):
Two days before 9/11, two al Qaeda terrorists posing as journalists got up to Sheik Massoud, our most valuable ally in Afghanistan. They blew themselves and Sheik Massoud up, a tremendous setback. I maintain historically that the removal of General McCrystal at the hands of this freelance reporter for "Rolling Stone" has almost comparable strategic significance.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: "Friday's with Geraldo" segment tonight, more journalists agree that the "Rolling Stone" writer who did in General McCrystal did not do anything wrong journalistically. The man Michael Hastings, a far left guy, we said. And the general was very foolish to let him into his inner circle.
But FOX News anchor Geraldo Rivera dissents on the journalism front, saying Hastings was wrong for printing provocative quotes from McCrystal and his staff. Geraldo joins us now from upstate New York.
Let's get to the war of journalism here. You know, I'm trying to put myself in Hastings position, if I'm there, and I'm in a bar and McCrystal and his guys are spouting off about Biden and being a moron and all these other things, and it's not off the record, Geraldo, you know that when you allow a journalist in, you say, look, this is on the record, this is off the record. But if it's not off the record, I mean, you know, I'm writing it down. You're not?
GERALDO RIVERA, HOST, "GERALDO AT LARGE": You know, Bill, this is a situation where you have to put it into the context of war and warriors and honor and the number of privacy that is presumed when it's not on the record specifically. When you are hanging out at a bar waiting for a plane or a train or an automobile, and you're stuck together hours and hours, and you're drinking in a bar, or you're at an airport lounge, this is not an interview context. These guys, particularly the staffers who gave the most damning statements about the civilians in office, including the vice president of the United States, these guys had no idea that they were being interviewed by this guy.
O'REILLY: I'm not sure about that, Geraldo.
RIVERA: Wait hold on, Bill.
O'REILLY: I'm not sure about that.
RIVERA: This reporter from "Rolling Stone", he was a rat in an eagle's nest. What he did was to become part of the background, part of the scenery, knowing full well, given his political ideology--
O'REILLY: All right, let's walk through.
RIVERA: --and everything else, his altitude, he knew what he wanted to do.
O'REILLY: Okay, I'm not disputing, look--
RIVERA: And I disagree with Chris Wallace. This was not a 280- hitter. General Stanley McCrystal is no 280-hitter. If General Petraeus is Babe Ruth, and I agree with that analogy, Stanley McCrystal is Lou Gehrig.
O'REILLY: All right, Lou Gehrig.
RIVERA: He led our special operator.
O'REILLY: He's been deployed more than any fighting general.
RIVERA: All right, good.
O'REILLY: And I really am so sick over this.
O'REILLY: Geraldo, all right, take a deep breath. All right, you got to walk with me through this interview, okay? Calm down. Number one, I agree with you that Hastings is a hatchet man. All right? All you got to do is look at what he's done in the past. "Rolling Stone" is a hatchet operation. They hatcheted me. I was stupid enough to let a reporter named Cola Pinto (ph) follow me around. And he gave me a line of B.S. And he hatcheted me.
But, I also told the Cola Pinto what was on and off the record, what he could and could not do. Now, I'm in the business, so I know. So I'm not saying that Hastings did anything wrong. I'm not going to -- is he a rat? Yes, he's a rat. But did he do anything wrong? I don't know. But you can't explain to me, I don't think you can, why a guy as smart as McCrystal, been around a long time, position of power, knows what the press is. They even say that he turned FOX News off in his offices because he's a liberal guy, McCrystal. So he knows what the press is, why he would even allow this guy to be around, Geraldo. Why we even allow him to be around?
RIVERA: I want to be have clear about this, Bill. The president of the United States was totally within his constitutional right and power to dismiss or accept the resignation of General Stanley McCrystal because it was a lapse in judgment for General McCrystal to let this person that close to him. But I have to go back to my principle point. When someone, who works for the general commanding the war front in Afghanistan, mocks the vice president of the United States, calling Joe Biden bite me, that reporter knows that that statement, if it becomes public, has strategic significance. That the president would be forced to do what he did unless he was magnanimous beyond belief.
O'REILLY: But that's what Hastings wanted. That's what "Rolling Stone" wanted.
RIVERA: But when it is a -- my point though, Bill, is when it is a strategic issue like that, something of that import, to your country, damn it, then you have an obligation to say was that on the record? Do you really want to say that?
O'REILLY: All right.
RIVERA: You have to put it in context. Let me give you analogy far beyond--
O'REILLY: You're coming from it an ethical point of view.
RIVERA: You got to go beyond the rat in the eagle's nest. Two days before 9/11, two al Qaeda terrorists posing as journalists got up to Sheik Massoud, our most valuable ally in Afghanistan. They blew themselves and Sheik Massoud up, a tremendous setback. I maintain historically that the removal of General McCrystal at the hands of this freelance reporter for "Rolling Stone" has almost comparable strategic significance. This was a major deal. And to do it under those rules, where you have to admit your third gin and tonic. You're frustrated. You're waiting for the volcanic ash to clear. Everybody is on their most relaxed behavior to get a statement, an utterance like that. An utterance from a -- but not the general himself, but by one of his over eager macho staffers is something that you have an obligation, an honorable obligation to check out before you rush to the press, knowing that you have done is removing a fine soldier--
O'REILLY: All right, one more question--
RIVERA: --who has risked his life for his country time and time again.
O'REILLY: OK, I got it, Geraldo. We got it. And I only have 30 seconds here. "Rolling Stone" says it ran the quotes by McCrystal. Do you believe that?
RIVERA: If they say they did, I know Jann Wenner. I assume that it is true. I take him at his word.
O'REILLY: They didn't run them by me.
RIVERA: And I have to honor General McCrystal for not trying to sleaze away.
O'REILLY: All right, Geraldo, look, I appreciate your passion on the issue. And you've given everybody something to think about.
Despite the seemingly over the top analogy, Rivera made what seems to be an important point.
A journalist is with a group of military officials hanging out in a bar. If any of them says anything truly controversial, especially something that could harm careers and/or negatively impact the mission in Afghanistan, should a good reporter confirm that what was said was on the record or just a bit of drunk talk?
Despite my frequent differences of opinion with Rivera, he has been one of America's leading investigative reporters for decades.
With this in mind, does he have a point, or is he just defending someone he appears to have great admiration for?
Cyber Insecurity: ‘Internet Kill Switch’ Bill Moves On
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Hey, why shouldn’t people who couldn’t even keep the Organizing for America website and Barack Obama’s own Twitter account from being hacked be in charge of Internet security?
I seriously doubt that anybody in government would be capable of coming up with a way to shut down Al Gore’s beloved creation to the most creative among the private sector or the most devious in the “bad-guy” realm, but President Obama and willing cohorts in Congress are still trying nonetheless:
A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.
Senator Joe Lieberman and other bill sponsors have refuted the charges that the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act gives the president an Internet “kill switch.” Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause “the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication” in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.
I’d read the breakdown of the actual bill, linked in the clip above, but, ironically enough, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs website is disabled at the time of this writing. Maybe the White House is busy testing the “kill switch” on it, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. With any luck, Obama didn’t accidentally give Medvedev the kill switch instead of the reset button. (Update: The HSGAS site is back up now)
Hopefully voters use their own constitutionally provided “kill switch” on the first Tuesday this November and again two years later.
In the meantime, don’t worry much about the Internet right now, because President Obama has landed in Ontario at the G8 Summit and was focused on other more important issues the second he arrived:
When U.S. President Barack Obama stepped off his helicopter in Huntsville on Friday, the first thing he said was, “You’ve got a lot of golf courses here, don’t you?” Industry Minister Tony Clement told the National Post in an exclusive interview.
Speaking of being denied access, is anybody else having trouble with Twitter? I’ve been getting an “over capacity” message all day.
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Were McChrystal and Staff Talking Off The Record to Rolling Stone?
In the midst of this week's Gen. Stanley McChrystal controversy, a possibility concerning statements allegedly made by him and his staff has largely gone overlooked: might they have been speaking off the record when they were around Rolling Stone's Michael Hastings?
This certainly would explain some of the bizarre comments allegedly made by military members knowing full well how the chain of command works and that the President is clearly at the top.
With this in mind, the Washington Post explored this possibility in a front page piece Saturday entitled, "Gen. McChrystal Allies, Rolling Stone Disagree Over Article's Ground Rules":
The Post elaborated:On Friday, however, officials close to McChrystal began trying to salvage his reputation by asserting that the author, Michael Hastings, quoted the general and his staff in conversations that he was allowed to witness but not report. The officials also challenged a statement by Rolling Stone's executive editor that the magazine had thoroughly reviewed the story with McChrystal's staff ahead of publication. [...]
A senior military official insisted that "many of the sessions were off-the-record and intended to give [Hastings] a sense" of how the team operated. The command's own review of events, said the official, who was unwilling to speak on the record, found "no evidence to suggest" that any of the "salacious political quotes" in the article were made in situations in which ground rules permitted Hastings to use the material in his story.
So, you've got husbands and wives in a Paris bar celebrating McChrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary, and comments made during the event -- which were supposed to all be off the record -- became part of Hastings' piece.A member of McChrystal's team who was present for a celebration of McChrystal's 33rd wedding anniversary at a Paris bar said it was "clearly off the record." Aides "made it very clear to Michael: 'This is private time. These are guys who don't get to see their wives a lot. This is us together. If you stay, you have to understand this is off the record,' " according to this source. In the story, the team members are portrayed as drinking heavily. [...]
A U.S. military spokesman in Kabul, Air Force Lt. Col. Edward T. Sholtis, acknowledged that Hastings, like other reporters who have interviewed McChrystal over the past year, was not required to sign written ground rules. "We typically manage ground rules on a verbal basis," Sholtis said. "We trust in the professionalism of the people we're working with."
Is that Kosher?
Obviously, Rolling Stone thinks it is:But this isn't the only beef McChrystal supporters have with this piece:The executive editor, Eric Bates, denied that Hastings violated any ground rules when he wrote about the four weeks he spent, on and off, with McChrystal and his team. "A lot of things were said off the record that we didn't use," Bates said in an interview. "We abided by all the ground rules in every instance."
Officials also questioned Rolling Stone's fact-checking process, as described by Bates in an interview this week with Politico. "We ran everything by them in a fact-checking process as we always do," Bates said. "They had a sense of what was coming, and it was all on the record, and they spent a lot of time with our reporter, so I think they knew that they had said it."
In an interview Friday, the managing editor, Will Dana, said the reporter's notes and factual matters were exhaustively reviewed.
But 30 questions that a Rolling Stone fact-checker posed in a memo e-mailed last week to then-McChrystal media adviser Duncan Boothby contained no hint of what became the controversial portions of the story. Boothby resigned Tuesday.
In the e-mail, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a military official sympathetic to McChrystal, Boothby is asked to confirm the makeup of McChrystal's traveling staff on the Paris trip and the communications equipment they brought with them on an earlier visit to London. "They don't come close to revealing what ended up in the final article," the official said.
This all raises an interesting question that seemed to elude mainstream media as they quickly attacked the General probably forcing Obama to relieve him of his command: did the Rolling Stone break some journalism rules with this report?
As NewsBusters' Tim Graham pointed out Thursday, this is a FAR-LEFT magazine with strong anti-war convictions.
Is it indeed possible that much of the truly damning comments were made to Hastings off the record, and that he and his editors in their zeal to tear down McChrystal just didn't care?
Is it also possible that the magazine didn't go through proper fact-checking procedures before it published the piece?
If the answer to both questions is "Yes," then maybe media quickly overreacted to this article before weighing and investigating such possibilities thereby making them complicit in ruining the General's career while also conceivably endangering the mission in Afghanistan.
This is certainly not to say that any of these comments were appropriate irrespective of whether or not those making them believed they were speaking off the record.
Regardless of the setting, the General commanding our troops in Afghanistan certainly shouldn't have been party to such statements assuming he was aware they were being made.
But that doesn't exempt Hastings from adhering to the off-the-record status of such commentary if indeed there was a request for that to be the case.
As the Post has now let this cat out of the bag, it will indeed be interesting to see how this matter is handled on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow as well as in the coming days.
Stay tuned.
Media: GOP Blocked Unemployment Bill to Hurt Economy Before Midterm Elections
On Thursday, a new unemployment bill died in Congress as Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined Republicans on the grounds that government spending can't go on forever.
Instead of reporting both sides, the media couldn't seem to hide their anger.
The bill was called a "jobless aid" package that "governors were counting on" to help "the poor" across the nation. Almost all news reports began from the Democrat perspective and waited several paragraphs before weakly defending Republicans.
Worse yet, a consensus with far more damaging impact began to grow: the loss will cause the nation's economy to fall into a double dip recession, and it will be entirely the Republicans' fault.
Never mind last year's stimulus bill worth $700 billion, or the bank bailout of 2008, both of which have failed to live up to promises of recovery. No, our economy is suffering because fiscal conservatives won't spend even more.
The Seattle Times was quick on the draw Thursday night with a clearly disappointed report headlined "Republicans Continue Blockade of Federal Aid Bill." What followed was an obviously biased effort to paint Republicans in a bad light:
Senate Republicans on Thursday once again blocked legislation to reinstate long-term unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their aid.
With the Senate apparently paralyzed by partisan gridlock, the fate of the aid, as well as tax breaks for businesses and $16 billion in aid for cash-strapped states, remains unclear. Dozens of states, including Washington, are hoping for federal aid to help balance their budgets.
Republican lawmakers - joined by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska - maintained a unified front to sustain a filibuster of the $110 billion bill. The vote was 57-41, three short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and bring the bill to a final vote.
Democrats said they would give no further ground and put the onus on Republicans to make concessions.
Those who have "exhausted their aid" are the long-term unemployed who received financial assistance for up to 99 weeks already. Republicans seem to have this crazy notion that receiving government assistance that long might be long enough, and perhaps it's time to start asking if Keynesian economics is working.
But according to the Seattle Times, that kind of talk is just "partisan gridlock." The article quoted one Republican against three Democrats and never got any deeper than vague concerns about the national debt.
Toward the end, the Times went to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to imply that Republicans were sabotaging the economy:
In a statement, the White House vowed to keep pushing for the bill. "The president has been clear: Americans should not fall victim to Republican obstruction at a time of great economic challenge for our nation's families," spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
By Friday morning, this became the battle cry for reporters around the country. Reuters published an article that advanced the point in plainer terms:
The bill, which also would have provided more aid to cash-strapped states for the Medicaid health program for the poor, fell a few votes short of the 60 needed to advance in the 100-member Senate. One Democrat, Ben Nelson, joined 40 Republicans to block the measure.
Democrats argued that the bill would have helped shore up the fragile U.S. economic recovery, a priority for President Barack Obama's administration.
Yes, saving the economy has been one of President Obama's priorities for some time now, mostly because nothing he does seems to save it. But Reuters didn't have time to mention an inconvenient thing like that. Readers were expected to believe the premise that one more spending bill would have shored up the economy if not for those meddling Republicans.
A few hours later, the Associated Press got involved with an even sharper accusation aimed directly at Republicans:
The rejected bill would have provided $16 billion in new aid to states, preserving the jobs of thousands of state and local government workers and providing what White House officials called an insurance policy against a double-dip recession. It also included dozens of tax breaks sought by business lobbyists and tax increases on domestically produced oil and on investment fund managers.
"This is a bill that would remedy serious challenges that American families face as a result of this Great Recession," said Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chief author of the bill. "This is a bill that works to build a stronger economy. This is a bill to put Americans back to work."
How strange that quote didn't show up in the early dispatches Thursday night. It's almost as if the media spent Friday collectively drifting toward a good narrative.
By 4:00 Friday, the economy-sabotage angle was official. The Washington Post's Greg Sargent used the Plum Line blog for the announcement:
A number of bloggers today have been up in arms about the apparent failure of the jobs bill in the Senate, now that it looks like no Republicans will help Dems break the GOP filibuster.
This could have terrible consequences, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, in particular, is furious. Today she argued that Republicans want the economy to tank in order to help themselves in the midterms
Thus in less than 24 hours, it went from Republicans worrying about the national debt to Republicans purposely tanking the economy just to embarrass Democrats.
Not to be left out, Bloomberg's Shobhana Chandra also cut right to the bone in an article on Friday:
The Senate's failure to pass legislation extending unemployment benefits will slow the pace of the U.S. recovery, said economist David Resler.
The bill's demise will trim economic growth by 0.2 percentage point this quarter and by 0.4 point in the period from July through September, estimated Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York.
So you see, economic growth apparently comes only by way of government spending, and this time there's a real expert to say so!
But all is not lost. While working hard to opine on the terrible news, Chandra inadvertently let something slip:
Resler estimated that the unemployment rate, 9.7 percent in May, may decline by as much as one percentage point as some workers drop out of the labor force and others accept jobs they might have rejected earlier.
Wait...when people finally realize they can't live on government assistance forever, they might buckle down and accept a tough job? This nugget appeared exactly 11 paragraphs down from the headline and was quickly glossed over.
So maybe, just maybe, Republicans are trying to enact market-based principles by urging people to go back to work. Maybe it has nothing to do with sabotaging the economy after all.
Don't count on that particular narrative to grow any legs, though. An hour after the Washington Post hit piece, the Associated Press was back for more:
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said Friday that Senate Republicans could be prolonging the recession by opposing a spending bill that would have extended unemployment benefits.
Solis, talking to a group of Latino government officials in Denver, said Republicans were wrong to oppose to a broader jobs bill that would have extended jobless benefits for about 200,000 people a week. She warned of dire consequences if benefits are shut off.
"This will be devastating and could take us back to a deeper recession," Solis said
Oh yeah, urging healthy workers to accept less glamorous jobs is really the "devastating" consequence of a diabolical Republican strategy.
Good to know we have professional, independent, unbiased journalists hard on the trail of Republican masterminds.
*****Updated by Noel Sheppard: Did media get this talking point from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (h/t Twitter's @ndgc12dx)?
The morning after the Senate failed to advance a bill that responded to the recession, Sen. Harry Reid laid into Republicans who blocked it en masse.
Clearly sore after falling three votes short Thursday night of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, the Senate majority leader from Nevada charged in a Senate speech that GOP senators "are betting on our country to fail."
Rather than help Americans, he said, Republicans are more interested in bringing down President Barack Obama.
"The Republicans in the Senate have made the decision to do everything they can to turn the country upside down, to do everything they can to stop economic recovery because they think it may help some of their people running for the Senate around the country.
"They figure as bad as they can make the economy, the better off they will be," Reid said. "That is a pretty difficult view for people who are United States senators."
"As we learned from the health care debate, (Republicans) want everything that Obama wants to be his Waterloo."
Fish Wrap: Obama Reasserts His Authoritih!
Obama’s Drilling Moratorium a Sop to Unions?
MSNBC’s Matthews Compares Conservative Candidates to Suicide Bombers
The comment came at the end of a segment featuring Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and Politico's Jim VandeHei. Matthews had complained to the latter that the congressional minority Republicans were intent not merely on tinkering around the edges of the majority Democrats' policy proposals but on "destroy[ing] the United States government every time it gets up in the morning" all to the applause of "its cheering section back home say[ing] good work, keep trying to destroy the government."
[MP3 audio available here; WMV video available here]
VandeHei didn't agree with Matthews's "destroy the government" rhetoric about the GOP, although he agreed that the GOP was intent on "destroying" policies that President Obama supports.
For his part, the Politico writer argued that the political system as it stands now is just geared towards extreme partisanship because in part moderates had been "purged" from the GOP but also because "right now we have an entire system, we have a media system, we have a culture, we have technology that really rewards the incendiary, [that] rewards conflict."
Given Matthews's hyperbolic invective about "The Rise of the New Right," VandeHei might unwittingly be on to something, at least when it comes to the incendiary media.‘Little Obama’ Trailer: Was Barack Obama the Original Karate Kid?
View Original Post
It’s About Time the Government Created an Agency to Look Out For Us!
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
When announcing the passage of the Dodd/Frank “financial reform” bill — a fix authored by the same people who helped get the financial system majorly FUBAR in the first place — President Obama really eased my fears when he said this:
We’ll put in place the toughest consumer financial protections in our history, while creating an independent agency to enforce them. Through this agency, we’ll combine under one roof the consumer protection functions that currently are divided among half a dozen different agencies. Now there will be one agency whose sole job will be to look out for you.
Oh good! This president’s generosity knows no bounds. Finally, my very own government agency to look out for me!
Obama’s timing is impeccable. Just this morning I was saying to my wife, “You know honey, I just don’t feel like the IRS, EPA, DMV, DOT, HUD, DOE, FBI, CIA, HHS, DHS, SSA, ATF, DOL, DOJ, DOS, DOI, FTC, FDA, EEOC, NSA, TSA and OSHA are keeping nearly as close an eye on us as they should. If only there were an attentive government agency to watch over and protect us.”
Ask and ye shall receive:
(h/t Townhall)
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
NBC’s Todd Defends Obama ‘Twitters’ Gaffe: ‘Written Incorrectly in His Prepared Remarks’
On NBC's Today on Friday, White House correspondent Chuck Todd preemptively dismissed any criticism of President Obama referring to "Twitters" during a joint press conference with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev on Thursday: "It turns out he didn't misstate it. It was written incorrectly in his prepared remarks."
During Todd's report, a clip was played of Obama noting how in a visit to California's Silicon Valley, Medvedev went to "visit the headquarter of Twitters." Obama simply placed an 's' after the wrong word. Rather than let the minor gaffe stand, at the conclusion of the report, Todd made to sure to explain the typographical error to viewers: "You did not mishear. The President did say the word 'Twitters,' plural." Despite Obama's inability to correct the remarks off the cuff, Todd solely blamed a White House staffer for the mistake: "A speechwriter falling on his sword on that one."
Todd quickly changed the subject to a similar gaffe made by President Bush: "...it did bring back memories of President Bush one time referring to those 'internets.'" The media was certainly never quick to come to Bush's defense after a verbal misstep.
In his report, Todd observed how Obama got a "diplomatic head-start" on the upcoming G-20 economic summit in Canada by meeting with Medvedev and how "...the President treated Medvedev to cheeseburgers at one of the President's favorite burger spots in northern Virginia."
Here is a full transcript of Todd's June 25 report:
7:07AMMATT LAUER: President Obama will be keeping an eye on what's happening in the Gulf today from Toronto. He's heading there this morning to join a host of world leaders at the G-20 summit. NBC's chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd is there as well. Chuck, good morning to you.
CHUCK TODD: Well, good morning, Matt. The President is scheduled to arrive here later this morning. He's going to have a new Wall Street reform deal in his back pocket. It's something he's going to try to use to convince these other nations from around the world to do similar action. On Thursday he met with an important G-20 ally, the Russian president. Believe it or not, it's the seventh time these two have met face-to-face. Security here at the G-20 meeting is tight. The Canadian government has spent more than any other host country ever to try to make sure world leaders are safe. Heading into the important economic summit, the President got a diplomatic head-start by meeting with one of America's most touchy allies, Russia, and its president, Dimitri Medvedev.
BARACK OBAMA: America's most significant national security interests and priorities could be advanced most effectively through cooperation, not an adversarial relationship, with Russia.
TODD: And yet, despite the global economic concerns and the presence of the Russian president-
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Does the change in command in Afghanistan-
TODD: A reporter's first question brought the President back to the issue that's dogged him all week, Afghanistan.
OBAMA: I am confident we've got a team in place that can execute it.
TODD: The President promised no more personnel changes after Wednesday's dramatic firing of General Stanley McChrystal and the President made sure to leave himself wiggle room on the question of whether the U.S. will actually go through with its plans to draw down troops in July, 2011.
OBAMA: We didn't say we'd be switching off the lights and closing the door behind us. We said as we begin a transition phase in which the Afghan government is taking on more and more responsibility.
TODD: Medvedev was asked if he had any advice for the President, given Russia's long and costly war in Afghanistan.
DIMITRI MEDVEDEV: But I try not to give pieces of advice that can't be fulfilled.
TODD: But Defense Secretary Robert Gates did have words of advice.
ROBERT GATES: No one, be they adversaries or friends, or especially our troops, should misinterpret these personnel changes as a slackening of this government's commitment to the mission in Afghanistan.
OBAMA: Visit the headquarter of Twitters.
TODD: On a lighter note, President Obama noted President Medvedev opened a Twitter account and joked it was a 21st sentry substitute for the old Cold War hotline.
OBAMA: I have one as well, so we may be able to finally throw away those red phones that have been sitting around for so long.
TODD: Earlier in the day, the President treated Medvedev to cheeseburgers at one of the President's favorite burger spots in northern Virginia.
MEDVEDEV: Probably it's not quite healthy but it's very tasty and you can feel the spirit of America.
TODD: Alright. You did not mishear. The President did say the word 'Twitters,' plural. It turns out he didn't misstate it. It was written incorrectly in his prepared remarks. A speechwriter falling on his sword on that one. But it did bring back memories of President Bush one time referring to those 'internets.' Matt.
LAUER: Alright, Chuck Todd, thank you very much. He's in Toronto this morning.
Disclosure Act: Another Example of Unconstitutional Obamaism
FNC’s O’Reilly Cites NewsBusters Video of Media Praising Obama’s ‘Brilliance’
At the top of Thursday's O'Reilly Factor on FNC, host Bill O'Reilly cited a NewsBusters video montage of various media figures touting President Obama's "brilliant" handling of the General McChrystal controversy: "[Obama] has a very powerful ally, the American media. After the President fired General McChrystal yesterday, NewsBusters.org put together this montage of press reaction." [Audio available here]
O'Reilly played the video as part of his Talking Points Memo opening the show. After it finished, he joked: "So I guess the firing of McChrystal was a brilliant move." He then noted how "...we could have played that montage with another 30 seconds with different reporters echoing the same theme."
Minutes later, O'Reilly asked radio host Laura Ingraham about the media all singing from the same hymnal: "When you hear the mainstream media, brilliant, it was brilliant, it was brilliant, it was brilliant." Ingraham interjected: "It was hilarious." O'Reilly replied: "Isn't it? I mean, how far down in the tank does the American people – the American media have to go, before the people just say enough." Ingraham concluded: "Well, it shows you Bill, how totally out of touch all these media figures – and that montage, I was screaming in the studio here, it was so funny to hear – but it's so out of touch with the way regular people think."
Ingraham continued: "Most people are saying, okay, what they're doing on the economy isn't working. What they're doing in Afghanistan, we're losing confidence. We love our troops, we want them to win. But we're not getting why this is working. And they're losing confidence across the board in the way this administration is operating. And meanwhile, putting in Petraeus, who obviously is a hero, is 'Oh, well, that's brilliant. That's decisive.'
Later, O'Reilly spoke with liberal Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill about the same topic and declared: "He [Obama] had to do it. But it wasn't brilliant. It was like he had to do it. And these clowns are going 'it was a brilliant move.' What do you think?" Even Hill admitted: "Brilliant was pushing it." O'Reilly grilled Hill on the left-wing media slant: "...you watch these guys in the mainstream media supposed, you know, objective reporters. You know it's a farce." Hill again admitted: "I'll agree the response last night was clearly a left-leaning analysis." O'Reilly later observed: "But traditionally, the media in this country are cynical and they're distrustful of people in power, and they're looking to get you, and then you go on and 'he so brilliant.'"
On Wednesday night, radio host Mark Levin also cited the NewsBusters item on his show and similarly mocked the media reaction.
8:00AM TEASE
BILL O'REILLY: The O'Reilly Factor is on. Tonight:
CHIP REID: It sounds like a pretty brilliant decision.
WOLF BLITZER: A very brilliant move.
CHUCK TODD: It's going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President.
O'REILLY: The mainstream media senses President Obama may be going down so they are propping him up. We will have opinions on that from Laura Ingraham and Marc Lamont Hill.
8:01AM SEGMENT
O'REILLY: Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. President Obama on the descent. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo.
As we reported last night, this week is the low point for the Obama administration. And today, a new Wall Street Journal poll confirms what we said yesterday. For the first time in that poll, more Americans think President Obama is doing a bad job than a good job. 48% Disprove, 45% say he's doing okay. But the really bad news for the President is that 62% of Americans now feel the country's heading in the wrong direction. That is the highest number since before the presidential election of 2008.
Talking Points believes it is the chaos factor that is damaging the Obama administration, once again. The economy, shaky. The oil spill, chaos. The Afghan war, not going well. And the border situation is so bad the state of Arizona is now defying the federal government. Add it all up and you are in the chaos zone. No president can survive there. Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon were all done in by the perception they could not control the country. That is where the President is right now. But he has a very powerful ally, the American media. After the President fired General McChrystal yesterday, NewsBusters.org put together this montage of press reaction:
CHIP REID: Sounds like a pretty brilliant decision, really.
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: This is nothing less than a stunning development, Brian. And quite frankly, at a quick glance, almost brilliant.
CHUCK TODD: Politically, in this town, it's going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President.
WOLF BLITZER: A very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus.
DAVID GREGORY: I think he took swift and decisive action. I think that's how it's going to be read.
O'REILLY: So I guess the firing of McChrystal was a brilliant move. By the way, we could have played that montage with another 30 seconds with different reporters echoing the same theme.
Like life, politics is not fair. President Obama didn't cause the oil spill, he did not encourage General McChrystal to make indiscreet comments, he inherited a very bad economy, but has not been able to turn it around. For a guy like the President, who is ultra confident, this must be a frustrating time. His policies simply aren't working. And if the war in Afghanistan and the economy get any worse, he will go the way of Jimmy Carter. Fair-minded Americans bear no malice towards Mr. Obama. Just as President Bush was treated unfairly at times, so has the President been. But the truth is, America is now in the chaos zone. And November is coming up fast. And that's the memo.
House, Senate Negotiators Approve Bank Bailout Bill
From today’s Politico:
An all-night House-Senate conference committee delivered President Barack Obama and Democrats a far-reaching and historic achievement Friday – a realignment of the rules that govern Wall Street and a second victory toward Obama’s legislative triple crown.
The compromise bill now goes to the House and Senate for approval. For all the messiness of the process, financial reform and March’s health care reform win cumulatively make clear Obama and Democrats are governing in consequential ways – and once again Friday, without a single Republican vote. The results make clear the argument over Obama is no longer whether he’s effective or not, but whether voters will like the results.
The agreement came at 5:39 a.m., after 20 straight hours of work in the committee, a marathon session that tested the negotiating skills, patience and endurance of several dozen lawmakers tasked with reconciling two competing approaches to reining in Wall Street.
But it left no doubt about the mark Obama has left on his twin Democratic majorities in Congress – reluctant, even recalcitrant at times, but in the end, doing his bidding to remake two of the most important sectors of the U.S. economy.
His hoped-for third act – a wide-ranging climate change and energy bill – is next on Obama’s docket, and absent these successes, it would be easy to believe there was simply no way he could bend Congress to his will yet again, with midterms looming, poll numbers sagging and the nation’s financial coffers tapped out.
But Obama plans to press his advantage – to try to salvage one more legislative win out of the depths of the BP oil spill tragedy. He’s invited what amounts to the bipartisan Senate climate caucus to the White House Tuesday to plot out a way ahead.
Continue reading here.
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Defended Obama Over Oil Spill, Slams GOP’s Barton
While MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has repeatedly defended President Obama's handling of the oil spill, he used his show on Thursday to trash Republican Joe Barton and focus on getting the Congressman removed from his position on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
The transcript of the June 24, 2010, "Morning Joe" segment is available here:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Eric, you and, obviously, a lot of your Republican allies on Capitol Hill are hoping to take over control of the United States House. And to that end, it seems to me the smart move would be to make someone step down who apologized to BP. I know that you were one of the first ones on call Joe Barton in and take him to the proverbial wood shed, but why is Joe Barton allowed to keep his job when Joe Barton apologized to a corporation that is destroying my hometown and its economy and destroying the environment across the gulf coast.
ERIC CANTOR: Joe, listen. Joe Barton is not the issue. Joe Barton apologized.SCARBOROUGH: He kind of is, though. If he is the most powerful person on the Hill when it comes to energy then he, he is the issue, isn't he?
CANTOR: No, he is not. Some people want to make Joe Barton the issue when you say the issue is the beaches in Pensacola and the economy that is being battered and the environmental disaster of epic proportions in the gulf, that is the issue and how do we stop this gushing of oil? That is the issue, Not Joe Barton. Joe Barton was wrong. I said he was wrong on this network. He apologized. I spoke with him. You know, we've got to go forward and try and try to address the issue.
SCARBOROUGH: That is a mind set, though, Eric and you know it is. I know you have to defend Joe but I know at the same time you also know this hurts the Republican Party; it hurts the republican brand because Joe Barton is the issue because Joe Barton is the most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill when it comes to energy policy and that shows his mind set, does it not?
CANTOR: Joe, listen. Joe Barton apologized. He said he was wrong. I said he was wrong. If you look at it and you know, you were here, that the Energy and Commerce Committee, as the House is under control of the majority and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer. They are in charge of these things. We are asking the questions that need to be asked to try and deliver some help to the people in the gulf to try and address the situation.
SCARBOROUGH: Eric, and I press you respectfully here, but it was a written statement. You and I both know that sometimes you get tired. Sometimes you say stupid things. I spoke, of course, of myself. I say it every day. You're like, oh, god, I shouldn't have said that. You kick yourself. Joe Barton is sitting here reading a statement, I apologized to BP!
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And he is calling it, a poor choice of words
SCARBOROUGH: That was a calculated statement that shows a troubling mind set and I know you agree with me. You just can't say it.
CANTOR: Joe, listen. If the standard for resignation is a you tube moment or an inappropriate statement, wouldn't you think the vice president would be handing in his letters twice a week? I mean, come on!
BRZEZINSKI: Wait.
SCARBOROUGH: It was a written statement. He wrote it down. You got to admit, Joe Biden usually says things off the top of his head but this was a written statement.
BRZEZINSKI: This was prepared.
SCARBORUGH: To me -- go ahead, Eric.
CANTOR: Listen. Joe Barton is not the issue, Joe. You know that. A lot of people want to make it the issue because for whatever reason, because there's no answers right now coming from the gulf.
SCARBOROUGH: You don't think he is going to be the issue with the people that you are getting to run for congress because you believe Republicans can put this country on the right track? You don't think it's going to be an issue in their campaigns? You know Joe Barton will be the issue this fall.
CANTOR: Joe, Joe Barton has said he was wrong. He actually stepped before our conference, our entire conference yesterday and he said if a Texan' can be humble, I apologize, I was wrong. OK. The congressman has said it.
JOE KLEIN: The most amazing thing about this is Joe Barton tweets and right after that --
SCARBOROUGH: Oh my god, that was unbelievable! O wait, stop a second. Let's just look at Eric. You know what poor Eric is thinking? He is thinking this jackass has hurt the Republican Party and I'm out here defending him' the dumbass goes out and tweets! Talk about this tweet. Talk about this tweet!
KLEIN: He undercut his apology. This guy just doesn't get it, I'm sorry!
SCARBOROUGH: Tell him he can't tweet the next six months!
MIKE BARNACLE: Or ever again, for that matter.
SCARBOROUGH: Eric, you have to admit that was stupid to tweet after the apology that, Joe Barton was right.
CANTOR: I don't even think he knew the tweet went out.
BRZENZSKI: Eric!
COLONEL JACOBS: He went temporarily insane.
SCARBOROUGH: Let me just say, let me just say and put Eric's face up on the camera. Buchanan always talks about political athletes. Guys that go out and have to fight the good fight when they are running straight uphill with barbells on their back. This guy, Eric, is doing a great job, despite the fact he is having to carry Joe Barton's hulking mask up a mountain. Eric, come on! Good luck in the future with Joe Barton.
SCARBOROUGH: Seriously thank you for being with us, Eric. I know we been through tough times. We wanted to get to the president's poll numbers but maybe next time. Thanks for being with us.
BRZEZINSKI: Take care.
CANTOR:I would say a pleasure.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike Barnacle, listen. By the way, so everybody knows who is watching, Eric Cantor was the first person that got angry with Barton and summoned him to the leadership office. They dressed him down. You know how angry Eric probably is this morning? That he apologizes and sends out a tweet under Joe Barton was right, right after that. This is going to hurt the Republican party.
BARNACLE: I think he is more angry at 7:31 then at 7:21 when he came on. Have a nice day, Eric
SCARBOROUGH: By the way, the problem is, Mika, Joe Barton is the issue.
BRZEZINSKI: Of course!
SCARBOROUGTH: Because, he is so powerful.
BRZEZINSKI: Yes.
SCARBOROUGH: And, he has hurt the Republican Party.
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Defended Obama Over Oil Spill, Slams GOP’s Barton
While MSNBC's Joe Scarborough has repeatedly defended President Obama's handling of the oil spill, he used his show on Thursday to trash Republican Joe Barton and focus on getting the Congressman removed from his position on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Scarborough is supposedly the "voice of the right" on the Morning Joe panel, but he conducted a 10-minute, one-sided rant against Barton and GOP members of Congress.
Scarborough quizzed Representative Eric Cantor, "Why is Joe Barton allowed to keep his job when Joe Barton apologized to a corporation that is destroying my hometown and its economy and destroying the environment across the Gulf Coast?"
Cantor repeatedly asserted that Congressman Barton was not the issue, that he apologized for his statements (over how the administration has treated BP) and that the real priority was, "the beaches in Pensacola and the economy that is being battered and the environmental disaster of epic proportions in the gulf, that is the issue and how do we stop this gushing of oil?"
Barton's apology was, however, not enough for Scarborough who continued to berate him. He exclaimed that, "Joe Barton is the issue because Joe Barton is the most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill when it comes to energy policy and that shows his mind set." Cantor denied that statement and reminded Scarborough that "the House is under control of the majority and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer and they are in charge of these things."
This is accurate, because regardless if the Republicans regain control of the House, there are term limits on how long a Member of Congress can serve as either the ranking member or the chairman of a committee. Joe Barton has hit that limit.
However, Scarborough, the former Republican Congressman, has apparently made it his new mission to advise the Republicans by continuing to mock and insult the members.
The transcript of the June 24, 2010, "Morning Joe" segment is available here:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Eric, you and, obviously, a lot of your Republican allies on Capitol Hill are hoping to take over control of the United States House. And to that end, it seems to me the smart move would be to make someone step down who apologized to BP. I know that you were one of the first ones on call Joe Barton in and take him to the proverbial wood shed, but why is Joe Barton allowed to keep his job when Joe Barton apologized to a corporation that is destroying my hometown and its economy and destroying the environment across the gulf coast.
ERIC CANTOR: Joe, listen. Joe Barton is not the issue. Joe Barton apologized.
SCARBOROUGH: He kind of is, though. If he is the most powerful person on the Hill when it comes to energy then he, he is the issue, isn't he?
CANTOR: No, he is not. Some people want to make Joe Barton the issue when you say the issue is the beaches in Pensacola and the economy that is being battered and the environmental disaster of epic proportions in the gulf, that is the issue and how do we stop this gushing of oil? That is the issue, Not Joe Barton. Joe Barton was wrong. I said he was wrong on this network. He apologized. I spoke with him. You know, we've got to go forward and try and try to address the issue.
SCARBOROUGH: That is a mind set, though, Eric and you know it is. I know you have to defend Joe but I know at the same time you also know this hurts the Republican Party; it hurts the republican brand because Joe Barton is the issue because Joe Barton is the most powerful Republican on Capitol Hill when it comes to energy policy and that shows his mind set, does it not?
CANTOR: Joe, listen. Joe Barton apologized. He said he was wrong. I said he was wrong. If you look at it and you know, you were here, that the Energy and Commerce Committee, as the House is under control of the majority and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer. They are in charge of these things. We are asking the questions that need to be asked to try and deliver some help to the people in the gulf to try and address the situation.
SCARBOROUGH: Eric, and I press you respectfully here, but it was a written statement. You and I both know that sometimes you get tired. Sometimes you say stupid things. I spoke, of course, of myself. I say it every day. You're like, oh, god, I shouldn't have said that. You kick yourself. Joe Barton is sitting here reading a statement, I apologized to BP!
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: And he is calling it, a poor choice of words
SCARBOROUGH: That was a calculated statement that shows a troubling mind set and I know you agree with me. You just can't say it.
CANTOR: Joe, listen. If the standard for resignation is a you tube moment or an inappropriate statement, wouldn't you think the vice president would be handing in his letters twice a week? I mean, come on!
BRZEZINSKI: Wait.
SCARBOROUGH: It was a written statement. He wrote it down. You got to admit, Joe Biden usually says things off the top of his head but this was a written statement.
BRZEZINSKI: This was prepared.
SCARBOROUGH: To me -- go ahead, Eric.
CANTOR: Listen. Joe Barton is not the issue, Joe. You know that. A lot of people want to make it the issue because for whatever reason, because there's no answers right now coming from the gulf.
SCARBOROUGH: You don't think he is going to be the issue with the people that you are getting to run for congress because you believe Republicans can put this country on the right track? You don't think it's going to be an issue in their campaigns? You know Joe Barton will be the issue this fall.
CANTOR: Joe, Joe Barton has said he was wrong. He actually stepped before our conference, our entire conference yesterday and he said if a Texan' can be humble, I apologize, I was wrong. OK. The congressman has said it.
JOE KLEIN: The most amazing thing about this is Joe Barton tweets and right after that --
SCARBOROUGH: Oh my god, that was unbelievable! O wait, stop a second. Let's just look at Eric. You know what poor Eric is thinking? He is thinking this jackass has hurt the Republican Party and I'm out here defending him' the dumbass goes out and tweets! Talk about this tweet. Talk about this tweet!
MoveOn.org Removes ‘General Betray Us’ Ad From Website
In a classic example of liberal hypocrisy, the far-left leaning, George Soros-funded group MoveOn.org has removed its controversial "General Betray Us" ad from its website.
For those that have forgotten, shortly after General David Petraeus issued his report to Congress in September 2007 concerning the condition of the war in Iraq and the success of that March's troop surge, MoveOn placed a full-page ad in the New York Times with the headline, "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"
This created quite a firestorm with media outlets on both sides of the aisle circling the wagons to either defend or berate both the Times and MoveOn.
Now that President Obama has appointed Petraeus to replace the outgoing Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan, the folks on the far-left that castigated Petraeus when he worked for George W. Bush have to sing a different tune.
With that in mind, the ad, which has been at MoveOn's website for years, was unceremoniously removed on Wednesday as reported by our friends at Weasel Zippers:
It was there the last time Google cache took a screen shot of it (June 18th), so it was scrubbed sometime between then and today. If you try the link now (http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.htm) it goes to MoveOn's default page.
I guess MoveOn couldn't possibly bash this General now that he's working for Obama.
To give readers an idea of the firestorm this created at the time, here are some NewsBusters articles published after this ad hit:
Revealing Audio From Blago Trial — Obama Admin. Joins Blago’s Fire Sale
Jon Stewart: Media ‘Kind of Suck’ for Getting Scooped by Rolling Stone
Comedian Jon Stewart Wednesday pointed out an inconvenient truth about this week's General Stanley McChrystal incident: the media "kind of suck" for getting scooped by Rolling Stone magazine.
As "The Daily Show" host addressed the day's events involving the General and President Obama, he showed clips of various press members expressing disgust that Rolling Stone would get such access to McChrystal and staff.
These included CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper as well as MSNBC's Chris Matthews.
After the final clip of CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr asking, "What on earth was he thinking giving an interview to Rolling Stone," Stewart quipped, "At approximately 11:04 Eastern Standard Time, the American news media finally realized they kind of suck" (video follows with more highlights and commentary):
Stewart next showed some real investigative reporting at CNN: Rick Sanchez talking about his kids having a party in his basement.
The Comedy Central star derided, "I'm not sure the unfiltered, over the top musings of the Commanding General undermining the now nine year mission in Afghanistan is quite analogous to your kids hanging out in the basement lighting farts."
No, but it does tell us the state of today's television news media.
As NewsBusters has been reporting since its inception, there isn't a lot of real investigative journalism undertaken in our nation by major media anymore, especially if it could be harmful to Democrats.
Traditional news outlets were totally scooped by the National Enquirer concerning former Sen. John Edwards' affair. Just this week they were also bested by the Enquirer's report concerning former Vice President Al Gore making unwanted sexual advances on a masseuse in 2006.
As it pertains to Obama, NewsBusters has chronicled for years stories the mainstream media ignored during the campaign and since his inauguration that would have been embarrassing as well as politically damaging to him and his administration.
As such, it shouldn't be at all surprising to anyone that a news outlet outside the mainstream logged this report concerning McChrystal, as most Americans have known for quite some time the media "kind of suck."
NBC: Obama’s ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Moment with McChrystal a Hidden Blessing
On Wednesday's Today show, NBC's Chuck Todd touted President Obama's "swiftness" in dealing with the controversy surrounding General Stanley McChrystal comments in Rolling Stone magazine as a "commander-in-chief moment," and hinted that it was a blessing in disguise, given the executive's tanking approval ratings.
Todd led the 7 am Eastern hour with his report on the President appointing General David Petraeus to replace General McChrystal, who was relieved of command following the Rolling Stone interview. The NBC White House correspondent remarked that with the Petraeus appointment, "the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated." After playing a clip of Mr. Obama stating that he "won't tolerate division," he continued that "the President's aides don't expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan."
Later in the report, Todd used his "commander-in-chief moment" term as he emphasized the apparent good timing of the controversy and detailed the public's decreasing confidence in the President, according to NBC's own poll:
TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President's action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45 percent approve of the job he's doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he's firm and decisive in his decision making. That's down from 63 percent 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49 percent, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That's down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President's desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan.
An on-screen graphic further described that President Obama's disapproval rating was at 48%, though the correspondent didn't specifically mention this statistic.
Almost a day earlier, Todd lauded the chief executive just as the Petraeus appointment was being made: "Politically, in this town, it's going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President."
The full transcript of Chuck Todd's report from Thursday's Today show:
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Let us begin with the change in command in Afghanistan. Chuck Todd is NBC's chief White House correspondent. Good morning, Chuck.
CHUCK TODD: Good morning, Meredith. Well, after a rare swift set of personnel moves by this White House, the President is now back focused on trying to make his complicated Afghanistan strategy work, rather than fixated on who's going to implement it.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy.
TODD (voice-over): With General Petraeus by his side, and General McChrystal headed out a side door, the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated.
OBAMA: I've just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. I welcome debate among my team, but I won't tolerate division.
TODD: The President's aides don't expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan.
SENATOR CARL LEVIN: I admire him and others that respond to that kind of a call from the President. I don't think he even had a chance to talk to his wife.
SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM: Dave Petraeus is our best hope. If things don't change, nobody can pull it out in Afghanistan.
TODD: But the hearings are expected to re-ignite the very divisive debate among the two parties about the question of a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, scheduled to begin next July.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Whether that is, quote- etched in stone, as the President's spokesperson, Mr. Gibbs, stated, or whether it will be conditions-based.
TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President's action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability.
According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45% approve of the job he's doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he's firm and decisive in his decision making. That's down from 63% 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49%, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That's down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President's desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan.
RETIRED GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY: It does give the President cover and a strategy, and it does buy him time. He's putting a leader out there that will not be questioned.
TODD (live) Today, the focus stays on foreign affairs, as the President meets with the president of another country who's familiar with a quagmire-like situation in Afghanistan. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits the White House today. The two will hold a joint press conference, and Afghanistan is likely to come up, Matt.
MATT LAUER: All right. Chuck Todd at the White House this morning. Chuck, thank you very much.
Talk about Biting the Hand that Fed You: Obama’s Attack on America’s Students
President Obama In On The Blago Senate Seat Sale?
Federal Funds Paid for ACORN Youth Groups
Did Ed Schultz’s Construction Company Get Stimulus Money?
While defending the Obama administration as a champion for small business owners, MSNBC host Ed Schultz revealed that his construction company more than doubled its number of employees in the past year – thanks to the stimulus bill."We've gone from eight employees to 20 employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package," he said of his construction company. "We've put some people back to work. There is some growth."
Schultz made that revelation as a guest on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" Wednesday morning. In a segment of the show where he was discussing corporations shipping jobs overseas and skimping on benefits to regular workers and labor union members, Schultz stepped up and defended President Obama.
"This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years," he claimed. "There's more tax incentives on the table right now, there's more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President."
Schultz whined that tax incentives for big corporations hurt the American middle class by providing opportunities for them to send jobs overseas. He credited President Obama with providing opportunities for small businesses to thrive in the United States.
However, Schultz also lamented that certain Obama administration policies, such as increasing taxes on foreign earnings, ending secret ballots in union elections, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses and restrictions on oil are "pro-corporate and anti-worker."
With corporations attacking labor, cutting wages, and going after pensions, Schultz claimed that age discrimination is taking place in the business world, and that "we've now developed this culture that it's not good to pay anybody."
The transcript of the segment, which aired on June 23 at 9:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
ED SCHULTZ: Now we're at a crossroads in this country. We have to make a determination if we believe that having 10 percent unemployment for a long period of time is the direction that we want to go. Do we understand that the social pressure and the economic pressure that that's going to put on the country? I don't think that's where Americans want to go. And I think that we're going to see a real surge of buy American, a loyalty to American products, because I think the middle class folks in this country have seen exactly what has happened, this attack on labor that has taken place, that all of a sudden it's okay to reduce wages, or attack people's pensions. And we're also seeing in this country right now age discrimination. Because there's a race to the bottom line.
We've now developed this culture that it's not good to pay anybody. And we have to have somewhat of a push for economic patriotism, in reinvestment in people. We have to understand that people make the difference. And if we don't value that at every level, we're not going to be the country that we can be. We're not going to be the country that we were at one time. We still can achieve greatness, but we gotta get the big money out of politics, we've gotta get what is destroying the middle class in this country, and reinvigorate this country with breaks for the middle class, and a real focus on job creation. And I think the President's trying to do that, but -- of course the way the Congress is right now, all the bickering that's going on, and there's really no bipartisanship to speak of that addresses any of this -- I think we're in for a long struggle here, a real long struggle.
(...)
HOST: Mr. Schultz, the Wall Street Journal echoes that caller's sentiment. They have a headline that echoes the caller's sentiment that business groups say the Obama administration is hostile toward jobs. And they have a list of grievances: Increased taxes on foreign earnings, stalled free trade agreements, shareholder rights to nominate directors, end to secret ballots in union elections, expanded damages for pay discrimination, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses, and restrictions on oil.
ED SCHULTZ: Those were all pro-corporate, and anti-worker. This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years. There's more tax incentives on the table right now, there's more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President. He's doing anything he possibly can. But the money is tight. The money is very tight. And until we loosen up the lending practices in this country, we're not going to have – and until small businesses have access to capital, we're not going to see this turn around. The President is doing everything he possibly can. In fact, the Republicans aren't even matching him on any of this stuff. They think it's all about the corporations and all about the top two percent.
In the book, I document – and I want this lady to read this book, and come back and tell me if I'm wrong. The number of foreign countries that are operating in this country that don't pay tax – does she think that's a good thing? Is it a good thing for corporations not to pay their fair share? Now I'm not here to say that all corporations are bad. They do hire people. But they've also shipped a lot of jobs overseas, because we have set the table for them to do that with tax incentives that have come back to hurt the great American middle class which built this country.
So when does the little guy get a break? Now I'm a small businessman. I have my own broadcast company, and I also have a construction company. I can tell you about all the things that you have to put together to make a construction company work. We've gone from eight employees to twenty employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package. We've put some people back to work. There is some growth. There's incentives on the table for my employees. And so, you know, I don't have to do this. I could just go fishing at the lake. But we've got to have some type of leadership at every level of the economy, and those who have lived the good life, and those who have had the fortune of making a few dollars to put it back into the kids, to put it back into the youth of the country, to care about the infrastructure again. And I don't see corporations doing that. I see them caring about the foreign countries and getting cheap labor. Well you know what cheap labor's going to do? Cheap labor's going to take this country down. And the disposable income is starting to rot away for Americans.
Media-Backed Obama Mortgage Program Flops
Obama's home loan modification program was talked up by the bailout-friendly news media as a potential "ray of light" for struggling homeowners.
But on June 21, Associated Press reported the mortgage assistance program is "falling flat."
The broadcast networks supported the mortgage modification and housing bailout when Obama launched it in 2009, after criticizing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan for not doing "enough" to fix the problem. ABC, CBS and NBC haven't mentioned the new figures since AP reported them.
"More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out," AP said. "That exceeds the number of people who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes."
The "ambitious" Home Affordable Modification Program was supposed to help 3-4 million people. As of last month the number of dropouts (436,000) exceeded the permanent modifications by almost 100,000 (340,000).
This was part of the same housing bailout Rick Santelli condemned on CNBC saying "the government is promoting bad behavior." Santelli's rant against the housing bailout helped inspire thousands of Americans to protest bailouts and runaway government spending at Tea Parties around the country in 2009 and 2010.
But Santelli's opposition to a bailout was an exception among the pro-bailout news media. As recently as Feb. 18, 2010 ABC's Robin Roberts was praising the program as "what may be a ray of light for the millions of homeowners struggling to hold on to their piece of the American dream."
Roberts and Bianna Golodryga downplayed problems saying that there had been "hiccups" in the program, but placed the blame for those problems on banks unwilling to work with homeowners, rather than on the government.
Golodryga's report also included an expert who criticized the program from the left saying it was "nowhere near the size and scope of what we need to, to stem this tide." Golodryga is engaged to White House budget director Peter Orszag, who announced his resignation June 22, 2010.
ABC's Jeffrey Kofman also found left-wing criticism of the program to incorporate in his story. On Feb. 18, 2009, Kofman mentioned concerns "that a $75 billion bailout can't single handedly turn around an $11 trillion housing market. But they say it is a start."
Roughly a month later, CNBC's Diana Olick acknowledged that the $75 billion program had "fallen short" of helping the 3-4 million homeowners on "Nightly News" March 26, 2010. At that time, she reported that only 200,000 permanent modifications had been done. But Olick didn't criticize the Obama administration's decision to expand the plan to more borrowers.
In 2009, when Obama's two-part mortgage bailout was launched, CBS had no criticism or difficult questions in its "Early Show" segment March 5. The night before, Katie Couric described the plan as "relief for struggling homeowners" on "Evening News."
Now it appears the bailout didn't work and may jeopardize the economic recovery, according to CNBC's Larry Kudlow.
Kudlow reacted to the latest mortgage modifications data on June 22, saying that "Housing in particular looks vulnerable to that double-dip [recession]. And all these goofy, temporary tax credits and mortgage modifications and other forms of temporary stimulus nearly steal activity from the future and never work permanently, as Milton Friedman argued [years ago]."
‘Controversial' Program Struggles, Despite Network Support
Like other bailouts, the networks favored the mortgage bailout and loan modification program when it was announced in 2009. Now that the program is a failure don't expect a retraction. So far the networks have ignored the new data Treasury released on June 21.
Since the broadcast networks haven't done much reporting on the problems with the loan modification program, people might wonder why it isn't working.
According to AP, "A major reason so many have fallen out of the program is the Obama administration initially pressured banks to sign up borrowers without insisting first on proof of their income. When banks later moved to collect the information, many troubled homeowners were disqualified or dropped out."
AP also warned that more foreclosures could be ahead as people leave the program.
The Washington Post reported that about half of the program dropouts "received another type of loan modification from their banks." Only 7 percent have gone into foreclosure, according to CNNMoney.com.
The timing of the news was bad for politicians trying to pass another housing bailout - this one $3 billion in loans for homeowners who are out of work.
Politicians should be wary given the outrage already directed against mortgage bailouts, since it was the potential housing bailout that angered many and led to tea parties across the country. Santelli's initial rant condemned the proposed housing bailout and touched a nerve with traders and America at large.
"And in terms of modifications, I'll tell you what, I have an idea. You know the new administration's big on computers and technology," Santelli declared.
"How about this, (Mr.) President and new administration - Why don't you put up a web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages, or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink(ing) the water."
After traders reacted with claps and cheers, CNBC's Joe Kernen replied, "Rick, they're like putty in your hands."
Santelli denied that and continued saying, "This is America! (turns around to address pit traders) How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills? Raise their hand. (traders boo; Santelli turns around to face CNBC camera) President Obama, are you listening?"
Networks Back Mortgage Rescues, or Complain They're Not Big Enough
Obama's mortgage bailout was praised by the many in network news media, after an earlier mortgage rescue designed by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was attacked from the left by the broadcast networks because it wouldn't help "enough people."
"It sounds as if it doesn't help anybody who had their mortgage rate increased or got foreclosed in 2007," ABC "World News" anchor Charles Gibson complained on Dec. 5, 2007.
"CBS Evening News" sympathized with a Texas couple who "can't afford" to keep their large ranch home (complete with horses), supposedly because of the rate increases on their mortgage.
CBS also ignored skepticism of a homeowner bailout on April 2, 2008, arguing that since the government had bailed out banks, mortgage holders should get the same assistance.
"Now to the foreclosure crisis that has so many Americans worried about losing their homes," "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric said that night. "After the government helped rescue Bear Stearns, calls grew louder for Washington to help struggling homeowners as well. Today on Capitol Hill, there was at least the promise of some assistance."
In July 2008, ABC's Golodryga called "a sweeping housing bailout bill" "good news for potential homeowners."
The networks also endorsed the $700 billion "rescue" package in 2008 that was voted down by 228 representatives including 132 "rebellious" conservatives and 94 Democrats.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., was one of those who voted against it because "The decision to give the federal government the ability to nationalize almost every bad mortgage in America interrupts a basic truth of our free market economy."
The list of reporters and anchors who championed the first bailout that failed and ultimately the bill that passed on Oct. 3, was long and included CBS's Anthony Mason, ABC's Betsy Stark, Bianna Golodryga and Jake Tapper, NBC's Tom Brokaw and CNBC's Jim Cramer all called for the government to be the knight in shining armor with taxpayer dollars. Cramer was interviewed repeatedly on NBC and CNBC and even appeared on rival network ABC during "Nightline."
It wasn't just housing bailouts. ABC, CBS and NBC also promoted the nearly $800 billion stimulus bill. They campaigned for the biggest spending bill in history, picking pro-stimulus speakers more often than opposing speakers and almost completely failed to ask how the enormous bill would be paid for.
Like this article? Sign up for "The Balance Sheet," BMI's weekly e-mail newsletter.
Fish Wrap Says Decision To Remove McChrystal Shows His Decisiveness
87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum
On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.
This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.
A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.
Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.
Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):
Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.
"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.
"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.
The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.
According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.
Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.
No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.
Why might that be?
For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.
Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.
Stay tuned.
87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum
On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.
This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.
A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.
Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.
Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):
Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.
"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.
"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.
The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.
According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.
Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.
No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.
Why might that be?
For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.
Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.
Stay tuned.
87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum
On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.
This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.
A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.
Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.
Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):
Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.
"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.
"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.
The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.
According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.
Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.
No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.
Why might that be?
For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.
Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.
Stay tuned.
87 Senators Sign Letter Urging Obama’s Support of Israel, Media Mostly Mum
On Monday, 87 Senators signed a letter to President Obama affirming their support for Israel while urging his.
This comes in response to last month's highly-publicized flotilla incident in the Mediterranean Sea and the United Nations predictable anti-Israel reaction.
A similar letter has been circulated in the House that has apparently garnered 307 signatures.
Despite the overwhelming bipartisan outcry -- something rather rare in Washington these days to be sure -- very few American media outlets bothered to report the news.
Fortunately, the Hill published the following Wednesday (h/t Weasel Zippers):
Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) - and signed by 85 other members of the upper chamber - the letter argues that Israel's blockade of Gaza was both legal and necessary, and that Israeli commandos were acting in self-defense when they landed on the ship.
"[V]ideo footage shows that the Israeli commandos who arrived on the sixth ship, which was owned by the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (the IHH), were brutally attacked with iron rods, knives, and broken glass," the senators wrote.
"They were forced to respond to that attack and we regret the loss of life that resulted," the letter adds.
The bipartisan group of lawmakers urged Obama to oppose a resolution in the United Nations critical of Israel.
According to JTA.org, a similar letter has been signed by 307 Representatives in the House.
Yet, besides the Hill, LexisNexis and Google News searches produced only Agence France-Presse and UPI reporting this news in the States.
No newspapers, no television outlets, and no Associated Press.
Why might that be?
For those interested, full text with signatories of the Senate letter is available here.
Readers are advised that too many of the signatures were illegible making it impossible to know who the thirteen Senators that didn't sign the letter are.
Stay tuned.
Media Help Obama Bash Republicans, Forget ‘Polarizing’ Charge Against Bush
President Obama's weekly radio address on Saturday devoted the entire hour to a hyper-partisan, long-winded, meandering speech about his Republican critics being too -- wait for it! -- partisan.
Fortunately for him, a compliant national media would simply forward the attack on their own pages and never pause long enough to smell the irony.
In the middle of alleged job offers, controversial nominations, and unpopular bills shoved through Congress along party lines, President Obama complained about "dreary and familiar politics" from the opposition, and the media immediately took his side.
Up first was the Washington Post's Scott Wilson who used the 44 blog on Saturday to cover the speech:
A frustrated President Obama assailed congressional Republicans on Saturday for holding up legislation he said is important to the country's economic recovery, and he called for up-or-down votes on the measure and on scores of his nominees in the Senate as soon as possible.
"I was disappointed this week to see a dreary and familiar politics get in the way of our ability to move forward on a series of critical issues that have a direct impact on people's lives," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.
Obama has often sprinkled criticism of Washington's partisan culture - a target of his 2008 campaign - throughout his weekly addresses. But he has rarely devoted the entire speech to the subject, and his doing so Saturday was a sign of his exasperation and concern that a failure to push through measures to benefit the staggering economy could hurt his party in the November elections.
Wilson was correct about one thing: President Obama does often complain about partisan games. It seems that all of his problems can be traced back to incompetent Republicans or partisan critics, and he will gladly give a partisan speech to tell you about it.
Yet it never occurred to Wilson to mention any of that. In fact, Wilson went on to quote President Obama further:
In his address, Obama said, "The political season is upon us in Washington, but gridlock as a political strategy is destructive to the country."
"Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, we've got an obligation that goes beyond caring about the next election," he said. "We have an obligation to care for the next generation. So I hope that when Congress returns next week, they do so with a greater spirit of compromise and cooperation. America will be watching."
Sadly, other news outlets took the same tack of ignoring Obama's glaring hypocrisy.
Politico covered the address in a short report that mentioned nothing of the past. The New York Times used the occasion to repeat guilt-stricken quotes about "unemployed Americans" and families who can't afford to buy a home. Worst of all was the Associated Press, which spoke directly in its headline about "making life harder for the jobless" - never bothering to wonder if such partisan blame-games from the president could be partially responsible for things being harder.
It was just a few years ago that partisan arguments from the president were seen as divisive and polarizing. Of course, that was when a Republican was in the White House, and liberal Democrats were the ones stalling. Back then, the media were quite annoyed by sitting presidents who criticized the other party.
On November 5, 2004, Salon published a rant from an enraged Cass Sunstein who encouraged fellow progressives to keep fighting after Bush's reelection victory:
After this intensely fought election, both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry are speaking of the need to heal our divisions and come together as a single, united nation. They're wrong. Critics of the Bush presidency do not need to heal our divisions but to insist on them. President Bush has presided over an extraordinarily divisive and polarizing administration. The suggestion that we should now "heal our divisions" is really a suggestion not for unity but for capitulation...
This is not a time to yield to a radical agenda for our nation's future or its Constitution. Nor is it time to heal our divisions. It is time to shout them from the rooftops.
The media's response to that strategy was something less than outrage. In fact, this view of politics was acceptable fare back then.
A few months later, NBC's David Gregory curtly reported that "bipartisanship appears to be out" thanks to President Bush refusing to work with liberal Democrats. He accused Bush of "barreling ahead" with unpopular agendas and "not talking about compromise."
In 2005, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne had this to say about Bush:
Recent months, and especially the past two weeks, have brought home to a steadily growing majority of Americans the truth that President Bush's government doesn't work. His policies are failing, his approach to leadership is detached and self-indulgent, his way of politics has produced a divided, angry and dysfunctional public square. We dare not go on like this.
In 2007, the NY Times called Bush "a polarizing president like no other" who had "given little ground" to Democrats. When Bush fought a plan in Congress to expand federal funding for children's health insurance, the Times quoted Rahm Emanuel saying, "I'm at a loss over what is driving him with this strategy."
That was how a Republican president was treated for refusing to give in to the opposition. It had nothing to do with obstructionist liberals who refused to let the nation heal, even though they had stated that very thing as their goal. Bush refused to lie down for liberal agendas, so obviously he was the cause of all the friction.
How convenient that liberal Democrats are now in charge of Washington, and suddenly the president is excused for being partisan.
It would appear that, according to our media, the definition of compromise is when conservatives give up.
NBC Guest: Obama White House a ‘Team of Nine-Year-Olds’
Anchor Matt Lauer brought on Goure and retired General Barry McCaffrey for a panel discussion on the controversy surrounding Rolling Stone's recent article on General Stanley McChrystal, the now-former commander of American forces in Afghanistan. Goure defended McChrystal in a Wednesday column on his organization's website, suggesting that the general shouldn't be fired for his and his staff's criticism of Obama administration officials. Lauer asked to explain his position: "Mr. Goure, you think that firing General McChrystal would be a disaster- is that accurate? Tell me why."
The conservative guest almost quoted directly from his column in his reply: "He is the war in Afghanistan. It is his strategy, his surge, his organization, his command structure. He is a general who fights and fights and fights. If you want to have a chance of winning this war, you beat him up, send him to the woodshed, and then send him back to Afghanistan."
The NBC anchor followed-up on the question of the general's comments in Rolling Stone: "It's funny you use the term 'his command structure,' yet he has completely broken the command structure, in terms of the people above him, by his comments, and...it's not the first time. How many strikes does he get?"
Goure refuted Lauer's premise and continued with his "nine-year-old" label of the Obama administration: "Actually, I don't think he broke the command structure above him. What you're seeing, in the McChrystal behavior and his staff, is a broken command structure from the top. This is a president who has a dysfunctional organization running his war. It's not a team of rivals. It's a team of nine-year-olds, and something needs to be done about that, not just about Stanley McChrystal."
While General McCaffrey, who is a NBC News military analyst, didn't defend McChrystal, it's interesting to note that the morning show turned to a conservative to comment on the controversy, instead of someone from the left.
The full transcript of Matt Lauer's panel discussion with retired General Barry McCaffrey and Daniel Goure, which began six minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour of Wednesday's Today show:
LAUER: Two men with very different perspectives on this are Retired General Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News military analyst, and Dan Goure, vice president of the conservative think tank, the Lexington Institute. Gentlemen, good morning to both of you.
BARRY MCCAFFREY: Good morning, Matt.
DANIEL GOURE: Good morning.
LAUER: General, let me start with you. You know, Savannah says that the President doesn't go into this with a preconceived notion. Do you think this is already a done deal? Is General McChrystal gone?
MCCAFFREY: I don't know. I'm sure of one thing- that he's impaired his effectiveness to guide the interagency process in Afghanistan- to deal with our own embassy, to deal with the White House in a significant way. And plus, it was sort of insulting to the allies. So Matt, it was a significant error. It's done political damage to the commander-in-chief and impairs effectiveness. Probably, he'll go, but- you know, the President could send him back.
LAUER: Well, is there anything, General, that General McChrystal could say to the President today, do you think, that could save his job?
MCCAFFREY: Well, I don't think what McChrystal has to say is really relevant. I think what the President is going to have to determine, in his own mind- what's the tradeoff between taking out- by the way, McChrystal is probably the most competent counter-terrorist fighter that we've produced in a generation. This guy is really good- so that's the tradeoff-
LAUER: Right.
MCCAFFREY: The strategy's faltering. It's $9 billion a month, 46,000 killed and wounded in the armed forces since 9/11. We're really in trouble from a political perspective
LAUER: Mr. Goure, you think that firing General McChrystal would be a disaster- is that accurate?
GOURE: That is accurate.
LAUER: Tell me why.
GOURE: He is the war in Afghanistan. It is his strategy, his surge, his organization, his command structure. He is a general who fights and fights and fights. If you want to have a chance of winning this war, you beat him up, send him to the woodshed, and then send him back to Afghanistan.
LAUER: It's funny you use the term 'his command structure,' yet he has completely broken the command structure, in terms of the people above him, by his comments, and, as Savannah Guthrie pointed out in her piece, it's not the first time. How many strikes does he get?
GOURE: Actually, I don't think he broke the command structure above him. What you're seeing, in the McChrystal behavior and his staff, is a broken command structure from the top. This is a president who has a dysfunctional organization running his war. It's not a team of rivals. It's a team of nine-year-olds, and something needs to be done about that, not just about Stanley McChrystal.
LAUER: Let me ask you both to comment on this next question. What happens to the troops on the ground and their morale if either of these situations plays out? General, I'll start with you,- if they fire General McChrystal, how does that impact morale, and if they keep him on, knowing- although Dan disagrees with this- but knowing that he seems to have broken the chain of command here, what does that do to morale?
MCCAFFREY: Well, you know, this would be the second in a row fired in Afghanistan, so it's a problem. But look- and let me disagree, if I may, with one of Dan's points. There are ten people who could step in and take command in Afghanistan without a momentary break in the effectiveness of the organization. General Mattis, a Marine general, at Joint Forces Command-
LAUER: Right.
MCCAFFREY: There's a lieutenant general, Dave Rodriguez, on the ground. So, no one commander is vital. Petraeus may be vital, our strategic genius at CENTCOM, but not McChrystal.
LAUER: Mr. Goure, what happens to morale? How does it impact, depending on which way this goes?
GOURE: The Rolling Stone article pointed out this is a general who walks the line with his troops. I think he is unique to this moment and unique to this war, and I think it does great damage to the morale of the troops.
LAUER: And real quickly, General McCaffrey, does it- if you think that General McChrystal needs to go, does it matter how it happens? In other words, can he resign, or does the President need to take the proactive step of actually firing him?
MCCAFFREY: Well, it's all optics. You know, Admiral Fallon essentially got fired by Secretary Gates over a similar situation with a reporter. They can do this in a gentlemanly way or not. It almost doesn't make any difference. I think Dan's major point is a good one. What we have to focus on is the war. The war is not going well. Karzai's incompetent-
LAUER: Right.
MCCAFFREY: The [Afghani] government's corrupt, the American people don't support it- those are the issues on the table, not bad judgment on the part of McChrystal and his public affairs guys.
LAUER: We will wait to see what happens at the White House today. General Barry McCaffrey and Dan Goure- gentlemen, thanks to both of you. I appreciate it.
Matthews: Canning McChrystal Helps Obama’s Oil Spill Image
Another leg tingle is on the way for MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews. Wednesday on "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Chris Matthews asserted that the President's image had been tainted because "BP has been the front institution, not the United States government, in this whole horror down in the gulf."
Yet, the White House no longer needs to worry, because to Matthews, the releasing of General McChrystal benefits the President's image of handling the oil spill by creating a "chance for him and somewhat in a way or somewhat in a personnel manner to insist on his role as Commander in Chief."
Andrea Mitchell was relieved because according to a new poll, "only 50% think that the president is doing a good job in handling the oil spill." Nevertheless, Matthews made sure to explain that although the President's image may pay a price, it was us who,"created this problem through our capitalist system, free enterprise system and now we have to fix it."
Alas, the culprit is capitalism! Wait, even in China? [Proof available here]
This transcript of the June 23, 2010, segment of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" is available here:
ANDREA MITCHELL: Thank you so much, Senator Nelson. And -- we want to thank you for being with us today. We know you have a very busy schedule. We are waiting, of course, as you can see the rose garden all prepared for the President to come out. He has had that meeting with the entire national security team in the basement, the situation room. This after about a 20-minute one-on-one with General McChrystal earlier in the day. Previously earlier still this morning, then with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Chris Matthews, Bill Cohen, former defense secretary, was saying that it should have been the Pentagon brass, civilian brass, and military who dealt with this rather than putting this on the President, it was a mistake to elevate this by having McChrystal come and be called on the carpet by the President. It should of been done on the field.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: It may have been done that way but the President may benefit here. There is a question that has been raised in this handling of the oil spill – about the chain of command and executive authority. And here's a chance for him and somewhat in a way or somewhat in a personnel manner to insist on his role as commander in chief. In a way that hasn't been so clear during this whole oil spill matter. BP has been the front institution, not the United States government, in this whole horror down in the gulf and I think its hurt the President's standing.
MITCHELL: In fact, we have hard evidence now because we broke the new information from the NBC news Wall Street Journal poll with Chuck Todd, at the top of the program. Where this is beginning to really erode the President's popularity. His overall approval rating and the hard numbers we have are, only 50% think that the President is doing a good job in handling the oil spill.
MATTHEWS: You and I saw this in the Iranian hostage crisis. Just because the situation is intractable It doesn't mean the President of the United States doesn't pay a price for not being able to deal with it. You are supposed to fix problems. If the problems are un-fixable you pay. That's the way it works in this country. Jack Kennedy once said the problems of man are man-made and they can be solved by man. That's an American doctrine. We can solve the problems we create. This time we created this problem through our capitalist system, free enterprise system and now we have to fix it. And we haven't fixed it and It is getting worse today as we can see.
Matthews: Canning McChrystal Helps Obama’s Oil Spill Image
Another leg tingle is on the way for MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews. Wednesday on "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Chris Matthews asserted that the President's image had been tainted because "BP has been the front institution, not the United States government, in this whole horror down in the gulf."
Yet, the White House no longer needs to worry, because to Matthews, the releasing of General McChrystal benefits the President's image of handling the oil spill by creating a "chance for him and somewhat in a way or somewhat in a personnel manner to insist on his role as Commander in Chief."
Andrea Mitchell was relieved because according to a new poll, "only 50% think that the president is doing a good job in handling the oil spill." Nevertheless, Matthews made sure to explain that although the President's image may pay a price, it was us who,"created this problem through our capitalist system, free enterprise system and now we have to fix it."
Alas, the culprit is capitalism! Wait, even in China? [Proof available here]
This transcript of the June 23, 2010, segment of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" is available here:
ANDREA MITCHELL: Thank you so much, Senator Nelson. And -- we want to thank you for being with us today. We know you have a very busy schedule. We are waiting, of course, as you can see the rose garden all prepared for the President to come out. He has had that meeting with the entire national security team in the basement, the situation room. This after about a 20-minute one-on-one with General McChrystal earlier in the day. Previously earlier still this morning, then with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Chris Matthews, Bill Cohen, former defense secretary, was saying that it should have been the Pentagon brass, civilian brass, and military who dealt with this rather than putting this on the President, it was a mistake to elevate this by having McChrystal come and be called on the carpet by the President. It should of been done on the field.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: It may have been done that way but the President may benefit here. There is a question that has been raised in this handling of the oil spill – about the chain of command and executive authority. And here's a chance for him and somewhat in a way or somewhat in a personnel manner to insist on his role as commander in chief. In a way that hasn't been so clear during this whole oil spill matter. BP has been the front institution, not the United States government, in this whole horror down in the gulf and I think its hurt the President's standing.
MITCHELL: In fact, we have hard evidence now because we broke the new information from the NBC news Wall Street Journal poll with Chuck Todd, at the top of the program. Where this is beginning to really erode the President's popularity. His overall approval rating and the hard numbers we have are, only 50% think that the President is doing a good job in handling the oil spill.
MATTHEWS: You and I saw this in the Iranian hostage crisis. Just because the situation is intractable It doesn't mean the President of the United States doesn't pay a price for not being able to deal with it. You are supposed to fix problems. If the problems are un-fixable you pay. That's the way it works in this country. Jack Kennedy once said the problems of man are man-made and they can be solved by man. That's an American doctrine. We can solve the problems we create. This time we created this problem through our capitalist system, free enterprise system and now we have to fix it. And we haven't fixed it and It is getting worse today as we can see.
Rolling Stone ‘Runaway General’ Reporter: Aloof Obama ‘Didn’t Really Understand What Counterinsurgency Meant’
While the media are attempting to grapple with the change in leadership of the Afghanistan war and what that all means, one thing that could be learned from this, which has been ignored, are valid criticisms of President Barack Obama and his ability to command the U.S. military.
Michael Hastings, author of the now-famous Rolling Stone magazine article "Runaway General" that captured several gotcha moments resulting in Obama relieving General Stanley McChrystal of his command, appeared on Al Jazeera English on June 23. He offered some startling insight into Obama's failure to grasp what he was actually getting into with this Afghanistan strategy known as the counterinsurgency strategy.
Hastings was asked if McChrystal had perhaps gotten the whole strategy wrong, but Hastings explained it was the President that didn't know what he was really getting into.
"I think that ship had sailed last year," Hastings said. "I think once the decision was made to do a counterinsurgency strategy, they had a pretty clear idea in mind what they wanted to do and I think this is quite interesting. I think this is one of the issues Obama didn't really understand what counter-insurgency meant and when the military said they wanted to do a counterinsurgency strategy that that actually meant 150,000 troops. Obama thought he could get away with just sending 21,000 over and getting a new general."
And as Hastings explained, Obama wasn't prepared due to this miscalculation.
"That clearly - anyone who has spent anytime around the military over the past few years you know, you know how many troops they wanted in Afghanistan all along, but I think Obama was clearly caught off guard by that," Hastings said.
Later in the interview, Hastings accused Obama of not dedicating a lot of his time into putting the counterinsurgency strategy (or COIN) in place. Instead the Rolling Stone reporter said Obama was looking for a quick way to fill a campaign promise with roughly a seventh of the troops needed to successfully implement the strategy.
"I think it's clear that [Defense Secretary Robert]Gates and [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike] Mullen are big counterinsurgency fans and they sold Obama on the idea," Hastings explained. "I don't think Obama really put too much thought into it to be honest. I think it was a campaign promise that he thought he dealt with by just sending 21,000 troops and not really thinking about what that really meant. And that was clear even last August when, you know, Bob Woodward released that report of McChrystal's strategy - you know that the Obama administration was like, ‘Whoa, what does this mean?' And you know, I think anyone who knows anything about COIN - that's what they call counterinsurgency, knows that it takes a heck of a lot of guys, a heck of a lot of money and a heck of a long time."
Rolling Stone ‘Runaway General’ Reporter: Aloof Obama ‘Didn’t Really Understand What Counterinsurgency Meant’
While the media are attempting to grapple with the change in leadership of the Afghanistan war and what that all means, one thing that could be learned from this, which has been ignored, are valid criticisms of President Barack Obama and his ability to command the U.S. military.
Michael Hastings, author of the now-famous Rolling Stone magazine article "Runaway General" that captured several gotcha moments resulting in Obama relieving General Stanley McChrystal of his command, appeared on Al Jazeera English on June 23. He offered some startling insight into Obama's failure to grasp what he was actually getting into with this Afghanistan strategy known as the counterinsurgency strategy.
Hastings was asked if McChrystal had perhaps gotten the whole strategy wrong, but Hastings explained it was the President that didn't know what he was really getting into.
"I think that ship had sailed last year," Hastings said. "I think once the decision was made to do a counterinsurgency strategy, they had a pretty clear idea in mind what they wanted to do and I think this is quite interesting. I think this is one of the issues Obama didn't really understand what counter-insurgency meant and when the military said they wanted to do a counterinsurgency strategy that that actually meant 150,000 troops. Obama thought he could get away with just sending 21,000 over and getting a new general."
And as Hastings explained, Obama wasn't prepared due to this miscalculation.
"That clearly - anyone who has spent anytime around the military over the past few years you know, you know how many troops they wanted in Afghanistan all along, but I think Obama was clearly caught off guard by that," Hastings said.
Later in the interview, Hastings accused Obama of not dedicating a lot of his time into putting the counterinsurgency strategy (or COIN) in place. Instead the Rolling Stone reporter said Obama was looking for a quick way to fill a campaign promise with roughly a seventh of the troops needed to successfully implement the strategy.
"I think it's clear that [Defense Secretary Robert]Gates and [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike] Mullen are big counterinsurgency fans and they sold Obama on the idea," Hastings explained. "I don't think Obama really put too much thought into it to be honest. I think it was a campaign promise that he thought he dealt with by just sending 21,000 troops and not really thinking about what that really meant. And that was clear even last August when, you know, Bob Woodward released that report of McChrystal's strategy - you know that the Obama administration was like, ‘Whoa, what does this mean?' And you know, I think anyone who knows anything about COIN - that's what they call counterinsurgency, knows that it takes a heck of a lot of guys, a heck of a lot of money and a heck of a long time."
CNN Mocks Obama Golfing During Oil Spill: ‘Just Plug the Darn Hole Mr. President’
CNN on Tuesday actually noticed the absurdity of folks bashing BP CEO Tony Hayward for yachting on the same day President Obama was golfing.
National correspondent Jeanne Moos surprisingly began her "American Morning" piece, "It's the yachting versus golf smack down, round one."
After showing average Americans complaining about Hayward's R&R, Moos quipped, "But before you could spell BP CEO, President Obama's golfing came under attack."
Children were shown expressing their displeasure with the Golfer in Chief, "In the two hours it takes to golf or to go yachting another one to 10,000 gallons of oil can leak out."
This led Moos to marvelously conclude, "Just plug the darn hole Mr. President" (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Hot Air's Ed Morrissey):
JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's the yachting versus golf smack down, round one. BP's CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How dare he just take off.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The height of stupidity.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you spell fool?
MOOS: But before you could spell BP CEO, President Obama's golfing came under attack.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Almost five hours on the golf course with Biden.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And it should have been eight times between --
MOOS: Actually, seven times. CBS White House correspondent, Mark Knoller, says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency, including some that got into a Michael Moore film.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.
MOOS: Some equate President Obama's golf to Tony Hayward's yachting, two different men, two different jobs, one management style, the president's defenders note a big difference.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's the thing. He didn't create that mess that is there. What do they want the man to do? Put a wet suit on and go down there and fix the pipe.
MOOS: Meanwhile, Politico pondered the really important question, why is Tony Hayward's yacht named Bob? Wondering if it had anything to do with the Bill Murray movie, "What About Bob?" Sailors so scared he has to be lashed to the mast. Now, Tony Hayward is being lashed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really think it was a disgrace.
MOOS: On the other hand, surprisingly (ph), it was the first day off he's had in two months.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really don't care.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Too bad. Look what he did.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll be damned if his life is a day off (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he's probably do for a little down time.
MOOS: But down time on the water can be a downer. Remember when presidential candidate, John Kerry, went wind surfing and it ended up in an attack ad. BP CEO is being mocked in an animation by a Taiwanese tabloid website. He sits on the beach, sending out a drink to a guy -- drowning an oil from the mounts of bays (ph).
UNIDENTIFIED KID: My mom doesn't take a break like every two months. You don't really need to take a break every two months to go and see a yacht race.
UNIDENTIFIED KID: In the two hours, it takes to golf or to go yachting another one to 10,000 gallons of oil can leak out.
UNIDENTIFIED KID: President Obama, I'm not sure he should actually be golfing right now.
MOOS: Just plug the darn hole Mr. President.
Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.
Readers should notice at 1:37 a screen shot of a NewsBusters piece on this subject published Sunday.
Thanks for the plug, Jeanne - and NICE report.
MSNBC Looks to Lefty Ed Schultz for Reaction on Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Firing of McChrystal
Only 70 minutes after Barack Obama explained his decision to fire General Stanley McChrystal, Wednesday, MSNBC turned to leftist host Ed Schultz for analysis. Schultz gushed that the decision proved that the President is "brilliant on the basics." He enthused, "Well, as commander in chief, I think it's probably President Obama's finest hour," because it displayed toughness.
Host Tamron Hall knocked McChrystal, referencing his role in the investigation of Army Ranger Pat Tillman's death. She derided, "So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card."
Hall and Schultz continued to frame the discussion from how it impacted the left. She worried, "For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he's emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he's committed to the direction he's chosen with this unpopular war?"
Later in the hour, Hall brought on Ryan Grimm of the liberal Huffington Post to discuss McChrystal. MSNBC apparently spans the spectrum of the left and the far left.
A transcript of the June 23 segment, which aired at 2:22pm, follows:
TAMRON HALL: We're getting more reaction to the breaking news that top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his command. He's said to be replaced by General David Petraeus. Let's bring in MSNBC's Ed Schultz, the host of the Ed Show to react to it. Ed, I know you're listening to a lot of callers on your radio show. You've got thoughts on this. What do you make of the President's decision and what are the callers saying?
ED SCHULTZ: Well, as commander in chief, I think it's probably President Obama's finest hour, because he's answering a lot of critics with about how you wasn't tough enough or couldn't make a decision. Didn't have any experience. This man went back to the basics. The President showed us that he's brilliant on the basics. It's about team. It's about the civilian control, it's about the democracy and how we work. And we're not going to have anybody in a position of leadership and authority to go off and do what President- do what General McChrystal did. So I think the President was very clear and I personally got a sense in watching the President today that, you know, it just wasn't the Rolling Stone article. It's like there was other stuff there. That there's a lot of stuff-
HALL: Well, we know what happened last fall in London with the remarks made there. Also, the Pat Tillman investigation and what it has revealed, as well. So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card.
SCHULTZ: True. And- But even beyond those as we know publicly there's somewhat of a pattern there, I just got a sense that there was a little bit more and the President had somewhat of an angst about him. You know, I've had enough of this. He actually went back and paralleled a quote of President Truman about, you know, it's not one person, not one war, something like that. But the President went to the basics: Trust, loyalty, the conduct code, deep rooted with the privates. All the way through, the discipline. You lose the discipline, you lose the break down of completing the mission and you compromise the mission. And now of course the story is General Petraeus, who I think, ironically, is probably going to get more bipartisan support than anything else in Washington.
HALL: [Laughs] And you very well may be right on that as he's been praised by Republicans many times over and some Democrats. But, let me ask you this: People talked about and have talked about the President's response to the oil disaster. The critics say he's shown weakness. His numbers show that most Americans are not confidence in the way he's handled this. Where does this position him now? I know there are two very different issue, but it is about leadership with both.
SCHULTZ: Well, I think the President personally did show leadership in the gulf from day one. He's dealing with a multinational. There were contracts in it place that had to be adhered to when there is an oil spill and certain mechanisms had to kick in. No one predicted early on what this was going to evolve to.
HALL: right.
SCHULTZ: The administration was lied to by BP. First they said there wasn't that much coming out and it grew as the days went on. And I thought the proper reaction was there by the President. So, I think he's being wrongly criticized for it. The President goes out and gets $20 billion from a company that's butchering our environment and the Republicans are criticizing him for it. I find it absolutely amazing. It just goes to show how divided we are in this country.
HALL: And let me bring up something the President said regarding the transition from McChrystal to Petraeus. He said, "This has nothing to do with policy, nothing to do with personal insult." For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he's emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he's committed to the direction he's chosen with this unpopular war?
SCHULTZ: The President wants a successful mission. He's going to get the right people in the right place to finish the job. And I'm sure that he probably turned to General Petraeus and said this is what the mission is, can you get it done. Petraeus went along with it, obviously. It's about team, it's about working together. The President was very clear that he encourages debate, but he does not want division. And you certainly don't go out and air dirty laundry. Now, your question about the left. There are a lot of Americans out there who believe that this mission is a fool's errand in Afghanistan. We've got a lot of issues at home, we're gutting our infrastructure. But the President, to me, seemed very committed today to knowing that this is the strategy that we have to follow in his best judgment to make sure that we fight the terrorists on their turf. And so I thought the President was very clear on where he's going on this.
Media Praise Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Handling of McChrystal Controversy
During live special coverage leading up to the announcement in the 1PM ET hour on CBS, White House correspondent Chip Reid proclaimed: "it sounds like a pretty brilliant decision really." At the same time on NBC, correspondent Jim Miklaszewski described it as a "stunning development" and added "at a quick glance, almost brilliant." Minutes later, White House correspondent Chuck Todd declared: "politically, in this town, it's going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President."
Over on CNN, moments after Obama finished speaking, anchor Wolf Blitzer remarked that it was a "major moment for this president" and later observed: "a very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus." Finally, in the 2PM ET hour on MSNBC, Meet the Press host David Gregory concluded: "I think he took swift and decisive action. I think that's how it's going to be read."
In addition to cheering Obama's brilliance, another common theme in the media reaction was to assert the President's decision would be immune from criticism. Reid explained: "So the President avoids both the criticisms here, number one, putting somebody new in charge and, number two, since he fired McChrystal, he's not going to be accused of being weak." Miklaszewski noted: "this may quiet some of the critics up on Capitol Hill." Todd later added: "...you will not hear a single word from Capitol Hill, no Republican will dare say a negative thing about this decision."
Why Hasn’t Racism Been Blamed For Obama’s Poor Response to the Oil Spill?
When Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans in 2005, numerous media members blamed racism for President Bush's supposedly poor response to the disaster.
According to LexisNexis, there were almost 1,000 reports in the nine weeks following the storm's passage through the Gulf of Mexico that tied racism to the government's post-hurricane strategy.
Five years later, as oil slams the same region and polls show the public actually more unhappy with the response to this crisis than they were after Katrina hit, no such nefarious connection is being espoused.
Why?
Consider the media firestorm the following remark by rapper Kanye West set off just a few days after the hurricane hit New Orleans (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Moments after this was uttered on live television, CNN's Larry King asked guest Jesse Jackson about it:I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they're looting. See a white family, it says they're looking for food. And you know that it's been five days because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I've tried to turn away from the TV, because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before I've even given a donation. So now I'm calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help with the set up the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they have given them permission to go down and shoot us...George Bush doesn't care about black people.
LARRY KING, CNN: Jesse, I understand that Kanye West, a rapper at the NBC telethon tonight, unscripted, said that President Bush, George Bush does not care about black people. Do you have that feeling?
JESSE JACKSON: Well, he responded mighty late and mighty slow. There was one response to the tsunami and some years ago to the -- a response to the Armenian earthquake crisis, but he came in five days late, with platitudes. And in the case of 9/11, he came in two days later and embraced all those who were involved. There's a sense of alienation, a sense of distance, and we don't feel good about it.
I hope that there will be renewed commitment, not to just involve Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton, but why not involve people like Congressman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi and Cynthia Cleo Fields (ph) and Senator Bigenfiggis (ph). We...
KING: But you don't...
JACKSON: ... ought to have a sense of being a part of this, and we're not.
KING: You don't think he doesn't care?
JACKSON: Well, he does not show it. And that's the -- that's the rub. And we need to know, we need to have access for dialogue, and we don't have it.
CNN was all over this story doing numerous segments about it in the coming days, but the supposedly most trusted name in news was certainly not alone in advancing this truly disgraceful theory.
All three broadcast network news divisions reported this possible connection as did most American newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc. Magazines also did stories about what the disaster said of race relations in this country.
The disgusting notion that Bush's response was due to racism was espoused for years by press members and still is to this very day.
Potentially even worse, this assertion helped make Bush a lame duck less than a year into his final term while assisting the Democrats to take back Congress in 2006 as well as the White House in 2008.
As a result, this ugly contention will likely be a part of our 43rd President's legacy unless sane minds in the future fight to counter it.
Yet, no such connection to the government's pathetic response to the current disaster in the very same region is being made.
Why?
Consider that a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found:
Just 32 percent say Mr. Obama has a clear plan to deal with the oil leak, while 59 percent (including 64 percent of Gulf coast residents) say he does not.
The numbers are not much better among those who watched the president's Oval Office speech on the spill last week, with 35 percent of that group saying he has a clear plan and 56 percent saying he does not.
If Bush was still President, would media blame racism for his lack of a plan?
As the answer seems an almost certain "Yes," why is that?
Regardless of the reason, the press would be dead wrong just as they were about Bush's response to Katrina.
Despite their assertions, whatever the White House did or didn't do after that hurricane hit had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the race of those effected.
That was a disgusting assertion back then that should never have been made or advanced by anyone in our media.
BUT, if they were going to make such a connection then, and would if Bush was still in the White House, that they're not espousing it now despite how absurd it would be makes the way they treated our 43rd President even more reprehensible.
Less so is the lack of curiosity about what is the reason for Obama's pathetic handling of this crisis.
Former New York City major Rudy Giuliani said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" last week that the response to this oil spill would have been swifter and better coordinated if it happened in the Atlantic Ocean and was impacting the East Coast.
Assuming he's right -- and I believe he is -- why would that be?
Should government's response to a disaster relate to what states are impacted by it?
Such does seem to be the case with the current Administration which seemed quite disinterested in the recent devastating floods in Tennessee. Not surprisingly, the press also largely ignored that disaster.
So what gives here?
Are some people in this country entitled to greater federal assistance in an emergency than others?
Aren't we all Americans, or are some inherently more so?
Finally, if folks in the media believe as I do that this response would have been different if the spill was battering East Coast beaches with oil, where are the questions and the investigations into why that is, or is such curiosity only acceptable when a Republican is in the White House?
Judge Who Struck Down PeBO Drilling Ban Owns Oil Stock – Liberal Freakout Ensues
Promises, Promises: Obama’s Ever Evolving Pledge Not To Raise Taxes On People Making Less Than $250,000 A Year In Quotes
Andrea Mitchell: McChrystal ‘Ought to be Canned’
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday claimed that for what General Stanley McChrystal allegedly said about the White House, he legally, morally, ethically, professionally ought to be canned.
Discussing the issue with colleagues Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie on "The Daily Rundown," Mitchell claimed McChrystal's alleged statement "crosses the line of insubordination, and it crosses the line of the military code of justice."
She later made a comment one can't possibly imagine such a liberal media member making when George W. Bush was in the White House, "There is a reason why the military code of justice says you don't diss the Commander in Chief" (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, h/t HotAirPundit):
A few minutes later, Mitchell said:SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, HOST: Do you think this walks up to the line of insubordination?
ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh I think it crosses the line of insubordination, and it crosses the line of the military code of justice. He has challenged the Commander in Chief, and legally, morally, ethically, professionally he ought to be canned. Question is whether practically you can fire the top commander at a time when the war is really, talk about inflection points. This war is in a very bad stage.
The bottom line has to be the focus on what is the best for the men and women in the field, the troops. There is a reason why the military code of justice says you don't diss the Commander in Chief. It's because all the way down the line, this is a hierarchy. And this is telling troops in the field that they have to salute even when they don't agree with an order.
To be sure, I completely agree with her, and if it turns out that McChrystal and/or his staffers said what Rolling Stone magazine claims, he has INDEED been insubordinate and possibly should be fired or be forced to resign.
If the allegations are true, what McChrystal did is TOTALLY unacceptable regardless of who's in the White House. Plain and simple!
However, isn't it extraordinary to hear a military-hating liberal like Mitchell -- who just a few weeks ago blamed war on testosterone as well as "male insecurity," and in January said the incursions in Afghanistan and Iraq have impeded our battle against terrorism -- suddenly quoting the "military code of justice" and claiming "you don't diss the Commander in Chief?"
Wouldn't it have been wonderful if she felt the President of the United States demanded such respect when George W. Bush held the position?
After all, as NewsBusters reported Tuesday, during Bush 43's reign, America's press promoted military criticism of everyone associated with the White House.
Now that there's someone in the Oval Office the press are in love with, military codes and what's in the best interest of the troops are suddenly en vogue.
What a difference a "D" makes, huh?
I'd say this was the height of hypocrisy, but that bar gets raised virtually every 24 hours with the sycophant activists pretending to be journalists these days.
Scarborough Calls on Petraeus and Gates to Fire McChrystal to ‘Keep the President’s Hands Clean’
During Tuesday’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough called for the firing of General Stanley McChrystal. He boldly exclaimed that this discharge should not come from the Commander-in-Chief because “Democrats have to treat generals differently from Republicans.”
He goes even further and states, “Were this a Republican, were it George W. Bush, McChrystal would have been fired yesterday,” and “the press would have understood it.” Of course, because during the last administration, the media was noted for giving former President George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt, especially with military decisions.
Interestingly enough, a flashback to January 31, 2006, tells a different tale.
During MSNBC's three-hour post State of the Union coverage, Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, denounced President Bush’s message about Iraq.
Matthews thought that President Bush “cashiered” General Shinseki’s remarks about wanting more troops and believed the “idea that these guys are free to think out loud, I thought, has been yet to be proven.” Scarborough echoed Matthews and cited that, “For the most part, the Generals and the Admirals, 99 percent of them parrot what the Pentagon and what the President wants." [Full article available here]
However, it is now 2010, and it is no longer cool to have the courage to stand up or to think out loud against this administration. There is a new president, so Scarborough insisted, because he is a Democrat, “Gates and Petraeus both have to come out, they need to fire McChrystal, and keep the president's hands clean.” Since, Scarborough served on the Armed Services Committee he should be aware that the President is the top link in the chain of command and therefore is the ultimate authority, but he wants to make it easier for this Democrat to not do his duty as Commander-in-Chief.
Apparently, Scarborough’s conservative viewpoint is synonymous with other MSNBC hosts who parrot White House talking points.
The transcript of MSNBC's Morning Joe segment airing on June 22, 2010:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So Eric Bates, the executive editor of "Rolling Stone," we called him. He's going to be over here at the top of 8 to talk about this explosive article. Listen, there is no alternative. This general has to be fired. He has to be gone by the end of the day. Petraeus has to lower the boom. It can't be the president. I know some people at home won't understand this, and you'll. Democrats have to treat generals differently from Republicans. Were this a Republican, were it George W. Bush, McChrystal would have been fired yesterday.
TINA BROWN: Absolutely.
SCARBOROUGH: And the press would have understood it. Democrats have to treat them differently. Petraeus is the one that has to come out today and he's got to --
WILLIE GEIST: and Gates.
SCARBOROUGH: And Gates. Gates and Petraeus both have to come out, they need to fire McChrystal, keep the president's hands clean, because he's a Democrat. It's that simple. And they need to do it, hell they should have already done it. If they knew about this yesterday, Petraeus and Gates should have already fired McChrystal. This is outrageous.
McChrystal Goes Rogue… Again
Shortly after President Obama assumed the Commander-in-Chief duties, he retired the existing commanding general in Afghanistan and hand-picked his successor: General Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal was always known as a brash and outspoken military man, an expert in counterinsurgency, greatly respected by the troops under his command, and as having little patience for fools.
His requirement to have to answer to Obama, then, was a trainwreck waiting to happen.
Last year, McChrystal made no secret of his desire to have as many as 80,000 additional troops to press the fight in Afghanistan. He went to the press to state that objective and to dismiss those, like VP Joe Biden, who opposed any kind of surge.
That outspokenness got him into trouble: Obama summoned him aboard Air Force One in Europe and dressed him down a bit. And while McChrystal was right on policy (never commit militarily to an operation without committing overwhelming force and having a clear plan), he was wrong to go public with his troop level requests, and his concerns and reservations.
Today we’ve got another trainwreck smash-up.
McChrystal is being recalled to the White House to meet with Obama tomorrow to explain disrespectful comments he and his aides made to Rolling Stone magazine about Obama, Biden, other top national security officials, and the war strategy. Once again, McChrystal is right on policy (Obama is a destructive, disengaged, uninterested fool whose withdrawal timetable and
ridiculous hamstringing rules of engaement are costing us lives and progress), but he was wrong to go public with that criticism.
Obama will decide if he’s Harry Truman and McChrystal is Douglas MacArthur.
But there are 2 big points to consider as this story unfolds:
1. McChyrstal is a four star general, graduate of West Point, has extensive combat experience and a chest full of medals. In other words, he knows what he’s doing. This was NOT a mistake. These comments were not “off the cuff” or limited to just one or two flippant remarks. And the interview was deliberately given to far-Left, anti-war Rolling Stone. None of this was a
coincidence.
That can only mean one thing: that McChrystal is playing a game of chicken with Obama. He was daring Obama to respond. Obama runs a huge risk if he fires him. If the war goes under, it’ll be Obama’s fault for firing an insubordinate and prickly but effective general. If he doesn’t fire him, he may look weak and McChrystal will likely feel freer to do what he needs to do to win on the battlefield. Either way: McChrystal has made his point.
2. Many are asking today: Does Obama still have the necessary trust and confidence in McChrystal? I think the more appropriate and important question is: Does McChrystal have ANY trust and confidence in the Commander-in-Chief?
Video: Drama, Corruption, Comedy, It’s ‘Obama’s Chicago Network’
Breaking: Federal Judge Blocks Obama Admin Drilling Moratorium (A Win For Brave NAE Experts?)
Via the Associated Press (link may be dynamic and subject to change):
A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.
The White House says President Barack Obama's administration will appeal.
Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium.
This later paragraph from AP's breaking news report explains why I believe Ken Salazar's dissenting experts from the National Academy of Engineering may have influenced the judge's outlook on the case:
Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.
Feldman's take seems to mirror the language of the dissenting experts.
Investors Business Daily editorialized on Salazar's moratorium imposition travesty on June 10:
Experts brought together by the Obama administration to review offshore drilling safety were asked to review recommendations in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. They did not give their blessing to the six-month drilling moratorium announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and have accused him of deliberately appending their report to make it seem like they did.
According to the New Orleans Times Picayune, Salazar's May 27 report to the president said the seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, including a six-month ban on drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. The experts say the report they reviewed suggested stopping only new drilling in waters deeper than 1,000 feet.
The reviewers for Salazar's report were provided by the National Academy of Engineering. Their joint letter says that while they agreed with the report's various safety recommendations, "we do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors."
One panelist, Bob Bea of the University of California, Berkeley, said in an e-mail: "Moratorium was not a part of the ... report we consulted-advised-reviewed." The academy's Ken Arnold was less subtle, saying: "The secretary should be free to recommend whatever he thinks is correct, but he should not be free to use our names to justify his political decisions."
The panelists simply oppose the announced moratorium. "A blanket moratorium is not the answer," the letter says. "It will not measurably reduce risk further, and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy, which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do."
Neither do we, and frankly we're tired of the deliberate manipulation of facts and truth in the name of protecting the environment ...
Even the Associated Press finally broke down and covered the dissenters' outcries yesterday, while still somewhat concealing the full scope of their objections:
The scientists, who had consulted with Salazar on a May 27 report on drilling safety, said the Interior Department falsely implied that they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium" that they actually opposed. The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy.
A spokeswoman for Salazar said the May 27 report was not intended to imply that all experts from the National Academy of Engineering had agreed to the moratorium.
"By listing the members of the NAE that peer-reviewed the 22 safety recommendations contained in the report, we didn't mean to imply that they also agreed with the moratorium on deep-water drilling," said spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff.
Sure, Kendra.
Though it's only one step, it may very well be that thanks to the stink raised by the NAE experts and outlets like the Wall Street Journal, IBD, and many center-right blogs, the nation might start getting the energy sector of its economy back in gear.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
Obama Says Oil Spill Is Like 9-11… But Sends Only 20 of 2,000 US Oil Skimmer Boats to Florida Coast
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…
Last week Barack Obama told Politico that the BP oil spill was like 9-11–
But, it’s been over 60 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and he’s only sent 20 of 2,000 US oil skimmer boats to the coast of Florida.
Senator George LeMieux of Florida told the Shark Tank that there are only 20 skimmer boats off the coast of Florida out of 2,000 available skimmer boats in the United States. Lemieux says that Obama is afraid to move them to Florida because there won’t be any in place in case there is an oil leak somewhere else.
…That sounds like Obama.
Via the Shark Tank:
Senator Lemieux is keeping a count on the number of skimmer boats the adminstration has working off the Florida coast on his website:
Yesterday, Senator Lemieux requested a daily skimmer count update from the adminstration.
There have been calls to bring in more skimmer boats for at least two weeks but they have been ignored.
22 Countires have also offered to bring in their skimmer boats.
Florida News Capital reported:
Florida has a new point man to help speed up the response efforts to the BP oil leak. U.S. Coast Guard Commander Joe Boudrow (Boo-Dro –oh) will work to secure more equipment and help organize beach clean up efforts for the state. As Whitney Ray tells us, his first marching orders… bring more skimmers to Florida.
Dem Leader Hoyer: Middle Class Tax Cuts Aren’t ‘Sacrosanct’; WaPo Buries Story on Page A13
In a recent interview, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said that the Bush tax cuts that affect the middle class should not be considered "totally sacrosanct."
The number two Democrat in the House of Representatives "acknowledg[ed] that it would be difficult to reduce long-term deficits without breaking President Obama's pledge to protect families earning less than $250,000 a year," reported Lori Montgomery in the June 22 Washington Post.
That certainly sounds worthy of front-page placement, especially in the midst of a contentious midterm election year, but Post editors instead parked the 9-paragraph story below the fold on page A13 of the print edition and gave it a snoozer of a headline: "Hoyer: Tax cuts need to be examined."
"Middle-class benefit may not be affordable long-term, he says," the subheader dryly noted.
The online version headline gave a similarly bland headline, "Rep. Steny Hoyer says middle-class tax breaks may not be affordable long-term."
At no point in her article did Montgomery raise the question of whether an increased tax burden would be "affordable" to middle class earners weathering a rough and uncertain economy.
General McChrystal and Rolling Stone: Suicide by Interview?
I extend my sincerest apology for this profile. It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened. Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome.”
-General Stanley McChrystal, 6/22/2010
The interview of General McChrystal and his in Rolling Stone was not an accident, it’s a perfect example of suicide by interview. The General knew that every criticism would be “on the record.” He also knew that the President will have no choice but to relieve the General of his command after their meeting tomorrow. The Military Code of Justice provides that a General does not criticize the Commander-in-Chief publicly however, the General criticized Obama in a major way and even picked the perfect vehicle to do it in the most visible of ways.
McChrystal’s statements clearly point to the fact that he believes the war cannot be won under the President’s parameters, a tepid escalation to protect the president from his political supports. McChrystal is clearly frustrated by Barack Obama and his administration and finds it necessary to protect his men. He finds himself having to take radical steps to protect his troops in the face of an administration trying to fight a war on a half-assed basis.
According to Fox, Some of the highlights of the up-coming article include:
- Although McChrystal voted for Obama, the two failed to connect from the start. Obama called McChrystal on the carpet last fall for speaking too bluntly about his desire for more troops. The President did not want to hear his advice. “I found that time painful,” McChrystal said in the article, on newsstands Friday. “I was selling an unsellable position.”
- It quoted an adviser to McChrystal dismissing the early meeting with Obama as a “10-minute photo op.Obama clearly didn’t know anything about him, who he was. The boss was pretty disappointed,” the adviser told the magazine.
- The military is clearly unhappy about Obama’s arbitrary deadline of July of next year. The White House’s troop commitment was toed a pledge to begin bringing them home in July 2011. Counterinsurgency strategists advising McChrystal regarded as an arbitrary deadline.
- The article list of administration figures said to back McChrystal, including Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and puts the SCHMOTUS (Schmo of the United States), Vice President Joe Biden at the top of a list of those who don’t. The article says McChrystal has seized control of the war “by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House.”
- Asked by the Rolling Stone reporter about what he now feels of the war strategy advocated by the SHMOTUS last fall (fewer troops, more drone attacks), McChrystal and his aides attempted to come up with a good one-liner to dismiss the question. “Are you asking about Vice President Biden?” McChrystal joked. “Who’s that?” “Biden?” one aide was quoted as saying. “Did you say: Bite me?”
- Another aide called White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones, a retired four star general, a “clown” who was “stuck in 1985.
- Some of the strongest criticism, however, was reserved for Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “The boss says he’s like a wounded animal,” one of the general’s aides was quoted as saying. “Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he’s going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous.”
- If Eikenberry had doubts about the troop buildup, McChrystal said he never expressed them until a leaked internal document threw a wild card into the debate over whether to add more troops last November. In the document, Eikenberry said Afghan President Hamid Karzai was not a reliable partner for the counterinsurgency strategy McChrystal was hired to execute. McChrystal said he felt “betrayed” and accused the ambassador of giving himself cover. Here’s one that covers his flank for the history books,” McChrystal told the magazine. “Now, if we fail, they can say ‘I told you so.”‘
McChrystal is a Four-Star General, a position you do not achieve by being an idiot. Today’s military leadership is well schooled not only in war-making but in diplomacy. He knew what the content of the article would be. He also knew that the article would lead his own dismissal (or the proverbial resignation letter where he says he’s quitting to spend more time with his family).
The Rolling Stone interview highlights the difference in the leadership styles of the President and the General. When this President faces a crisis, he looks for someone either internally or externally to blame. On the other hand, the General sees the War in Afghanistan reaching a crisis point because of the way it is being waged, rather than looking to find a scapegoat in his ranks as Obama would do, McChrystal found a way to let the country know what is really happening, while at the same time redirect any criticism for the war effort, away from his men and on to his own wide shoulders.
Notice that even in his apology above,the General does not take back the comments, he simply apologizes for making the comments. The Military commander was sending his troops and the administration a message. To the troops he was saying ” I have your backs even to the point of hurting my own career.” The message for the administration was, “Your way isn’t working, let us do what is necessary to win this war. Even though this was a violation of the Code of Honor, the General’s statements were a service to America and to his men by confirming what we all suspected, the President and his administration does not have a clue.
While Networks Ignore Obama Golf Outing, CNN Humorist Gets Story Right
While media outlets relentlessly denounced BP CEO Tony Hayward for taking Saturday off to participate in a yacht race, they mostly glossed over or completely ignored President Barack Obama's Saturday golf outing with Vice President Joe Biden.
It was left to CNN's resident humorist to connect the dots.
"It's the yachting versus golf smack down, round one," declared Moos. "BP's CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race...CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf, compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency."
Moos's evenhanded coverage of Obama's and Hayward's weekend misadventures contrasted markedly with reports filed by network news correspondents. ABC's Sharyn Alfonsi covered the outrage surrounding Hayward's yachting, but ignored criticism of Obama's golfing. CBS anchor Charles Osgood parroted White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's derision of Hayward, but failed to present an Obama critic.
The grown-up journalists might have selfishly ignored Obama's 39th round of golf since taking office, but as Moos reported, at least the children shared both sides of the story.
"My mom doesn't take breaks like every two months," proclaimed one child. "You don't really need to take a break every two months to go see a yacht race."
"President Obama? I'm not sure he should actually be golfing right now," argued another.
The transcript of the segment can be found below:
CNN--Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
American Morning
6/22/10
6:54 a.m.
KIRAN CHETRY, co-host: 54 Minutes past the hour. Time now for the most news in the morning with Jeanne. BP's CEO did manage to find cleaner waters over the weekend and many said it was a major PR fail for the company.
JOHN ROBERTS, co-host: But many critics are saying that the president can't say anything about it until he puts down the golf clubs. Here's Jeanne.
JEANNE MOOS, CNN correspondent: It's the yachting versus golf smack down, round one. BP's CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race.
JOY BEHAR, co-host of "The View": How dare he just take off.
Sen. RICHARD SHELBY (R-Ala): The height of stupidity.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: How do you spell fool?
MOOS: But before you could spell it – BP's CEO – President Obama's golfing came under attack.
DANA PERINO, former George W. Bush press secretary: Almost five hours on the golf course with Biden.
ELIZABETH HASSELBECK, co-host of "The View": And it shouldn't have been eight times between the spill and now.
MOOS: Actually, seven times. CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf, compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency, including some that got into a Michael Moore film.
Former President GEORGE W. BUSH: Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive.
MOOS: And while some equate president Obama's golf to Tony Hayward's yachting – two different men, two different jobs, one management style – the president's defenders note a big difference.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: That's the thing, he didn't create that mess that is there. What do they want the man to do? Put a wetsuit on and go down and fix that pipe?
MOOS: Meanwhile, Politico pondered the really important question, why is Tony Hayward's yacht names "Bob"? Wondering if it has anything to do with the Bill Murray movie, "What About Bob?" Sailor so scared he has to be lashed to the mast. Now Tony Hayward is being lashed.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I really think it was a disgrace.
MOOS: On the other hand, surprisingly it was the first day off he's had in two months.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I really don't care.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Too bad. Look what he did.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Every day of his life is a day off.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I think he's probably due for a little down time.
MOOS: But downtime on the water can be a downer. Remember when presidential candidate John Kerry went wind surfing and it ended up in an attack ad.
ANNOUNCER: Whichever way the wind blows.
MOOS: BP's CEO is being mocked in an animation by a Taiwanese tabloid website. He sits on the beach sending out a drink to a guy drowning in oil, from the mouths of babes.
UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: My mom doesn't take breaks like every two months. You don't really need to take a break every two months to go see a yacht race.
UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: In the two hours it takes to golf or to go yachting, another 1,000 to 10,000 tons of oil could leak out.
UNIDENTIFIED CHILD: President Obama? I'm not sure he should actually be golfing right now.
MOOS: Just plug the darn hole, Mr. president. Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York.
Budget director Orszag: Mission accomplished!
Let’s blow this pop stand!
White House budget director Peter Orszag is reportedly on his way out in July. He’ll depart from the Beltway with a beautiful ABC News reporter on his arm — and an ever-swelling ocean of debt at his feet.
Mission accomplished!
Mr. Orszag, an economist who previously spent nearly two years as director of the Congressional Budget Office, somewhat reluctantly accepted Mr. Obama’s invitation to join the Cabinet after the 2008 election and never planned to stay more than two years. Typically, budget directors do not.
While the president recently urged Mr. Orszag to remain, the calendar for drafting the next budget weighed in favor of Mr. Orszag leaving sooner. So did Mr. Orszag’s personal calendar: He is getting married in September.
By fall, as Congress is taking final action on the budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the Office of Management and Budget is busy preparing the next year’s budget request to be released next February. Mr. Orszag argued inside the White House that his successor should be in place to put the next budget together from the start.
Orszag is headed to an unnamed think tank, says Bloomberg News. He’ll be able to share all his newly-acquired knowledge of the Chicago Way. Flashback July 2009:
Six months into the Obama administration, it should now be clear to all Americans: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.
Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the Today Show that he had met with CBO director Douglas Elmendorf – just as the number-crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims. Yes, question the timing. The CBO is supposed to be a neutral score-keeper – not a water boy for the White House. But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health care savings claims, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy.
Orszag warned the CBO in a public letter that it risked feeding the perception that it was “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.” Message: Leave the number-fudging to the boss. Capiche?
President Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his health care press conference. “Keep up the heat” translated into Organizing for America/Democrat National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against Obamacare’s high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.
Looks like there won’t be a health care beer summit any time soon.
***
Who will take Orszag’s place? Here’s a depressing look at the Clinton-era retreads, left-wing think tankers, and Democrat cronies in the running.
WSJ Lays Out The Differences Between Katrina And BP Responses
Scarborough Rips ‘Cheeto’ Chomping Bloggers For Criticizing Mika
The Morning Joe host said he wasn't going to "call them names," but then went on to mockingly imitate bloggers fulminating through their Cheetos.
Here was the exchange of yesterday:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: You know Mika, you keep reading these, these . . .And a bit later . . .
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: White House talking points.
SCARBOROUGH: Talking points. You keep reading these talking points.
JACK WELCH: They [the government] have experts on flow rates. So I don't think --But here was the suddenly chivalrous Scarborough of this morning.
BRZEZINSKI: I've got some interesting news on that.
WELCH: You've got some more points on that? [Laughs]
SCARBOROUGH: You got some more points?
BRZEZINSKI: You want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House? And I'll be very transparent about that. Because of your friend Rudy Giuliani who came here last week spewing out a whole bunch of nothing.
SCARBOROUGH: Mika yesterday, she gets pounded by—you know, I won't even call them names—because then they'll say [imitating] "Scarborough called [inaudible]" eating Cheetos. But bloggers said oh, Mika is just reading White House talking points. Well, it's actually called reporting. We asked. Because Rudy came on here and said [Obama] hasn't talked to any industry people, and so I said, let's call the White House and get a list of all the meetings. And that's exactly what we did. And we got the list. And it said that actually he had been reaching out to industry types from the beginning. And so, we read the list. Now, we read the list differently. Mika interpreted it one way and I another, but that's another - -I resent Joe's remarks, personally observing a strict no-Cheetos-before-noon rule. At 6 AM, my repast of choice is a box of Hostess Twinkies, washed down with whatever dregs I can drain from the crumpled cans of last night's Keystone Light six-pack.
In any case, bloggers are hereby put on notice: when Joe chides Mika for toeing the White House line, he's just joshing. Report his words at your Cheeto-spewing peril!
Helen Thomas Called Al-Qaeda ‘So-Called Terrorists,’ ‘Some People Think They’re Freedom Fighters’
Over the past couple of years, former Hearst columnist Helen Thomas had adopted a recurring habit of employing moral equivalency between al-Qaeda terrorists and the actions of the American military as, on at least three occasions, she referred to "so-called terrorists" or "so-called terrorism."
In February 2009, after she used the term "so-called terrorists" in a White House briefing, she was asked by Tommy Christopher – currently of Mediaite – to explain why she employed this choice of words, and she elaborated: "Because some people think they’re freedom fighters since they are in their own country. And we can dub them as ‘terrorists’ and their tactics are horrible, but so are ours. We drop bombs on people in Iraq, people who did nothing to us."
On the January 14, 2010, The O’Reilly Factor, FNC host Bill O’Reilly used his show’s regular "Reality Check" segment to highlight comments she made after being questioned again by Christopher in which she referred to America fighting "so-called terrorism" and expressed a view of moral equivalency between the United States and the terrorists with which America is at war. When asked in an interview with Mediaite what her point was in repeatedly asking Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan at a January 7, 2010, press conference why al-Qaeda terrorists are trying to kill Americans, as if to suggest that such behavior was provoked by wrongdoing by the U.S., Thomas responded:
I was trying to find out why, why, what’s, look, we’ve been in this war, eight, nine years, against this so-called terrorism. And I do say "so-called" because in the newspapers, if you read, you read about the militants, you don’t read about us bombing everybody, and never really explaining why, and going into three, four different countries, Middle East, Africa, and so forth. Who are we? And why are we doing this?
One of her earlier uses of the "so-called terrorists" term came in a February 14, 2008, interview with Dr. James Zogby on the Arab American Institute’s Viewpoint program. After complaining about the press not being more aggressive with the Bush administration on Iraq, Thomas continued: "I think the press obviously laid down on the job. The fear card was played on the press just as Congress became very cowardly. Nobody wanted to rock the boat. Nobody wanted to challenge the administration. They were afraid we’d be playing into the hands of the ‘terrorists.’ So called." Thomas raised her hands to mimic quotation marks as she spoke the word "terrorists."
Below are some of the relevant transcripts of Helen Thomas in interviews with the AAI's Dr. James Zogby and with Mediaite's Tommy Christopher:
#From the February 14, 2008, Arab American Institute’s Viewpoint program, with Dr. James Zogby:
HELEN THOMAS: I think Barack Obama is too far all over the place on the Middle East. He issued a statement on Gaza saying it was all right to cut them off from oil, from fuel and food. He has taken the Israeli position on everything. So I don’t think the Arabs per se, and I think he has to give a wide distance because of his middle name, want to be sure he doesn’t bend over backwards toward the Arabs. No, I mean, I would like to hear more concrete things from him. I want universal health care, single payer everybody like Social Security, Medicare and so on. He’s not specific.
...
[John McCain is] caving on everything that he stood for, including – including – torture. He was five and a half years in a Hanoi prison, Hanoi Hilton, and now he’s come out against a ban on torture. That was the only thing, and campaign finance reform, those were the good things. But he’s for this war to last 100 years, he’s anti-abortion rights, he’s anti-gun control – no, I’m sorry, I don’t see him standing up for anything for human beings.
...
THOMAS (COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PRESS NOT BEING TOUGH ENOUGH ON IRAQ): I think the press obviously laid down on the job. The fear card was played on the press just as Congress became very cowardly. Nobody wanted to rock the boat. Nobody wanted to challenge the administration. They were afraid we’d be playing into the hands of the "terrorists." So called. (RAISES HER HANDS TO MIMIC QUOTATION MARKS WHEN SHE SAYS "TERRORISTS")
...
(Answering a question of what was the most egregious thing she had witnessed in her time working at the White Hosue)
The things this President has done have affected every man, woman and child in the world.
..
CALLER: Why is the United States against Iran developing nuclear capability to defend themselves against most of the other countries surrounding them who do have it?
THOMAS: That’s a wonderful question. It’s so logical. It’s incredible. And Bush has never been asked that? Why? Because it has been decided that Iran is a powerful Middle East nation that could be influencing others, and they don’t want any nation to have any kind of weapon that would be on the par with Israel’s arsenal.
#From the February 9, 2009, White House press conference:
Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and, are maintaining the safe havens, and Afghanistan, for these so-called "terrorists"? And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?
#Posted at Hotair.com on February 20, 2009:
TOMMY CHRISTOPHER: When you asked the President about Afghainstan and Pakistan during a news conference, you said, "so-called terrorists." Do you want to explain why you say "so-called terrorists."
HELEN THOMAS: Because some people think they’re freedom fighters since they are in their own country. And we can dub them as "terrorists" and their tactics are horrible, but so are ours. We drop bombs on people in Iraq, people who did nothing to us.
CHRISTOPHER: So would you say that it’s for the sake of intellectual honesty that you do that?
THOMAS: I say we need it.
#Posted at Mediaite on January 13, 2010:
TOMMY CHRISTOPHER: You asked John Brennan about, you said, "Why are they trying to attack us?" A lot of our readers had questions about that, were critical. What were you trying to get at with that question?
HELEN THOMAS: I was trying to find out why, why, what’s, look, we’ve been in this war, eight, nine years, against this so-called terrorism. And I do say "so-called" because in the newspapers, if you read, you read about the militants, you don’t read about us bombing everybody, and never really explaining why, and going into three, four different countries, Middle East, Africa, and so forth. Who are we? Why are we doing this? Why isn’t every reporter asking that? I think, I mean, don’t you think you ought to know why you’re asked to go kill and die?
CHRISTOPHER; So, what sort of response were you expecting from Brennan? Did you get what you expected? Were you satisfied with the answer?
THOMAS: Hell no, because the real reason is foreign policy. How would we like foreign troops coming into our country and killing the people? That’s the answer. They say religion and everything else. Religion could be a good cover story in maybe some element, but the real reason is us being in places where we don’t belong – Afghanistan, Iraq – there was no reason, no Iraqis were involved in 9/11.
Video: Obama Admin Says it Will Fight For Illegal Immigrants’ Wages
In a commercial, President Obama's Labor Secretary Hilda Solis tells illegal immigrants that she will help them get paid a "fair" wage. Solis insisted that it doesn't matter if a worker is documented or undocumented they still deserve to be paid "fairly".
The Eyeblast Blog has the full details on how the government justifies fighting for people who are employed illegally to be paid more.
And the Prize for Lamest Defense of Obama Goes To…
That's certainly one way to look at it...
After confessing that "President Obama's relationship with America, like many a young marriage, is growing sour" in his Saturday column "The Thrill Is Gone," New York Times columnist Charles Blow defended the president by citing a promises-kept tally at PolitiFact.com:
Of the 168 promises where action has been completed, they judge Obama to have broken only 19. That's not bad, and it must be acknowledged. We have to stop waiting for him to be great and allow him to be good.
Obama Announces Dad Fund: Because Some Things You Can’t Put a Price Tag On, But Fatherhood Ain’t One of ‘Em
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Nothing’s more inspiring to a child than a dad who’s only sticking around for some Obama bucks:
President Barack Obama announced a new fatherhood and families fund at an event in Washington, D.C., on Monday to celebrate Fathers Day.
The fund is part of a nationwide fatherhood initiative that the president said is designed to raise awareness about the importance of fatherhood and help absent fathers re-engage with their families.
[...]
“Nothing in life compares” to being Sasha and Malia’s father, he said. “You don’t need a fancy degree for that. You don’t need a lot of money for that.”
You may not need a fancy degree or a lot of money to be a good father, but you do need a lot of money for Obama’s new fatherhood and families fund. How much? Oh, about $500 million:
The Budget also includes $500 million for a new Fatherhood, Marriage, and Families Innovation Fund. The fund will provide competitive grants to States to conduct and rigorously evaluate comprehensive responsible fatherhood programs, including those that incorporate healthy marriage components and demonstrations geared towards improving child outcomes by improving outcomes for custodial parents with serious barriers to self sufficiency as a mechanism for improving outcomes for children in these families.
What!? I don’t trust a sentence that uses the word “outcomes” three times. The more they distribute “outcome,” the more they redistribute “income.”
And of course, with any new wonderful government flush-fund comes the inevitable dot-gov website: Fatherhood.gov — the “National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse.” Are we promoting fatherhood or selling fly swatters & yo-yos? We can also be reasonably certain that the SEIU has graciously stepped forward to accept part of this funding in order to organize a dad’s union.
I’m assuming that Obama changing his pro-abortion stance so more people have a crack at being a dad is not an option.
There’s a good reason politicians should stay out of the father mentoring business — because before long the average dad would be opening credit cards in his daughter’s name, racking up insurmountable debt to teach fiscal responsibility, teaching the kids how to cheat on taxes, blaming Bush for his son’s inability to catch a baseball and resigning from fatherhood in disgrace after getting caught boinking Junior’s babysitter.
Hopefully this fund does have some impact in helping at least one man hear the seven sweetest words a father can hear from his child: Have you plugged the hole yet, daddy?
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Obama Knew all and did Nothing….
Network Morning Shows Rage Against BP CEO’s Yachting Trip, Ignore Obama’s Golf Outing
All three morning shows on Monday railed against BP CEO Tony Hayward for attending a yachting race in England on Saturday, but they found no such anger for Barack Obama's golf outing on the same day, ignoring the story. The pattern was nearly identical on Sunday, with only Good Morning America briefly mentioning the President's recreational activities.
On Monday's Early Show, Katie Couric appeared and derided, "But that image of Tony Hayward participating in that yacht race over the weekend probably hurt his image even more, as if that's possible." Good Morning America's Sharyn Alfonsi indignantly reported, "...Tony Hayward goes sailing, but residents weren't the only ones wondering what was he thinking?"
The morning shows even repeated the White House's assaults on Hayward's yachting trip, hypocritically ignoring Obama's golfing. On the June 20 Sunday Morning (CBS's weekend equivalent of the Early Show), host Charles Osgood parroted, "White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel labeled Hayward's outing another PR gaffe."
On Monday's GMA, ABC reporter Alfonsi featured a clip of Emanuel mocking, "Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting." The PR problems for the President went unmentioned by Alfonsi.
Today on Monday featured Matt Lauer asserting that Hayward is "under renewed fire, this time for attending a glamorous yacht race." On Sunday's GMA, Alfonsi chided the event as a "ritzy yacht race."
In total, Monday's Today, Good Morning America and Early Show all ran full reports on Hayward's activities. On Sunday, Today and GMA did the same thing. Sunday Morning ran an anchor brief on the race.
The only mention of Obama's golfing came during an exchange between Sunday GMA co-host Bill Weir and guest Jake Tapper, anchor of This Week:
BILL WEIR: I understand after your interview with Emanuel there, the White House announced that the President was spending his day golfing with vice president Biden. So, some might criticize that since the President has made clear he is ultimately the man in charge. The White House responded to those criticisms?
JAKE TAPPER: Well, I don't think they would see it exactly the same thing, yachting in a pristine environment by the man who runs the company responsible for this great environmental disaster is not the same thing as the President taking in some holes at a military base golf course, they say. Although Republicans say people on golf courses shouldn't throw stones.
If it's poor form to yacht while the Gulf Coast suffers one of the worst environmental and economic disasters in history, one would think the same would be true for the President. Viewers who watched the network morning shows wouldn't know that, however.
For more on this double standard, see a NewsBusters post by Noel Sheppard.
(Thanks to Matt Balan and MRC interns Alex Fitzsimmons and Matt Hadro for transcript assistance.)
A transcript of Monday's GMA segment on Hayward, which aired at 7:04, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: Meanwhile, though, BP's CEO Tony Hayward is under mounting pressure to resign. So, what did he do this time? Sharyn Alfonsi is in Louisiana with more than on that. Good morning, Sharyn.
SHARYN ALFONSI: Good morning, Robin, Well, just when you think people here couldn't be positive more outraged, Tony Hayward goes sailing but residents weren't the only ones wondering what was he thinking? Today, this image of Tony Hayward racing ace 50-foot yacht off the coast. [Talking to a resident.] What does that say to you?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: That he really doesn't give a flying flip about any of us That's amazing.
ALABAMA GOVERNOR BOB RILEY (R): I don't know how many yachts are over there. But put a skimmer on the back of them, bring them back over here because we certainly need them.
ALFONSI: A spokesman for BP says Hayward's day off was a rare moment of private time. And said that "no matter where he is, he's always in touch with what's happening within BP." But, critics say he's clearly out of touch with everyone else.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: He wants his life back. Maybe he's trying to go on with his normal life, you know? It's unfortunate we can't do that.
RAHM EMANUEL (White House chief of staff): Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting.
ALFONSI: Exactly what Hayward's job is these days is unclear. BP's chairman told Britain's Sky News that Hayward was being relieved from the day-to-day operations dealing with the leak.
CARL HENRIC SVANBERG (Chairman, BP): He's now handing over the operations, the daily operations, to Bob Dudley. And he will be more home then be here.
ALFONSI: But, a day later, a BP spokesman said until the leak is capped, Tony Hayward is very much in charge. [A picture of him on his yacht appears onscreen.] Hayward at the helm, now navigating hot water. And Tony Hayward did issue a statement of sorts this weekend by twitter. He said, "The oil spill is still my top priority." That message came after that race. That is a real hard sell down here in the gulf right now. George?
White House Denies Rahm Emanuel Quitting
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
The Telegraph reported yesterday that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel would quit in six to eight months due to growing rifts with Obama’s inner circle.
According to Fox News, the White House has denied that story:
The White House Monday dismissed reports that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel plans to leave his post after becoming frustrated with the Obama administration as “ludicrous.”
Citing Washington insiders, British newspaper The Daily Telegraph said Emanuel was fed up with the “idealism” of President Barack Obama’s closest advisers and was concerned about burning out and losing touch with his three children due to the pressure of the job.
In response to the report, a senior White House official told Fox News the “ludicrous” story was “not worth looking into.”
I don’t doubt that having to do things like highlighting the BP CEO’s lack of public relations talent for going yachting during the oil crisis while your own boss is on the golf course would add a bit of frustration and stress to the job, but Rahm doesn’t seem to have much trouble unwinding.
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
Mika Admits: I’m ‘Working With White House’ On Oil Spill Talking Points
Give her high marks for candor: on today's show, Mika Brzezinski admitted that she has been "working with the White House" on oil spill talking points. But that still leaves the issue of the journalistic propriety of someone in Brzezinski's position serving as such a blatant shill for the president. H/t tip NB reader Ray R.
Mika could be seen reading from her notes during exchanges with former GE CEO Jack Welch, who was critical of the PBO's handling of the spill. After repeated ribbing from Welch and Joe Scarborough over her use of White House talking points, Mika came clean . . .
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Because of your friend Rudy Giuliani who came here last week spewing out a whole bunch of nothing.If Brzezinski believes Giuliani had his facts wrong, have her book a White House official to straighten things out. But for Mika to be collaborating directly with the Obama admin in mounting a defense is unseemly at best. Then again, credit Mika for saying out loud what surely happens with many others behind the scenes.
Mika Admits: I’m ‘Working With White House’ On Oil Spill Talking Points
Give her high marks for candor: on today's show, Mika Brzezinski admitted that she has been "working with the White House" on oil spill talking points. But that still leaves the issue of the journalistic propriety of someone in Brzezinski's position serving as such a blatant shill for the president. H/t tip NB reader Ray R.
Mika could be seen reading from her notes during exchanges with former GE CEO Jack Welch, who was critical of the PBO's handling of the spill. After repeated ribbing from Welch and Joe Scarborough over her use of White House talking points, Mika came clean . . .
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Because of your friend Rudy Giuliani who came here last week spewing out a whole bunch of nothing.If Brzezinski believes Giuliani had his facts wrong, have her book a White House official to straighten things out. But for Mika to be collaborating directly with the Obama admin in mounting a defense is unseemly at best. Then again, credit Mika for saying out loud what surely happens with many others behind the scenes.
Mika Admits: I’m ‘Working With White House’ On Oil Spill Talking Points
Give her high marks for candor: on today's show, Mika Brzezinski admitted that she has been "working with the White House" on oil spill talking points. But that still leaves the issue of the journalistic propriety of someone in Brzezinski's position serving as such a blatant shill for the president. H/t tip NB reader Ray R.
Mika could be seen reading from her notes during exchanges with former GE CEO Jack Welch, who was critical of the PBO's handling of the spill. After repeated ribbing from Welch and Joe Scarborough over her use of White House talking points, Mika came clean . . .
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Do you want to know why I have a file that I've been working on with the White House—and I'll be very transparent about that? Because of your friend Rudy Giuliani who came here last week spewing out a whole bunch of nothing.If Brzezinski believes Giuliani had his facts wrong, have her book a White House official to straighten things out. But for Mika to be collaborating directly with the Obama admin in mounting a defense is unseemly at best. Then again, credit Mika for saying out loud what surely happens with many others behind the scenes.
PeBO Apparently Bored With The Whole Gulf Oil Spill Thing
Late Night Open Thread: Rahm Emanuel Leaving White House?
Rahm Emanuel Expected to Quit White House
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, is expected to leave his job later this year after growing tired of the "idealism" of Barack Obama's inner circle. Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to "bang heads together" to get policy pushed through. Mr Emanuel, 50, enjoys a good working relationship with Mr Obama but they are understood to have reached an understanding that differences over style mean he will serve only half the full four-year term.
Read the whole piece and offer your thoughts.
Sunday Talk Shows All Start With BP Hayward’s Yachting, Ignore Obama’s Golfing
As NewsBusters previously reported, America's media on Saturday had a collective hissy fit over BP CEO Tony Hayward having the nerve to participate in a yacht race on his day off.At the same time, no such outrage was expressed concerning President Obama and Vice President Biden going golfing.
This double standard continued Sunday as the three broadcast network political talk shows all began with Hayward's yacht outing while ignoring the President's R&R on the links.
What follows are videos and transcripts of the opening segments of ABC's "This Week," CBS's "Face the Nation," and NBC's "Meet the Press":
JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Hello, and happy Father's Day. Joining me this morning, the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel, happy Father's Day.
RAHM EMANUEL, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Thanks, Jake.
TAPPER: Before we start the questions, I'm interested in your reactions to photographs from Saturday's BP CEO Tony Hayward at a yacht race off the Isle of Wight in the clean waters off southern England. What goes through your mind when you see those pictures?
BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, the wind is pushing the oil to the Panhandle of Florida now. How much worse can it get? And while the oil keeps on gushing, Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, took a break and went yachting in cleaner waters off the coast of England. Is it time for him to go? Is the twenty billion dollars BP has put in escrow enough to meet the damage claims? Just two of many questions for Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, who toured the region yesterday; Florida Senator Bill Nelson; Congressman Joseph Cao of Louisiana and Senator Barbara Boxer, chair of the Senate Environment Committee. I'll have a final word today on the high price of gas. But first, Day 62 of the Disaster in the Gulf.
ANNOUNCER: FACE THE NATION with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob
Schieffer. And now from CBS News in Washington, Bob Schieffer.
BOB SCHIEFFER: And, good morning, again. Senator Shelby is joining us today from Mobile. Senator Boxer is in San Francisco. Congressman Cao in New Orleans and Senator Nelson is with us here in the studio. Welcome to you all. Well, Senator Shelby, you were all over the Gulf Coast region yesterday. Did you run into any yacht racing down there?
MR. DAVID GREGORY: This Sunday, disaster in the Gulf with no end in sight and a looming summer of oil. Was this the defining week in the Gulf Coast crisis? The issues: containment of the oil and cleanup, holding BP accountable, the impact on the Obama presidency, the future of offshore drilling, and will Washington think big about finding other sources of energy? This morning, our special discussion. With us, Kenneth Feinberg, the independent administrator of the BP oil spill victim compensation fund; Mississippi's governor, Republican Haley Barbour; Louisiana senator, Democrat Mary Landrieu; the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts; the former president of the Shell Oil Company, John Hofmeister; and "BBC World News America"'s Katty Kay.
Announcer: From NBC News in Washington, MEET THE PRESS, with David Gregory.
MR. GREGORY: Good morning. After BP's Tony Hayward turned in a poor performance on Capitol Hill this week, he appears to have made matters worse by attending a yacht race over the weekend, drawing yet more criticism from many on the Gulf Coast and beyond who feel that the oil company's chief executive has been sorely out of touch since this disaster began 62 days ago.
That's what hockey fans call a hat trick!
Nice going, folks.
Of course, no one is defending Hayward's poor public relations move here.
Instead, if media are going to spend so much time on his yacht outing making the case that it shows how detached he is from his company's crisis, the same MUST be said of a President that is golfing as millions of gallons of oil slam into HIS nation's coast.
Without similar scorn, our press are just once again demonstrating their infamous double standard -- not that we're at all surprised.
*****Update: Hot Air's Ed Morrissey calls this the Obamateurism of the Day!
Normally, I'd say that Presidents deserve their occasional down time, especially considering the enormous pressures that come with the office. However, Obama himself put the Gulf spill on the level of 9/11 in terms of its impact on the US. If he wants to make that argument, then the President needs to act like he believes it. Golfing more days than Gulfing looks just as bad as yachting while others attempt to stop the damage.
An Instapundit reader sent Glenn Reynolds the following:
Cynthia Tucker: Americans Are The Enemy Due To Oil ‘Addiction’
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Cynthia Tucker believes Americans are the enemy of the nation moving in a new energy direction because of what she called our addiction to oil.
As the discussion on this weekend's "The Chris Matthews Show" moved to why President Obama hasn't attacked energy policy much like Eisenhower did the space program, Tucker said, "One of the differences between the '50's when Sputnik was launched and now, that was a battle against Communism."
She continued, "It's always much easier to rally Americans against an external threat, an external enemy."
And sadly continued, "In this case, the enemy is us. Americans are addicted to petroleum. We use way too much oil" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: And one of the differences between the '50's when Sputnik was launched and now, that was a battle against Communism. It's always much easier to rally Americans against an external threat, an external enemy. In this case, the enemy is us. Americans are addicted to petroleum. We use way too much oil. So it's a little harder for the president to turn around and call on Americans to sacrifice. You remember what happened to Jimmy Carter when he did that.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Exactly.
TUCKER: Now I happened to think Jimmy Carter was right.
HOWARD FINEMAN, NEWSWEEK: Because you're from Georgia.
TUCKER: Well, if he had done the things that, if we had done the things that Carter called for then, we may not be looking at this huge oil spill now.
Yeah, that Carter sure was a genius when it came to energy policy.
I guess Tucker has conveniently forgotten that Carter presided over some of the most expensive oil prices in history with the exception of the last decade when demand from China exploded.
The following inflation-adjusted chart will give readers an idea of just how harmful Carter's energy policies were on Americans' wallets:
But even that's somewhat beside the point, as likely far more important was Tucker's classic liberal view that Americans' desire for oil makes us the enemy.
Why can't these folks understand that energy has become as much a human necessity as food, water, and shelter? Our appetite for oil is no more of an addiction than is our desire for sustenance, hydration, and a roof over our heads.
With this in mind, it would be far more acceptable to be called an enemy by folks like Tucker if they would all completely cease their use of petroleum products.
Until that point, this is just another liberal employing the typical "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" mantra.
When you start calling your countrymen enemies, you'd better behave in a fashion that separates you from that which you consider abhorrent or you should just keep your caustic opinions to yourself.
Samuel T. Cogley, Come On Down!
NYer Editor: Media In 2008 Correctly Taken With Idea Of Electing Black President
It's one thing for a so-called journalist to claim media members in 2008 were all taken with the historical notion of electing the country's first black President, but it's quite another to say they were right in doing so.
Despite the seeming absurdity, this is exactly what the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the New Yorker magazine told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Sunday.
During the "Reliable Sources" interview of David Remnick, Kurtz noted that in his new biography about Barack Obama, Remnick wrote, "[D]uring the campaign...Obama received generally adoring press coverage."
After giving a few examples, Kurtz asked, "What came over the press in 2007 and 2008 when it came to Barack Obama?"
Readers are likely to find some of Remnick's answer quite disturbing (video follows with transcript and commentary):
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: You write that during the campaign, which is sort of where your book ends, that Obama received generally adoring press coverage. And you had a couple examples I hadn't seen.
Meredith Vieira -- this is when she was on "The View" -- said he would be a huge force in this country for the better. And Barbara Walters compared him at one point to Nelson Mandela.
DAVID REMNICK, EDITOR THE NEW YORKER: Yes.
KURTZ: What came over the press in 2007 and 2008 when it came to Barack Obama?
REMNICK: Well, first of all, he was new. We hadn't been over this story 700 times.
And let's face it, Barack Obama was a part of a narrative of the most painful and prolonged history that we have in our country, which is the epic story and extremely painful story of race in America. And the business of him being a serious candidate for the presidency, not just a symbolic run, not one that's doomed to failure, but one that could quite possibly reach the end and be elected president, well, I think we were all taken up with that, and I think legitimately so. I think the notion of an African-American running successfully for president --
So if Obama was a white junior senator from Illinois with the exact same credentials, speech patterns, and mannerisms, the media would have been LESS taken with him? And that's LEGITIMATE?
Even Kurtz seemed surprised with this:
KURTZ: Legitimately so, except that you have another candidate for president. And a lot of people concluded, fairly or unfairly, that the media, or parts of the media, were in the tank for the Democratic candidate.
REMNICK: Well, I'm only responsible for "The New Yorker" and for myself, and I thought we were fair to Hillary Clinton and I think we were fair all around.
Were we taken up with the extra story of race? Absolutely. And I think we should have been.
Did Remnick understand what he was saying here?
After all, it's one thing to ADMIT he and his fellow press members were in the tank for Obama because he was black. But to after the fact say they were right in doing so undermines ANY credibility for himself and his similarly guilty colleagues in the future?
Think about it: why should anyone trust his reporting on any subject if it can be impacted by the color of someone's skin?
That folks like Remnick don't understand the ramifications of this on themselves and their industry is almost as shocking as they're behavior in 2007 and 2008.
Unfortunately, Kurtz didn't press him on this, and instead moved to another subject.
Too bad, for it would have been interesting if Remnick was forced to explain his position and answer how he could possibly be perceived as an impartial journalist ever again.
NYer Editor: Media Correctly Taken With Idea Of Electing Black President In 2008
It's one thing for a so-called journalist to claim media members in 2008 were all taken with the historical notion of electing the country's first black President, but it's quite another to say they were right in doing so.
Despite the seeming absurdity, this is exactly what the Pulitzer Prize-winning editor of the New Yorker magazine told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Sunday.
During the "Reliable Sources" interview of David Remnick, Kurtz noted that in his new biography about Barack Obama, Remnick wrote, "[D]uring the campaign...Obama received generally adoring press coverage."
After giving a few examples, Kurtz asked, "What came over the press in 2007 and 2008 when it came to Barack Obama?"
Readers are likely to find some of Remnick's answer quite disturbing (video follows with transcript and commentary):
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: You write that during the campaign, which is sort of where your book ends, that Obama received generally adoring press coverage. And you had a couple examples I hadn't seen.
Meredith Vieira -- this is when she was on "The View" -- said he would be a huge force in this country for the better. And Barbara Walters compared him at one point to Nelson Mandela.
DAVID REMNICK, EDITOR THE NEW YORKER: Yes.
KURTZ: What came over the press in 2007 and 2008 when it came to Barack Obama?
REMNICK: Well, first of all, he was new. We hadn't been over this story 700 times.
And let's face it, Barack Obama was a part of a narrative of the most painful and prolonged history that we have in our country, which is the epic story and extremely painful story of race in America. And the business of him being a serious candidate for the presidency, not just a symbolic run, not one that's doomed to failure, but one that could quite possibly reach the end and be elected president, well, I think we were all taken up with that, and I think legitimately so. I think the notion of an African-American running successfully for president --
So if Obama was a white junior senator from Illinois with the exact same credentials, speech patterns, and mannerisms, the media would have been LESS taken with him? And that's LEGITIMATE?
Even Kurtz seemed surprised with this:
KURTZ: Legitimately so, except that you have another candidate for president. And a lot of people concluded, fairly or unfairly, that the media, or parts of the media, were in the tank for the Democratic candidate.
REMNICK: Well, I'm only responsible for "The New Yorker" and for myself, and I thought we were fair to Hillary Clinton and I think we were fair all around.
Were we taken up with the extra story of race? Absolutely. And I think we should have been.
Did Remnick understand what he was saying here?
After all, it's one thing to ADMIT he and his fellow press members were in the tank for Obama because he was black. But to after the fact say they were right in doing so undermines ANY credibility for himself and his similarly guilty colleagues in the future?
Think about it: why should anyone trust his reporting on any subject if it can be impacted by the color of someone's skin?
That folks like Remnick don't understand the ramifications of this on themselves and their industry is almost as shocking as they're behavior in 2007 and 2008.
Unfortunately, Kurtz didn't press him on this, and instead moved to another subject.
Too bad, for it would have been interesting if Remnick was forced to explain his position and answer how he could possibly be perceived as an impartial journalist ever again.
NYT Defends Obama From Critics: Nobody Listens To Pundits Anymore
New York Times writer Adam Nagourney asked an interesting question Sunday: "Does It Matter if Obama Loses the Pundits?"
The question was precipitated by the President's abysmal performance in his Tuesday Gulf Coast oil spill address and, in particular, how media members on both sides of the aisle gave him pretty poor grades.
Finding this obviously inconvenient, Nagourney set out to defend Obama from his critics by surprisingly making the case that nobody cares what pundits say anymore:
There was a time when the after-action takes of big commentators were sought out by Americans trying to assess the latest news coming out of the capital. They helped drive public opinion.
But tracking influences on public opinion has become greatly complicated now that the once-exclusive club has been joined by the vast multitudes blogging or posting Twitter updates or otherwise opining online, with a select few doing so after offering instant analysis on television.
Nagourney quoted some "experts" to support this view:
Martin Kaplan, the director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School for Communications and Journalism at the University of Southern California, said, "I think the most important impact of Washington commentators is on other Washington commentators."
Mr. Kaplan said that if the MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann was upset by "what the Obama speech did or didn't contain, then every person who is booking a guest or framing an article is affected by that."
But, he added, "I think the impact of the various conventional wisdoms of Washington is far less, because people have so many places to turn to."
Nagourney then made a strange observation to further support his view:
Also complicating matters is the mistrust of the news media: it is at an all-time high. Many Americans are more likely to assume that anyone they read or see on television has a political bias.
As such, Obama shouldn't care that he was universally panned after his Tuesday address because nobody cares what the media think?
Kind of a strange position for someone IN THE MEDIA to take, wouldn't you agree?
As the article reached its conclusion, Nagourney appeared to flip-flop a tad:
[W]hile the pundits might not matter as much, or get the picture wrong, their panning of Mr. Obama's speech might actually matter this time. Rather than the typical muddle of reactions, cut along partisan lines, Mr. Obama's speech produced a rare consensus of the critics.
"If there's a consensus among left or right that a speech is mediocre - as there appeared to be on the gulf - I think that can have a substantial effect on the public," said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster.
And even if the opinion stage is more crowded and confusing, establishment columnists like Maureen Dowd and David S. Broder are reaching more people than ever, precisely because of the Internet. They are more likely to have the resources and access to report, making theirs an informed commentary. [...]
Public opinion of Mr. Obama's performance last week may well be reflected in polls over the weeks ahead, and those polls may indicate that people agree to some extent with the instant conventional wisdom reflected in the headline over an online column by Howard Fineman, the Washington columnist for Newsweek: "Obama's Curiously Flat Gulf Speech." If so, it might simply be a case of everyone viewing an event and coming to the same, perhaps inevitable, conclusion. Americans didn't need the talking heads to tell them what to think.
Yes, but isn't this a chicken and egg question: which came first, the public's opinion of Obama's speech OR the pundits bashing it?
After all, only 32 million people watched his address Tuesday evening. Likely far more heard about it after it occurred via the various media sources.
With this in mind, the opinion of the vast majority of Americans concerning the President's address was likely impacted by these pundits.
But Nagourney didn't conclude that. Instead, he left readers with the impression the pundits don't matter anymore.
Think a Times writer would be making that case if commentators all raved about Obama's speech?
As the answer is likely "Hell No," Nagourney has taken the peculiar position of suggesting people DON'T pay attention to folks like him UNLESS they have good things to say about the President.
He might be partially right.
Maybe people shouldn't listen to folks like him REGARDLESS of what they're saying.
Just a thought.
Financial Regulation and Obama’s Massive Failure in the Gulf
In this week’s edition of Coffee and Markets, featuring The New Ledger’s Francis Cianfrocca, we’re talking about how financial regulations will rob you of your free checking accounts, how the government is discouraging investment, and why Obama’s response to the BP spill is such a monumental failure. We’re brought to you as always by Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and LibertyPundits.com.
Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed
You can subscribe to the podcast by following the links above, and if you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.
Related Links:
Domenech: Our Impotent President
Andrew Malcolm: Why Senators Don’t Make Good Presidents
WSJ: The End of Free Checking
Cella: Tocqueville on the BP Spill
Breitbart: Jindal Fumes as Fed Red Tape Halts Cleanup
Domenech and Cianfrocca: A Presidency on the Brink
In the Best of Hands (Not): Even AP’s Borenstein Sees Problems With Obama’s Oil Spill Commission
The presidential commission tasked with investigating the BP oil spill is so short on technical expertise and packed with left-leaning politicians and knee-jerk environmentalists that even the Associated Press's resident ClimateGate apologist Seth Borenstein is concerned.
On December 12, 2009, over two weeks after the ClimateGate e-mails first appeared, Borenstein wrote that "the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions." What part of Kevin Trenberth's famous October 12, 2009 assertion that "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t" did Seth not understand?
Nonetheless, non-skeptical Seth is somewhat taken aback at the lack of expertise in the spill commission's membership:
Obama spill panel big on policy, not engineering
The panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about "America's addiction to oil." One member has blogged about it regularly.
Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard's engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent engineering background - but it's in optics and physics. Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are praised by other scientists.
The five other commissioners are experts in policy and management.
The White House said the commission will focus on the government's "too cozy" relationship with the oil industry.
Geez, why even put together a commission when it's already been told what one of its key conclusions must be?
Brief descriptions of each person on the commission are at a separate AP link (the full White House announcement is here):
- Co-chairman: Former Democratic Sen. and Gov. Bob Graham of Florida. He often has pushed for a drilling ban off the Florida coast.
- Co-chairman: William K. Reilly, Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President George H.W. Bush and during the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska in 1989.
- Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
- Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland's Center for Environmental Science.
- Terry Garcia, a National Geographic Society executive and former chief lawyer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under President Bill Clinton.
- Cherry Murray, dean of Harvard's engineering school and former president of the American Physical Society.
- Frances Ulmer, chancellor of the University of Alaska, Anchorage, and former Democratic lieutenant governor of Alaska.
I suspect that a plentiful track record of environmental radicalism and far-left progressive tendencies present in several commission members will be discovered in the next several days.
Anyone hoping that co-chairman Bill Reilly will provide a dose of moderation will get a reality check by going to his still-present bio at the EPA's web site, where the following was found:
Perhaps the most significant failure of the Reilly Administration, as Reilly suggests below, was that EPA was unable to garner the unalloyed support of the Bush Administration during the second half of that Administration's term. This was largely due to the inability of the Agency to muster the politically valuable praise of the Administration's environmental efforts by environmental organizations. As a result, the Bush Administration chose to work more closely with elements of its constituency that would provide political support during the 1992 election season. As a result, EPA found its agenda stifled in the White House and its credibility compromised before Congress.
After leaving the Agency during the final days of 1992, Reilly returned to World Wildlife Fund.
The "EPA found its agenda stifled"?
Just a cotton-pickin' minute. The "EPA's agenda" is supposed to be the agenda of the person running the executive branch, i.e., the President. It's clear that the EPA hasn't seen things that way for a long time. This is a bureaucracy that has instead and for decades viewed itself as its own independent branch of government accountable to no one.
If it wasn't obvious then, it's certainly obvious now, based on the free pass the environmental movement has given to president, that, as Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds wrote a week ago:
Environmentalists, like feminists, are just another arm of the Democratic establishment: “running dogs” to be loosed or reined in as politics require.
Any GOP attempts "to work more closely" with environmental leaders are thus predestined to bear no fruit.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
