Obama’s Katrina Incompetence

Obama’s Katrina problem is incompetence.

The problem isn’t that the President can’t find someone to do this job. The problem is the President himself isn’t up to the job of leadership required by the crisis.

It’s not only Republicans and conservatives that understand the problem:

“As oil spread as close as 1½ miles from Jackson County’s coast Saturday, U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor called the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster “incompetent.”

I’m having a Katrina flashback,” said the Bay St. Louis Democrat after an aerial survey of the Mississippi Sound and barrier islands Saturday morning. “I haven’t seen this much incompetence since Michael Brown was running FEMA.”[snip]

Taylor said U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who heads the spill response, should fix problems that include a lack of direction and equipment.

“Vessels of Opportunity do not identify themselves,” said Taylor. “There is no way to communicate with them.

All those boats are running around like headless chickens. None of them are skimming for oil. It is criminal. Between the amount of money, the amount of wasted effort, there shouldn’t be a drop of oil in the Mississippi Sound, but because of this incompetence, it is there.”

What does a president have to do? Certainly there is no need for a president to “suck up the oil” with a straw. There is no need for a president to dive miles down to shut the oil gusher. The job is to lead. The job is to put in place competent people. The job is to get the job done, not devise new excuses with flowery words to explain the problem. The job is to lead. With Obama, the job is not getting done:

“Taylor said U.S. Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen, who heads the spill response, should fix problems that include a lack of direction and equipment. “If he doesn’t get off his butt and fix this, yes,” said Taylor when asked if he was saying Allen should be replaced.[snip]

“It is criminal what is going on. This doesn’t have to happen, and it is not like I said ‘go fix it.’ I gave them a detailed plan how to do this two weeks ago. They are not doing any of it.

Taylor’s plan, like the state’s, called for a multilayered response that relied heavily on skimmers to collect oil south of the barrier islands, at the island passes and within the Mississippi Sound.

“I’m absolutely furious,” said Taylor. “If the president of the United States can’t find somebody who can do this job, then let me do it.”

Republican Roger Wicker of Tupelo complains about the lack of skimmers:

“There is a growing frustration among the Gulf States delegation, both sides of the aisle in Washington, about the lack of skimmers.

“We’ve turned down assistance from other countries. We’ve turned down assistance that has been offered from way up on the East Coast.”

Wicker said the Jones Act, which restricts the use of foreign-flagged vessels in the nation’s waters, should be waived. “It is not too late for the administration to say ‘all hands on deck,’ if it requires a temporary waiver of the Jones Act. Unfortunately, the secretary of the interior says that is not necessary,” he said.

“I think we need a new approach, and it is hard to get your arms around,” said Wicker. “Thad Allen is highly regarded. He has agreed to stay on past his retirement in order to deal with this, but it is clear from our standpoint and from the vantage point that we had today it is not getting done. And, not getting done in a halfway professional manner. I’m not ready to call for a change in personnel, but there is a huge frustration there.”

On Friday, Gov. Haley Barbour said the state needs 20 skimmers, but only has two. Barbour announced that skimmers would be built on the coast in response to the disaster.

On Saturday, DMR and DEQ announced there would be 23 new belt skimmers operating in state waters by Aug. 1.”

Among Obama’s excuses has been the ‘BP has the expertise we don’t’ dodge. But other governments have expertise and offered help. Finally, 70 days into the oil gusher, some help will be accepted from other countries:

“The United States is accepting help from 12 countries and international organizations in dealing with the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The State Department said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. is working out the particulars of the help that’s been accepted.

The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement — Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.

More than 30 countries and international organizations have offered to help with the spill. The State Department hasn’t indicated why some offers have been accepted and others have not.”

There is no coordinated anything going on in the Gulf mess. Barack Obama is too incompetent, too unqualified to lead. Barack Obama ignored the problem for too long and distracted the nation with many publicity stunts and appearances beside sports celebrities.

Barack Obama was not too busy to advance his interests in Illinois. Even during the supposedly busy transition period in 2008, we learn from the Blagojevich trial, Obama had plenty of time to talk to a union official to get a job for his crony Valerie Jarrett. No mystery why an SEIU chieftain got a call from Obama to “buffer” his interests (even as Obama told the FBI he did not do what he did). SEIU has and will spend millions to advance Obama’s interests with money from union dues, which do not benefit union members, but do benefit top union officials gain influence.

A job for Jarrett gets plenty of time even during a supposedly busy transition period. But for the Gulf coast, NOTHING – but feigned concern.

“Onlookers stare at a huge mass of oil that came ashore on Pensacola Beach on June 23. The water is closed to the public. (Tampa Bay.com)
Hat Tip Brian B.

It didn’t have to be this way. The Dutch have equipment that would have prevented any oil from reaching shore but the federal government wouldn’t allow them into the Gulf.

There’s more:

** The feds only accepted assistance from 5 of 28 countries a month after the disaster.

** It took the Obama Administration 53 days to accept help from the Dutch and British.
** It took them 58 days to mobilize the US military to the Gulf.
** The feds shut down crude-sucking barges due to fire extinguisher concerns.

** The Obama Administration ignored oil boom manufacturers that have miles of product stockpiled in their warehouses.
** They only have moved 31 of 2,000 oil skimmers to the disaster area off of Florida.
** Florida hired an additional 5 skimmer boats to operate off its coast due to federal inaction.

** There are no skimmer boats off the coast of Mississippi.
** The massive A-Boat skimmer won’t be allowed to join the cleanup effort until the Coast Guard and the EPA figure out whether it meets their standards.
** The feds shut down sand berm dredging off the Louisiana coast.

** The president continues to hit the golf course, ball games, hold BBQ’s and party while the crude oil washes up on shore.

That’s what you get when you elect a community organizer as president.”

For his friends, calls and concern. For the Gulf coast voters who rejected him, nothing. If it is not incompetence, it is something much worse.

Share

203 thoughts on “Obama’s Katrina Incompetence

  1. More questions for Republicans to ask when they get subpoena power after the November elections:

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/blagojevich-on-trial/2010/06/sheldon-sorosky-one-of-rod-blagojevichs-lawyers-has-been-trying-to-drag-president-barack-obama-into-the-fray-this-aftern.html

    “Sheldon Sorosky, one of Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers, has been trying to drag President Barack Obama into the fray this afternoon, asking union official Tom Balanoff whether the FBI asked him about campaign money going to Obama.

    Prosecutors objected, as they have so often during cross-examinations, and U.S. District Judge James Zagel said Sorosky should only ask in general what the FBI had said to Balanoff.

    Sorosky tried the question again, using Zagel’s recommended wording. “I know that won’t be objected to,” Sorosky said, causing the nearby Blagojevich to laugh.

    But Balanoff didn’t get to give an answer, and Zagel wouldn’t let the line of questioning go on after a private sidebar discussion among the lawyers.

    Sorosky did get to ask about Balanoff’s labor group — the Service Employees International Union — supporting candidates for office. He asked whether the SEIU had supported “a young state senator” named Barack Obama as well as Blagojevich in his first run for governor in 2002.

    “They cared about working people?” Sorosky asked. Balanoff said that was essentially right.

    Sorosky had Balanoff go back to an early November 2008 meeting Balanoff had with Blagojevich. In the sit-down, Sorosky asked, didn’t Blagojevich mention appointing Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the Senate seat soon to be vacated by Obama, a move that would eliminate her as a rival in the 2010 race for governor?

    “That’s what he said, yes,” Balanoff answered.

    So there was a “logical, political reason for going the Madigan route?” Sorosky asked. Balanoff said in his view that was true.

    Sorosky then walked Balanoff through his earlier testimony, when he had talked about going to Blagojevich to promote Valerie Jarrett after Obama called Balanoff and said Jarrett was his preference.

    Balanoff insisted he was acting more on Jarrett’s behalf and less on Obama’s. At one point, Zagel chided Sorosky for asking questions that were too argumentative, suggesting that questions beginning with the word “so” should raise a red flag.

    “So, maybe you can eliminate the so’s,” said Zagel, adding to his earlier ban on questions that start with “wouldn’t you agree?”

    Sorosky challenged Balanoff and asked whether Blagojevich ever explicitly offered to appoint Jarrett if Obama named the governor to a cabinet post. “I certainly believed that was what he was implying,” Balanoff said.
    But Sorosky pressed for a yes or no answer.

    “The governor did not say to you, ‘Tom, we’ve been friends for a long time. We’re all big boys. I’ll appoint Valerie Jarrett if the president appoints me?’” Sorosky said.

    “No,” answered Balanoff.

  2. There’s been a lot of news lately. Thanks to everyone for posting the information in the comments. We’ll write about Kagen, Byrd, the Head Kook, the economic mess, and more, soon.

    There’s also this to discuss (which proves us correct when we laughed at those who claimed Bill Clinton does Obama’s bidding):

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38826.html

    Bill Clinton’s stunning endorsement of an underdog insurgent running against the White House’s handpicked candidate in the Colorado senatorial primary should be proof that whatever the public perception may be of a united front between President Barack Obama and the former president, Clinton remains very much his own man – and his own political force.

    The email Clinton sent out urging support for Andrew Romanoff went a long way toward undoing the impression Clinton had given – thanks to his rescue mission to Arkansas on behalf of Sen. Blanche Lincoln earlier this month – that he had become a reliable White House ally willing to do the heavy lifting in support of Obama’s favorite candidates.”

    Bill Clinton never gave that “impression”. That “impression” came from the press dolts. The added suggestion from the press dolts that is subservient to the B.O.ob, is equally misguided. Also misguided (most of these comments we snipped out) is the nonsense that Bill Clinton has forgotten Obama’s race-baiting or that Obama has granted “absolution” to Bill.

    More:

    But Clinton’s endorsement, in an email Tuesday, was unstinting, suggesting that Romanoff – who supported Hillary Clinton in her losing 2008 presidential race — had both the strongest record and the best electoral prospects.[snip]

    In fact, even Clinton’s mission to Arkansas – contrary to some reports – was not on assignment, but as part of his own, long quest to repay favors to his wife’s presidential campaign. His other political activities are a mix of favors to the White House and freelance forays: They include a planned trip to Florida on behalf of Rep. Kendrick Meek, whose Senate campaign national Democrats, flirting with Governor Charlie Crist, view as a likely loser.[snip]

    Democrats with a close knowledge of the Clinton-Obama relationship declined to talk about it publicly, because both sides see the value of public harmony.[snip]

    But it retains an intensely competitive edge. Obama’s criticism during the campaign of Clinton’s compromises when he was in office deeply rankled the former president. One former Clinton aide put a comparison of the men’s political skills bluntly: “He’s still the best. He’s better than Obama.”

    Clinton, by virtue of the coalitions he built as a candidate and as president, and his current freedom from the realities of governance, has political advantages his successor lacks.

    “This is Obama’s party – but [Clinton] has a different appeal and it’s still a very powerful appeal,” said former Clinton aide Paul Begala. Clinton has “still very much still got the mojo. That’s no knock on President Obama. He’s got the burden of office – he’s got to take the lumps, and he understands that.”

    Clinton can campaign among the Appalachian white voters who never warmed to Obama in 2008, and he can campaign in the African-American environments where Obama – intensely conscious of his image as a post-racial figure – minimizes his political presence. Clinton also has the deep roots in the Democratic establishment that the current president lacks.

    “We have tight races in rural districts and places McCain won,” said a senior Democrat. “This is not Barack Obama’s strength.”

  3. admin, Ace has a great link about how the dutch, who are experts at cleaning up oil spills offered many of their ships and equipment, but that offer was refused, and now they are being taken up on their offer, ONLY if the EPA approves.

    The incompetence is just stunning.

    h/t Ace
    “Blame the EPA: Dutch Oil Spill Response Ships Could Suck 99% of Oil From Gulf, But Can’t Get Approved, Because EPA Demands 99.9985% Purity”

  4. Both Obamas’ are ousted in their stated professions.

    NO WONDER ALL HIS SCHOOL RECORDS ARE OFF LIMITS.

    SOONER OR LATER THE FACTS WILL TRIP HIM UP AND THE SHAM WILL UNRAVEL.

    I can corroborate Obama’s teaching career at Chicago being a sham. I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the pay roll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct. The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.

    According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (Publication is a requirement).

    INTERESTING….MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND

    Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address. Consider this:

    1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”! He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges that he lied on his bar application. NOTE: Click on “lawyer” to see the actual documents.

    2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993.

    3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law. Facts Source:http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/

    4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago .

    5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

    6. “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

    Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html

    7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

    8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/

    9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.

    10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech???

    When you are a phony, it’s hard to keep facts straight.

    Pres. Barack Obama – Editor of the Harvard Law Review- Has No Law License???

    May 15, 2009 by Johnny Alamo.

    I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel – and that’s a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license.

    But, being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here’s the results from the ARDC Website: BLOCKED!

    She “voluntarily surrendered” her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A “Voluntary Surrender” is not something where you decide “Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?” And forget to renew your license. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender” your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

    Here’s an illustration: I’m a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing, I’ve done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license – simply because it’s easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc.

    I’ve worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse.

    I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can’t say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc. all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too.

    I tried looking up why she would “Voluntarily surrender” her license, but Illinois does not have its 1993 records online. But when I searched for “Obama”, I found this:

    “Voluntarily retired” – what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to “Voluntarily Surrender” his license too. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesn’t seem to give a crap about his law license.

    Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, “there’s a block on that information” kind of thing. So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady claiming to be Lawyers, – who don’t actually have licenses to practice law.

  5. h/t Ace
    “Blame the EPA: Dutch Oil Spill Response Ships Could Suck 99% of Oil From Gulf, But Can’t Get Approved, Because EPA Demands 99.9985% Purity”
    ——————–

    Utter bureacracy!!!!!!…that is why sometimes I have lost patience with scientists, their white papers etc etc…

    And even we know that just from the basis of oil trade and transport going thru th eGulf waters daily, that 0.9985% oil is already in the water…..The gulf waters havce never been that 100% pristine!!!!

    I guess the liberal arts-fartsy EPA will not talk with the nobel prize head from the energy dept to discuss this discrepancy of 0.99%…..

    Has anyone thought of using two levels of skimming…first the 99% level and then lighter vessels or technology like others…

    BTW: They approved the Kostner water separationtechnology and as far as I know from my research it does not suck 99.9985% oil…..

  6. He is probably pretty good at organizing community BBQs. But then I have never been to one he had organized.

  7. Everyone is afraid to refer to him with anything other than Intelligent. I look for accomplishments that indicate people are intelligent (Release of his grades, accomplishments in his work field, being able to talk without a teleprompter, showing of his birth certificate rather than spend over a million fighting it); however, others must be using diffent standards.

  8. Fantastic post Admin- I think the death of the Gulf Coast is way more important than 90% of the political bs going on right now. The link you posted of the oil on the beach that arrived in hours is just the beginning of what we will see. The oil gusher is not close to shore so for it to find it’s way to the beach, takes awhile.
    Worse than what we see on the beaches before it is shoved into a plastic bag and out of view, is what is going on under the water that we can’t see. Out of sight, out of mind for many people.
    Suffering and death is going on as we blog, as we sleep, each and every day until there isn’t anything left and leaves a dead zone.

    Being incompetent is too mild for those ‘in charge’ – BP, Obama and those He put in charge…it is criminal, nothing less. This is just the beginning of how bad it will be in a very short time. There needs to be sufficient punishment for the crime.

  9. The media has disappeared as far as the Gulf spill and the war in Afghanistan. It is a very sad state of affairs and any other leader would have been called out long ago…

  10. Intelligence……hmmmm…

    By traditional meaning, it had a lot to do with education, achievement, manner of speaking etc etc….

    But the zero has done one thing in his CHANGE mantra…..
    whatever standard/method he used to get into the WH is reason enough to be called intelligent…

    As for me I have a new personal standard….I do not like INTELLIGENT people at all anymore…..

  11. Kos’s lawyer, Adam Bonin, tells me:

    1) The lawsuit will be for breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and will be filed in the Northern District of California, where Markos is based.
    ———————————————-
    Interesting. Pray tell who is Daily Kos to complain about fraud and misrepresentation? Are they not guilty of the same thing when they twist the truth in their sordid blogs. If so, the what right do they have to complain about it when someone does it to them? If this were an equitable action (as opposed to a legal proceeding), I would say that he who seeks equity must do equity. (The Doctrine of Unclean Hands). Case for the defendant.

  12. Being educated does not equate to being intelligent. You can buy education, you cannot buy intelligence.

  13. jbstonesfan
    June 29th, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    The media has disappeared as far as the Gulf spill and the war in Afghanistan. It is a very sad state of affairs and any other leader would have been called out long ago…
    ———–
    I’ve noticed that too, although CNN is covering the Gulf gusher more than others I’ve seen.

    Fox, now that is something else, people like Hannity only seem to bring it up when it is another attack against Obama, but seem to be quiet about it in real terms, possibly because the Drill Baby, Drill team doesn’t care as much about the environmental aspects as it wants the freakin’ gas for their suvs and big business where they have stock.

  14. Being educated does not equate to being intelligent. You can buy education, you cannot buy intelligence
    ——————————–
    Right. A Texas cattle woman I know is fond of saying our sons and daughters did fine until we sent them to college and they educated the common sense out of them.

  15. To be fair, attorneys who aren’t actively practicing law, frequently surrender their license because they don’t want to pay the fees, and do the continuing education. I know a handful of attorneys who have done so. It’s inaccurate to say that one does that because one has been asked to.

    It is accurate to say that he never published anything except, allegedly one unsigned note, as president of the law review. It is also accurate to state that he was not a professor law and only served as a guest lecturer. I, too, have heard that he was lazy.

    He was given offices at the university to write his first book, but he couldn’t write there. So, they paid him to go to Bali to write his book. For real.

  16. Rep Gutierrez is going around the mulberry bush with Greta trying to give total bs, handwaving, false arguments about why the border shouldn’t be closed first. If I were Greta, I would reach over the table and smack this idiot.

  17. Right. A Texas cattle woman I know is fond of saying our sons and daughters did fine until we sent them to college and they educated the common sense out of them.
    *********
    That’s my impression also…having driven around Texas quite a bit over the past 4-5 years, there are a lot of Texans who are quite ignorant but think that they have “common sense”.

  18. The idea that any Clinton needs or wants Obama’s absolution is insulting. Who needs absolution from a pig?

    I cannot wait until November 2 when these tired anti-Clinton hit pieces from Politico will be the laughingstock of the nation, along with everything else associated with Obummer.

  19. ” If I were Greta, I would reach over the table and smack this idiot.”

    I was thinking the exact the same thing, looks like Greta wanted to.

  20. In other news, and the biggest political laugh-out-loud fest of the year, Daily Kook founder has just “discovered” that his cherish polling firm is a fraud:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39187.html

    “Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas renounced all polling conducted for his website by the firm Research 2000 Tuesday, citing an independent investigation that found the numbers produced by the firm were fraudulent…

    “We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don’t know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can’t trust it,” Moulitsas wrote.

    The explosive charge by the liberal Internet pioneer could invalidate dozens of polls taken in House, Senate and governor’s races that were aggressively touted by his popular website and widely covered by news outlets over the last year and a half.

    “While the investigation didn’t look at all of Research 2000 polling conducted for us, fact is I no longer have any confidence in any of it, and neither should anyone else. I ask that all poll tracking sites remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases. I hereby renounce any post we’ve written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling,” Moulitsas said, adding that Daily Kos would be filing a lawsuit against the polling firm within the next few days.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39187.html#ixzz0sIhnpUaq

    So the Head Kook just realized that those polls showing Scott Brown losing were fabricated? And those polls he’s been pushing and selling to his stupid followers claiming the Democrats are headed to glorious victory in November and they have nothing to worry about are, indeed, false?

    He just realized this.

    Is Kos the dumbest person on the Internet?

    Defrauded by Obama. Defrauded by his polling firm. Kos is an idiot.

  21. “As oil spread as close as 1½ miles from Jackson County’s coast Saturday, U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor called the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster “incompetent.”

    “I’m having a Katrina flashback,” said the Bay St. Louis Democrat after an aerial survey of the Mississippi Sound and barrier islands Saturday morning. “I haven’t seen this much incompetence since Michael Brown was running FEMA.”[snip]
    ————————————————-
    No. Sorry. This is not Katrina. The damage we are seeing here is orders of magnitude worse than Katrina in terms of: i) the astronomical cost to the economy, ii) the irreversible environmental damage sustained, iii) the arrogant negligent and outrageous refusal by this President to accept offers of help which would have mitigated this disaster, iv) the multi state impact and v) the abdication of governmental responsibility to a major contributor to his campaign. As bad as it was, Katrina is as nothing compared to this mega disaster due to Obama’s blatant incompetence. Unless Gene baby is willing to fact that fact he is no good. And it is high time democrats stop making these spurious arguments which we also saw in the primary, which suggest that a head cold is like terminal cancer because both of them are diseases. The law of proportionality applies here, Nobel Peace Prizes to the contrary notwithstanding.

    agent of harm was a major Obama contributor, iv) Obama refused offers of help from foreign nations for seventy days.

  22. wbboie — I agree this is much worse than Katrina. I have a business collegue from Biloxi, MS, completely heartbroken that oil has reached that area. This will take years, many years for the areas to recover.

  23. #
    DefiantOne
    June 29th, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    The idea that any Clinton needs or wants Obama’s absolution is insulting. Who needs absolution from a pig?

    I cannot wait until November 2 when these tired anti-Clinton hit pieces from Politico will be the laughingstock of the nation, along with everything else associated with Obummer.
    ———–
    Wish we had a count down clock on the blog to count the days before Barry is sent off into the corner to be a lame a$$ duck. He should also lose date nights out of the White House, and sports breaks.

    He is gonna squirm like a worm on a hot sidewalk, being less than anointed.

  24. That’s my impression also…having driven around Texas quite a bit over the past 4-5 years, there are a lot of Texans who are quite ignorant but think that they have “common sense”.
    —————————————————-
    Well, perhaps. But this particular woman who runs a large cattle ranch in East Texas I doubt you would find her to be ignorant. For what it is worth, she had reason to make this statement. Apart from that, there is a tendency today to elevate educational credentials over experience and common sense. As a result, we find competent people who never saw a college classroom, educated idiots who parade their credentials and a president by the name of Obama who epitomizes the problem. Let us hope that people learn from this mistake. A Harvard graduate who has never run so much as a hot dog stand is not a good bet for President, even when he is a Mess-I-ah.

    On a different note, I see that Axelrod is claiming that the reason Obama did not react to the Gulf situation earlier is because he was too busy cleaning up the problems left over by Bush. To blame Bush at this point and for Obama’s own failure is not only absurd, but it raises questions about Axelrod’s own competence. I was talking to a media expert today who told me that Axelrod has been given far too much credit for engineering a victory in 2008 when in fact the causal factors were a hatred of Bush and the stock market debacle. If that defense is the best he can do–and naturally it goes unchallenged by Big Media, then Axelgrease is losing his grip. The truth is he knows only about campaigning and nothing about governing. The Chicago Model of governance is leading this nation into a disaster.

    is not because he knew it was a disaster and wanted to steer clear of it, not because he wanted to favor a large contributor, and not because he saw it as another opportunity to push the state aside as he is doing with Arizona, assert federal jurisdiction and then

  25. lARRY kING HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE IS RETIRING.

    CNN, NTT , Larry King…..all who pimped for O are suffering their due demise.

    It’s an incredibly large sweep.

  26. To be fair, attorneys who aren’t actively practicing law, frequently surrender their license because they don’t want to pay the fees, and do the continuing education. I know a handful of attorneys who have done so. It’s inaccurate to say that one does that because one has been asked to.
    ———————————-
    Do you think that was why he resigned? I thought it was because he denied on the Illinois Bar application that he had ever used any name other than Barack Obama, when in fact he had previously gone by such aliases as Barry Sotero, Barry Soreto, and at one point King Obama. This statement was a lie, and the Illinois Bar would have to deal with it. By resigning when he did he avoided an investigation which could have proven embarrassing and a result which might have stripped him of his license. I could be wrong but that was my assumption on why he resigned.

  27. #
    DefiantOne
    June 29th, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    Breaking: Daily Kook website “discovers” Obama doesn’t have 120% approval rating. More after the jump…

    Good one! 😆

  28. Carol
    June 29th, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    lARRY kING HAS ANNOUNCED THAT HE IS RETIRING.

    CNN, NTT , Larry King…..all who pimped for O are suffering their due demise.

    ————
    Larry probably wants some down time with his younger wife to try and make another child before he kicks the bucket. Gack!

    That’s a pretty good job, maybe Barry might want it?
    Think of all the sports dudes he could interview and wouldn’t need to work.
    Maybe they should hold the job open until 2012, or maybe Conan could reserve it for him. (Sorry Conan) 😉

  29. Do you think that was why he resigned? I thought it was because he denied on the Illinois Bar application that he had ever used any name other than Barack Obama,

    ————-
    What the heck, Barrycakes can’t hold down a license or job as a lawyer, never had the patience to go though tenure to become a full professor, was done with community organizing, sucked at golf, was bored voting present as senator soon after he got the job, so……………….he decided to become President of the United States? Yea,

    I guess that’s the only choice he had left…

  30. “This is Obama’s party – but [Clinton] has a different appeal and it’s still a very powerful appeal,” said former Clinton aide Paul Begala. Clinton has “still very much still got the mojo. That’s no knock on President Obama. He’s got the burden of office – he’s got to take the lumps, and he understands that.”
    ————————————————
    If this is Obama’s party then for the good of the country it needs to be crushed. Begala reminds me of a used car salesman.

  31. 70 Flippin’ days into the oil gusher, Barry finally decides to let other countries help in the clean up…………

    Way to go, Ahole!
    The State Department……..wonder if Hillary put her foot on Barry’s throat?????

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is accepting help from 12 countries and international organizations in dealing with the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    The State Department said in a statement Tuesday that the U.S. is working out the particulars of the help that’s been accepted.

    The identities of all 12 countries and international organizations were not immediately announced. One country was cited in the State Department statement — Japan, which is providing two high-speed skimmers and fire containment boom.

    More than 30 countries and international organizations have offered to help with the spill. The State Department hasn’t indicated why some offers have been accepted and others have not.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-accepts-international-apf-4104246595.html?x=0&.v=2

  32. SHV
    June 29th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    Right. A Texas cattle woman I know is fond of saying our sons and daughters did fine until we sent them to college and they educated the common sense out of them.
    *********
    That’s my impression also…having driven around Texas quite a bit over the past 4-5 years, there are a lot of Texans who are quite ignorant but think that they have “common sense”.
    ************************
    Right, it’s just limited to Texas. Let’s see…Texas’s population may be growing WAY above the national average because all those “ignorant” people from north, east and west that lost their jobs migrated here because those “ignorant” Texans know a thing or two about making money, running businesses… JOBS. Dang, glad I got here as soon as I could…Ya’ll come back now when your ready to work.

  33. More questions to ask, including the quid pro quo of a Jarrett appointment in exchange for an endorsement by SEIU, when Republicans get subpoena power in November:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39195.html

    The White House was mum Tuesday after a union leader testified that Barack Obama personally asked him to approach then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich about appointing confidant Valerie Jarrett to his Illinois Senate seat – testimony Republicans say clearly contradicts the Obama team’s version of events.

    In testimony at Blagojevich’s federal corruption trial, Tom Balanoff said Obama — speaking a day before his Nov. 4, 2008 triumph in the presidential election – said that Jarrett wanted the job and was qualified, although he wanted her to join him in the White House.

    Defense lawyers – and now the GOP – have claimed that Balanoff’s version of events conflicts with Obama transition team lawyer Greg Craig’s report on his investigation into contacts between Obama’s inner circle and Blagojevich’s team.

    In a memo to the then-president-elect and a subsequent conference call with reporters on Dec. 23, 2008, Craig, who later served briefly as White House counsel, asserted that “The President-Elect had no contact or communication with Governor Blagojevich or members of his staff about the Senate seat.”

    Reconciling the accounts of Balanoff and Craig could come down to the question of what the White House’s definition of “communication” is.

    Craig insisted that his probe was not limited to the period after the election nor to the Obama allies who were actually members of his transition team or incoming administration.

    Craig said during the conference call that his memo “would” cover communications before the election.

    “[W]hat we asked, what we wanted to find out was whether anybody in the transition or anybody in Barack Obama’s Timmediate circle — meaning his friends or associates — had any conversations at any time with the governor or with the governor’s staff or representatives of the governor about the replacement for the president-elect in the event he was elected president,” Craig said in response to a question.

    But there was no mention of Obama contacting Balanoff in the memo – only a brief reference to Balanoff discussing his Blagojevich meeting with Jarrett.

    White House officials went radio silent on the trial Tuesday afternoon — but didn’t deny the substance of Balanoff’s testimony.

    Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he hadn’t heard what Balanoff said and brushed aside questions about the Obama call, saying, “I’m not going to get into commenting…I’m just not going to get into commenting on an ongoing trial.

    But the Republican National Committee seized on the testimony as evidence that the White House plays fast and loose with self-investigation and attempted to connect dots between the matter and a White House memo on the administration’s efforts to get Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary.[snip]

    Balanoff, a close Obama ally and top official with the Service Employees International Union in Chicago, said Blagojevich countered his pitch for Jarrett by suggesting he be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services.

    Balanoff says he met with Valerie Jarrett and Alexi Giannoulias, the current Democratic Senate nominee, to talk about his conversation with Blagojevich the day after the election.

    “I said: ‘He said some goofy stuff … he could be Secretary of Health and Human Services.'” Balanoff added. “I told her I told him that wasn’t going to happen. We both laughed.”

    But he made it clear that his local, which represents 40,000 janitors and security guards, wouldn’t support Blagojevich if the governor wouldn’t back Jarrett.

    The judge in the case turned down defense lawyers’ attempt to secure a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, but several White House officials and lawmakers have received subpoenas.

  34. Admin: this one appeared at American Thinker:

    The Democrats’ Five Stages
    By Alex Stevenson

    Elisabeth Kubler-Ross published a groundbreaking analysis of the changes that happen to people upon been informed of a terminal illness. In her 1969 book, On Death and Dying, Kubler-Ross describes five stages of grief, a process by which people deal with tragedy, especially when diagnosed with a terminal illness. Her work created awareness to the sensitivity required for better treatment of individuals who are dealing with a fatal disease. The five stages are:

    Denial is a temporary defense for the individual.

    Anger — when denial fails, resistance and rage against the truth replace it.

    Bargaining involves the hope that the inevitable can be delayed.

    Depression is the beginning of understanding the inevitable.

    Acceptance is honestly dealing with the reality of the situation.

    The Democrats are going through this process.

    Consider the Democrats’ response to the Tea Party Movement in terms of this analysis. The Democrats and media offer a classic instance of Denial. The unified response by the party and the media was to characterize the movement as “Astroturf.” MSM reports on the Tea Party demonstration in Washington minimized the large number of participants and labeled them as poorly organized and unlikely to have any influence on the debate of the role of the federal government in our current crisis.

    The second stage, Anger, is well underway and may have peaked. The House Democrats called the Tea Party “racist,” claiming imaginary swastikas at rallies, and marched to the Capitol in force, bearing the Imperial Gavel in order to provoke an incident. The only incident was a phony spitting accusation and a nonexistent racial epithet by an entrenched incumbent race-baiter.

    Looking forward in the political process, Americans should anticipate the third stage, Bargaining. The Democrats will offer up candidates under the false-flag, third-party “Tea Party.” In Florida, Democrat Congressman Alan Grayson has conspired with corrupt local operatives to register the Tea Party as a political party. The intention is to put candidates on the ballot in November in order to confuse the electorate and draw votes away from the newly invigorated Republicans. We can anticipate more of this nationally, depending on its success in Florida and Nevada.

    Depression will be the overwhelming emotion in the Democrat leadership after the elections in November. They will be inconsolable and difficult to deal with in the depths of their despair, and not just a little dangerous. The few months between the November election and new members taking their seats in House and Senate will be a lame duck session we all should fear.

    The final stage is Acceptance. Will the Democrats ever abandon the tactics that delegitimize a Republican majority? Accusations of election fraud and lawsuits will be in the news in the period following any significant Democrat loss. It is doubtful that the Democrats will ever accept the new situation and start the cycle of grief over from the first stage, denial. The rage will be renewed through the rent-a-mob, and bargaining will begin anew as committee seats are renegotiated.

    Depression will bring the retirement of the previous powerful committee chairmen and other figures unable to deal with their loss, thus setting the stage for a new generation of Democrats, who will adjust to the new power structure. Acceptance will be required to advance any legislation favored by the Democrats, so in the long run, the new generation will come to terms.

  35. The next Obama excuse for why his 90% capture of oil declaration wasn’t realized by the time he said it would:

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/06/30/news/news-us-oil-spill.html?_r=1&hp

    Rough weather whipped up by the season’s first Atlantic hurricane is disrupting cleanup of the massive BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, delaying plans to boost containment capacity and threatening to push more oily water onshore.

    The Gulf oil spill disaster has reached day 72, with environmental and economic costs to tourism, wildlife, fishing and other industries still mounting and the future of BP, the London-based energy giant, far from clear.[snip]

    With high winds, large waves and flooding rains on the way, controlled burns of oil on the ocean, flights spraying dispersant chemicals and booming operations are on hold for now, officials said.

    U.S. government officials estimate 35,000 to 60,000 barrels are gushing from the blown-out well each day. The current containment system can handle up to 28,000 barrels daily. The planned addition could raise that to 53,000 barrels.[snip]

    Many Gulf Coast businesses, meanwhile, are on the verge of buckling as summer tourists stay away in droves.

    Local authorities are also bracing for a mental health fallout. Louisiana officials have asked BP to pay $10 million to help provide counseling to local residents.[snip]

    “I have had enough. Now it is coming up on the roads. Next the oil will be in our homes. Just watch. This is (Hurricane) Katrina all over again, just worse,” said Kelly Mills, an area resident.

    On Louisiana’s Bay Baptiste, whitecaps were visible in the distance as the outer bands of Alex began to move into the region. Several marshes were only partially boom-protected, with oil coating the bottom part of reeds as crabs covered in crude scurried on nearby marsh islands.

    A thin sheen of oil covered much of the bay’s water.

    “Because of the spill, any effect from the storm will be bad,” said Michael Dardar, 48, of Raceland, Louisiana. “High waves will drag oil over and under the boom.”

  36. Knowing Greg Craig as we do, we can be confident that his investigation was searching, in depth and relentless, sort of like this.

    Q-1: Now Mr. W=5 I want you to know that I have spoken to 5 other witnesses, and all of them have adamantly denied that Mr. Obama had any contacts with anyone concerning the possible nomination of Valerie Jarrett to fill the senate seat he vacated.

    A-1: Okay

    Q-2: And that is a good thing because if he did so he would be in violation of federal law, and anyone who pointed the finger at him would be in a whole lot of trouble as well. They could be assaulted by his rabid supporters in some dark alley. And on top of that they could be prosecuted if they were complicit. Well you get my drift I am sure?

    A-2: Yes.

    Q-3: And now I must ask you a question. Please note, it calls for a yes or no answer only. And before I ask you the question I want to read you your Miranda Rights.

    A-3: Okay. I understand.

    Q-4: Now then Mr.W, now that you understand you obligations. let me ask you this question: Did you at anytime know or have reason to suspect that Mr Obama had contact with anyone concerning the potential nomination of Jarrett for the vacant senate position, and be very careful on how you answer this question because if you say yes then you will be toast?

    A-4: Absolutely not.

    Q-5: So help you God?

    A-5: So help me God.

  37. I just don’t get how Obama can get away without getting in to some kind of trouble over this Blago thing. How can he get off if they indicted Blago, how, why wouldn’t they do the same for Obama. It was Obama that asked…I just don’t see how he gets away with it??

    Gonzo, I agree, they can do somekind of work for this long of unemployment. Soon the states will be laying people off so there should be lots of work for laid off workers.

    Beck had a new scoop on Obama’s past tonight. He says that the British (Churchill) tortured his great grandfather and that Obama feels it is his place to right the wrong done when after WWII the Israeli’s were given Israel…Beck says that Obama thinks the jews should not be occupying Israel…just like Helen.

  38. Another Obama Chicago friend:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/nation-of-islam-leader-farrakhan-accuses-jews-of-anti-black-behavior-asks-for-dialogue-97441739.html

    CHICAGO — Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan has written the leaders of more than a dozen major U.S. Jewish groups and denominations seeking “repair of my people from the damage” he claims Jews have caused blacks for centuries.

    Farrakhan sent the letter along with two books from the Nation of Islam Historical Research Team that the 77-year-old minister said prove “an undeniable record of Jewish Anti-Black behavior,” starting with the slave trade and Jim Crow laws.

    “We could charge you with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history with us shows you have been our worst enemy,” he wrote.

    Farrakhan has long accused Jews of wrongdoing in speeches, but he has rarely addressed Jewish groups so directly in writing.

    The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil rights group which distributed copies of the letter, said in a statement Tuesday that Farrakhan’s “anti-Semitism is obsessive, diabolical and unrestrained. He has opened a new chapter in his ministry where scapegoating Jews is not just part of a message, but the message.”

    In the letter, dated last Thursday, the Chicago-based Nation of Islam leader said he sought a dialogue with Jews. He sent the letter to groups including the Orthodox and Reform movements, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and the American Jewish Committee, a New York-based advocacy and humanitarian nonprofit that spearheads inter-religious dialogue.

    “This is an offer asking you and the gentiles whom you influence to help me in the repair of my people from the damage that has been done by your ancestors to mine,” he writes. “Your present reality is sitting on top of the world in power, with riches and influences, while the masses of my people … are in the worst condition of any member of the human family.”

    In the past, Farrakhan’s most inflammatory comments have included referring to Judaism as a “gutter religion” and calling Adolf Hitler “wickedly great.” Recently, he has railed against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he claims is conspiring to trap the U.S. in a war with Iran.

    Farrakhan echoed similar comments last Saturday in an Atlanta speech titled, “Who Are the Real Children of Israel?”

    He did not respond to several messages seeking comment Tuesday. Farrakhan has over the years denied claims of anti-Semitism, arguing his remarks are often taken out of context and that criticism of Jews in any light automatically earns the “anti-Semite” label.

  39. Judge Who Ruled On Drilling Moratorium Could Be Challenged

    Source: DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

    WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- Investments made by the New Orleans judge who overturned the Obama administration’s six-month drilling moratorium could serve as the foundation for a challenge to the judge’s rulings in the case.

    Financial records released Friday showed U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman owned stock in Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and other energy companies in the days before he made his ruling on June 22.

    The news prompted immediate criticism because Exxon Mobil was one of the companies affected by the administration’s moratorium, having used a rig in which drilling was suspended under the ban.

    Under federal law, federal judges are prohibited from participating in cases in which they have a financial interest in participants or outcomes of the case. They are also prohibited from cases in which they would have the appearance of conflict.

    “I think the test needs to be: Does the judge have investments where every day of a moratorium might have a financial impact on the judge?” said Kate Gordon, vice president for energy policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. “And I think you do have that.”

    A request to the judge for comment wasn’t returned.

    Third-party supporters of the drilling moratorium could file a motion of recusal and ask the judge to voluntarily unwind his orders and send the case to another district-court judge. Among the groups making third-party filings in the case are the

    National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife.

    (all organizations proffering substantial donations to Obama’s presidential bid.)

    Supporters could also file a motion of recusal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where appeals to the judge’s injunction are pending. In that instance, the court of appeals could either deny the motion and allow the case to proceed or it could overturn Judge Feldman’s rulings.

    The court could also maintain the judge’s existing injunction, allowing drilling to continue, while also sending the case back to a district court.

    The U.S. Interior Department has separately said it will issue a revised moratorium that it hopes will overcome the judge’s injunction.

    Scrutiny of Judge Feldman’s investments intensified Friday after the release of his 2009 financial disclosure, the most current records available, revealing holdings in Exxon Mobil and XTO Energy Inc. in the days leading up to his ruling on June 22.
    Exxon Mobil announced plans to acquire XTO Energy in December and the buyout deal was finalized on June 25.

    In a statement released Friday, the judge’s chambers said Judge Feldman learned of his investments in these companies on June 21, the day before he issued his ruling, and instructed his broker to sell his holdings the next morning.

    The lawsuit challenging the administration’s moratorium was filed June 7 by Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc. A few weeks later, on June 22, Judge Feldman blocked the moratorium, calling it “heavy handed.”

    After that, the administration filed an appeal of the decision and that case is pending.

    The administration also filed a motion to freeze the judge’s ruling until its appeal was decided. The court will hear oral arguments on that motion on Thursday, July 8.
    __________________________________

    I just now realize, the cold front passing through the other night producing the thunder-lightening intermittent loss of power and telecommunications was due to a temper tantrum by George Soros. He was seen pounding his fists and pulling his hair out threatening to change the first language of the US to Esperanto if those oil rigs were not delivered to Brazil yesterday! HA-

    (The Center for American Progress is a Soros funded entity)

    http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/2251/judge-who-ruled-on-drilling-moratorium-could-be-challenged

  40. The WH and BP had to keep the Gulf closed to contain information on just how bad it all was economically and environmentally. Any entity that the WH and BP could not control was not allowed. Now the hurricane in the Gulf will be blamed for everything that they have not done and they feel safer letting in other countries recovery assets. Any criticism of BP, the WH and most especially Obama will be countered with “the hurricane did it, or made it worse, or who can fight Mother Nature”. The timing for allowing any kind of assistance during the middle of a hurricane is planned and a major CYA operation. We are lucky that the first hurricane is not in September.

    As for Barack and Michelle going to law school, neither of them went to learn how to practice law. Both were on the gravy train for political opportunists. Neither was a serious student of anything but their own status as players in corruption, social climbing, and getting the best paying do-nothing jobs. Valerie Jarrett was Michele’s mentor in how to play the system and get the most out of it for herself. She is reported to be sent out to Democratic crap in DC, leaving early to go sit by herself in a bar. It is all about power, money, sucking on the public money tit, and doing nada. The Chicago bunch knew Jarrett could not run for dog catcher but she could be appointed if Blago would play to pay, but he wanted his reward then not later. Jarrett also could not pass Senate confirmation with her Daley operative history. So there she sits in the WH soon to be question by a Republican House of Representatives still waiting for her payoff.

  41. Dick Morris had a lengthy discussion on Hillary and her run in 2012.Quite a positive version after being a Clinton hater for years.The Oreo worm is turning.Fox is not going to abuse the Clintons and end up like CNN.

    ” I Think We Will Finally Have Hillary at The Helm of Our Ship of State”

  42. just got home from work and turned on tv to see Joe Conason on morning joe, apparently he just travelled to africa with Bill Clinton because he is writing a book on about him. Don’t know much about him anybody?

  43. hope it comes out soon.
    Biography

    Joe Conason is national correspondent for The New York Observer, where he writes a weekly column distributed by Creators Syndicate. He is also a columnist for Salon.com, and the Director of the Nation Institute Investigative Fund. His books Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth, and The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, with Gene Lyons, were both national bestsellers; his latest book, It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush, was released in February 2007. His writing and reporting have appeared in many publications, including Harpers, The Guardian, The Nation, and The New Republic. He also appears frequently on television and radio (notably as a regular Friday guest on Air America’s The Al Franken Show). He lives with his wife in New York City.

  44. Joe Conason. Really disappointed in Conason’s treatment of Hillary during the campaign. Conasen’s assalts on Hillary were hard to miss. When called on his leisurely slaps at Hillary when comparing her policies to Obama’s, he came across as a first class chauvenist looking down his nose at one of the greatest women to be reconized in his life-time. Now that Obama is going down in flames, Conasen is changing horses for no other reason than he refused to admit early on his horse was really an ass.

    Joe, come over here so I can hit you with my shoe!

    The dedication page in your new book better be written with a huge mea culpa begging Hillary and Bill Clinton’s forgiveness.

  45. No Holidays off for Hillary.

    A Preview of Secretary Clinton’s Upcoming Travel to Central Europe and the Caucasus

    Posted: 29 Jun 2010 09:42 PM PDT

    On July 1-5, 2010, Secretary Clinton will travel to Central Europe and the Caucasus. She will make stops in Kiev, Krakow, Baku, Yerevan, and Tbilisi. During a special press briefing, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon provided an overview of the Secretary’s trip.

    Assistant Secretary Gordon said, “Her focus in Ukraine is on the strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine…In Krakow on the 3rd, the Secretary will participate in the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Community of Democracies…After Krakow, the Secretary will be visiting three South Caucasus countries, where she will have the opportunity to emphasize the importance of our bilateral relations with Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia…”

    Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner offered insights on the Secretary’s visit to Poland and her speech at the Community of Democracies event.

    Assistant Secretary Posner said, “It’s a meeting of approximately 75 governments, representatives of civil society, and really very much in keeping with the President and Secretary Clinton’s commitment to democracy promotion and principled engagement. The Secretary’s speech will focus on human rights and, in particular, on the role of civil society.”

    Read the full transcript of the briefing here.

  46. Lion’s Den: Jihadi undercuts president

    By DANIEL PIPES
    29/06/2010

    The Times Square bomber flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy.

    The jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism.

    Shahzad’s statements stand out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining.

    Consider a few examples:
    • Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

    • Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that “one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan.” His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.

    • Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court: “I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness.”

    • Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car, and issued a series of jihadi rants against the US, later experienced a change of heart, announced he was “very sorry” for the crimes and asked for release so he could “reestablish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society” in California.

    THESE EFFORTS fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle.

    Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11’s would-be 20th hijacker, came close: His court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into “not guilty”) and then pleading guilty to all charges.

    Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s many questions (“And where was the bomb?” “What did you do with the gun?”) offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt.

    On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully and informatively described his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.

    The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all 10 counts of his indictment: “Why do you want to plead guilty?” A reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in jail for long years. He replied forthrightly: I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty 100 times forward because – until the hour the US pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] US, and I plead guilty to that.”

    Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions: “I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks,” adding that “we Muslims are one community.”

    Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and “injure people or kill people” because “one has to understand where I’m coming from, because… I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”

    WHEN CEDARBAUM pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May 1 were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied: “Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same.”

    His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government, but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocent.

    However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad’s willingness to express his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters.”

    Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non- Muslims and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies.

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/toolbar.html?4t=extlink&4u=http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=179923

  47. Re. Judge Feldman: see the Judicial Disqualification Statute, Sections (a), (b)(iii) and (d)(4). I am surprised he did not see it. This is what these bastards are relying on when they go after him. They are all for enforcing the law when it supports their agenda–and all for evading it when it does not. In this Administration, the gate always swings one way only. Let us hope that if his judgment is set aside on these grounds the next judge who hears the case enters an identical finding. Among his many other sins in this matter, Obama is the one who authorized or ratified this offshore drilling, and his financial interest in the prosperity of BP is far greater and more direct than a judge who holds a few shares in his portfolio. Also, Obama’s financial interest in protecting his contributor BP by waiving off other offers to help and letting them run the show, is the proximate cause of this disaster. So who is kidding whom. Yes, I know, that there is a difference between the standards we hold a judge to vs. what we let a corrupt politician like Obama get away with. But in a unitary system like the one Obama and Cass Sunstein envision, everything is political, hence the difference between what is legal and what is political becomes a distinction without a difference.
    —————————————————————–
    United States Code, Title 28, Section 455
    Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate

    (a) ANY JUSTICE, JUDGE OR MAGISTRATE OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL DISQUALIFY HIMSELF IN ANY PROCEEDING IN WHICH HIS IMPARTIALITY MIGHT REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED;

    (b) HE SHALL DISQUALIFY HIMSELF IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:

    (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or a personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding
    ;
    (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

    (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

    (4) HE knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT MATTER IN CONTROVERSY or in a party to the proceeding, or has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS;

    (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

    (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

    (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

    (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

    (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

    (v) Serves as an instructor or on an advisory board of an educational institution that is a party to the proceeding.1

    (c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.

    (d) For the purposes of this section, the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:

    (1) “proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;

    (2) the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;

    (3) “fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;

    (4) “FINANCIAL INTEREST” MEANS OWNERSHIP OF A LEGAL OR EQUITABLE INTEREST, however small, or a relationship as director, advisor, or other active participant IN THE AFFAIRS OF A PARTY, except that:

    (i) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;

    (ii) An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;

    (iii) The proprietary interest of a policy holder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;

    (iv) OWNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENT SECURITIES IS A “FINANCIAL INTEREST” IN THE ISSUER ONLY IF THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS COULD SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE VALUE OF THE SECURITIES.

    (e) No justice, judge, or magistrate shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground of disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.

    (f) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.

    United States Code Annotated, Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1993, Ch. 21, pp. 656-658.

    Footnote

  48. June 29, 2010 4:31 PM

    Former Presidents Putin and Clinton Talk Russian Spy Arrests

    Former Russian President and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and former U.S. President Bill Clinton met today in Moscow. The two could not avoid commenting on the recent FBI arrests of 11 alleged deep-cover SVR (the Russian equivalent of the CIA) “agents” operating in the U.S.

    Putin, a former KGB (a predecessor of the SVR) officer, downplayed the significance of the incident in hope of keeping the improved relationship between the two countries on track.

    “You came to Moscow at a right time. Your police got out of control and grabbed some people,” Putin said, elciting a laugh from Clinton. “But this is just their job. I really expect that the positive that has been accumulated in the recent time in our international relations will not suffer, and I also hope that those people who value the Russian-American relations understand this in today’s situation as well.”

    Clinton followed Putin, stating that he was also encouraged that “relations between American and Russia will be getting better and better. I frequently addressed our government with request to speed up Russia’s entry into the WTO….”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009195-503544.html

  49. wbboei
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:47 am

    Thanks for posting the exclusions listed for Judges.

    If the Judge’s assets/stocks/etc were held in a Blind Trust; would those exclusions still apply?

  50. If the Judge’s assets/stocks/etc were held in a Blind Trust; would those exclusions still apply?
    ———————————————————————————————
    Is that what he is claiming, or is this just a hypothetical question?

    Since the purpose of the statute is to prevent self interest from affecting the outcome of a judicial decision, one could assume that if the assets were held in a blind trust, and if the Judge had no knowledge of their existence, then they could not have affected the decision. In that case, the purpose of the statute would appear to be satisfied. However, proving a lack of knowledge can be difficult, and the literal language makes no provision for this. Rather, it imposes upon the judge an affirmative duty to conduct a reasonable investigation into what he does own. But arguably the trust is a separate person from the Judge himself. The only way to know for sure would be to read the legislative history, and see whether there are any cases decided under this law relative to this defense. Perhaps someone on this blog has more expertise in this area. For me it is a case of first impression.

  51. Team Hillary on facebook seem to think the rogue endorsement by Clinton might be a sign that HRC will run in 2012.

  52. More bad news for Obama. What will he be doing on July 4? If he is smart, he will get on his prayer rug and bow to Mecca, Medina, and the King of Saudi Arabia who is one of the investors in this man. From the days of Rezko up to and including now Barack Hussein Obama remains what he always has been: a politician who stays bought.
    —————————————————————————————-
    Jobs Market Barely Budges in June as Hiring Stays Weak
    Published: Wednesday, 30 Jun 2010 | 10:21 AM ET Text Size
    By: Reuters

    U.S. private employers added just 13,000 jobs in June, according to a report published Wednesday that suggested expectations of a big drop in the government’s upcoming nonfarm payrolls report were on target.

    The ADP Employer Services report also said May’s gain was revised marginally higher to 57,000 from the original estimate of 55,000.

    That revision was basically the only good news, however, in a report that under-shot expectations of a rise of 60,000 private-sector jobs in June.

    It also supported fears that the short and tepid recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s was fizzling.

    “There is really no way to characterize this number other than disappointing,” said Macroeconomic Advisers LLC chairman Joel Prakken, whose firm jointly developed the ADP report. “The overall number tells you that the recovery in the jobs market is very, very sluggish at this point.”

    The ADP figures come ahead of the government’s much more comprehensive labor market report Friday.

    That report is expected to show a fall in nonfarm payrolls of 110,000 in June overall, as many temporary workers hired to complete the government’s decennial census were let go.

    “It is now generally expected that the peak level of census employment was in May and that in June there will be a decline in census hiring,” Prakken said. “And for that reason I think it’s very likely that the number reported Friday is going to be a negative number.”

    However, a gain in private payrolls of 112,000 is also expected in Friday’s payrolls report, according to a Reuters poll of analysts.

    If that kind of growth were maintained, it would generally be seen as an improvement. Prakken sounded a note of caution about the future, though, citing weakening economic momentum in consumer spending, housing construction and spillover effects from a European sovereign debt crisis that has hammered global stock prices.

    “You have a case here I think that we need to trim our forecasts for second-half growth,” said Prakken. “Slower GDP (gross domestic product) growth means slower employment, that’s for sure.”

    Economists often refer to the ADP report to fine-tune their expectations for the payrolls numbers, though it is not always accurate in predicting the outcome.

  53. When used car saleman Begala says Obama owns the party, he is wrong. Left wing neo libs and corportists control the party through him. Anyone stupid enough to believe that a community organizer and parttime senator controls the party should check in at the nearest mental hospital-and pack a tooth brush. Gee Paul that Nash rambler with the headlights out, warn tires, and a missing steering wheel with an Earl Sheib looks like a reliable source of transportation. I will take it as is where is at any price you say Paul. Would that make you happy?

  54. wbboei.

    The ones to me that really look silly are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They supported the man, when both of those are smart enough to have known better. They had all the information we had. It makes their building of their fortunes look like nothing but dumb luck.

  55. #
    NewMexicoFan
    June 30th, 2010 at 11:30 am

    Team Hillary on facebook seem to think the rogue endorsement by Clinton might be a sign that HRC will run in 2012.
    ———
    That’s pretty much what Morris said on Hannity the other night when they talked about obama, the oil gusher and time to emote later.

    Why would our Hillary be flying all over Hell and back, working like the Energizer Bunny on steroids if she had no hope of running for President?

    She is not ready to retire, and she is meeting leaders all over the world, she has the highest poll numbers of any person in either party, I think she is building her resume so that no one, the DNC, candidate or talking head can say this woman is not qualified to be…

    the First Woman President of the United States, Madam Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Better get ready to change your domain name Admin, to Hillaryis45!!!!!

  56. More bad news for Obama. What will he be doing on July 4? If he is smart, he will get on his prayer rug and bow to Mecca, Medina, and the King of Saudi Arabia who is one of the investors in this man.

    ——–
    No kidding.

  57. U.S. private employers added just 13,000 jobs in June, according to a report published Wednesday that suggested expectations of a big drop in the government’s upcoming nonfarm payrolls report were on target.

    The ADP Employer Services report also said May’s gain was revised marginally higher to 57,000 from the original estimate of 55,000.
    *********
    These jobs reports, especially from the Obama Propaganda Ministry, never seem to mention that ~150,000 jobs need to be added each month just to maintain the status quo, ie a U6 of ~17%.

  58. These jobs reports, especially from the Obama Propaganda Ministry, never seem to mention that ~150,000 jobs need to be added each month just to maintain the status quo, ie a U6 of ~17%.
    —————————————————————-
    Yes indeed. A material omission. And it is purposeful. The public needs a frame of reference to understand what adding only 13,000 jobs means. Absent that frame of reference, a propagandist could argue and an ignoramus could assume that a recovery is well underway since jobs are being added to the economy.

    Another example is todays article by Associated Press which reports that Obama is accepting aid from foreign nations to deal with the oil spill. They make no mention of the fact that he failed to do so for 72 days. That is another material omission. This from the same schlockmeisters who never miss an opportunity to mention that Obama defeated Hillary, when in fact he cheated his way to the Presidency, with their collusion. And now of course the chickens have come home to roost.

  59. Blago trial…

    Complaining about ‘demigod’ Obama

    Rod Blagojevich’s corruption trial picked up this morning from its cliffhanger ending Tuesday with prosecutors playing more from the wiretap that famously captured the then-governor talking about his power to appoint a new U.S. senator as “(expletive) golden.”

    Former campaign aide Doug Scofield testified Tuesday that Blagojevich was jealous of Obama’s rise into national politics and ultimately to the White House, and that theme continued this morning.

    More of Blagojevich’s November 2008 conversation with Scofield has Blagojevich railing about Obama, the newly-elected president.

    “He’s a demigod now,” Blagojevich complained.

    Blagojevich also dreamed out loud about what might have happened if he had decided to get into the Democratic presidential race before the Iowa caucuses, which Obama won.

    “I could’ve worked my ass off,” said Blagojevich, adding that he would have hired political consultant David Axelrod to preempt Obama. “That would’ve scared him,” Blagojevich said.

    Axelrod, one of the masterminds of Obama’s U.S. Senate and presidential runs, helped Blagojevich win a congressional seat in 1996. But the two had a falling out later when Axelrod declined to get involved in Blagojevich’s 2002 run for governor.

    Blagojevich concluded his lament by acknowledging he would have done no better than fourth place in Iowa.

    “No way I’m even 20 (percent),” he admitted to himself.

    “We all agree there was no play there,” Blagojevich said. “Am I better off than I am now? Probably no different.”

    Scofield told Blagojevich that Obama’s climb to the presidency was a crazy combination of “timing and fate and luck,” adding that then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton was the “one who needs to have this conversation with herself” about whether running for president was worth it.

    “She’s got a few regrets,” Scofield said.

    Blagojevich said he felt somewhat “like I’ve failed,” but Scofield reminded the governor he still had something “both important and valuable” — the ability to appoint Obama’s successor in the U.S. Senate.

    Scofield testified that in his conversations with the governor about the seat, Blagojevich seemed most interested in appointing himself. He didn’t think it was a good idea, Scofield said, and Blagojevich didn’t like hearing that.

    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/blagojevich-on-trial/2010/06/complaining-about-demigod-obama.html#more

  60. White House to let McChrystal retire with 4 stars

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/29/obama.mcchrystal.retirement/index.html

    ——-
    On this link there is a video that talks about McChrystal and the war…the best part is Carville at the end of the video saying that he want’s McChrystal to come down and help him with the Gulf gusher, that he is a great General, that “ran his mouth” too much, but “we all have done that”, and “…if you are listening to this, come on down here and help me with this problem, we need you and will even let you talk to the press down here”.

  61. Jobs in the UK…I think that we are watching a massive “train wreck” unfold in slow motion.

    “Earlier, the Guardian said leaked Treasury figures predicted that up to 120,000 public sector jobs and 140,000 private sector jobs could disappear annually for the next five years.

    The newspaper said the figures came from a slide which was part of a Treasury presentation on the Budget.

    It claimed the chancellor would have seen the presentation before delivering his Budget last week and said the leaked documents suggested that the Budget could result in a 1.3 million increase in unemployment.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10457352.st
    Economic “Scylla and Charybdis”…austerity, budget cuts, job losses and deflation or the Bernake solution “The US government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.” …pick your poison (or sea monster)

  62. Michael Scherer of Time magazine is asking an obvious question and very very late in the day:

    http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/06/30/faced-with-the-blagojevich-scandal-did-barack-obama-tell-the-whole-truth/?xid=rss-topstories

    Just weeks after President Obama won the 2008 election, the governor of Illinois was charged with trying to sell Obama’s old Senate seat. It was an early challenge for the then president-elect, and he responded in a grand gesture of transparency. He asked Greg Craig, his future White House Counsel, to investigate “any staff contacts or communications” with Governor Rod Blagojevich’s office. Less than two weeks later, Craig released a public report, which purported to remove any lingering doubt about the President’s involvement in the matter. [snip]

    This all seemed rather open and shut. Since the press had no information suggesting otherwise, President Obama was allowed to move on from the scandal. But recent testimony in the Blagojevich trial suggests that Craig’s report and Obama’s effort at transparency failed to tell the entire story.

    On Tuesday, an Illinois union leader, Thomas Balanoff, testified that he received a phone call the day before the election from President Obama to discuss Valerie Jarrett and the Senate seat. Balanoff would serve as a go-between, connecting the Obama inner circle to the Blagojevich inner circle.[snip]

    Balanoff’s testimony, given under oath, raises questions about what else Craig left out of his 2008 report. It is not explained, for instance, why the Craig report mentions a conversation Balanoff had with Jarrett about the seat, but not the one Balanoff had with Obama. Asked about Balanoff’s testimony at Tuesday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he would not comment on “an ongoing trial.”

    The Balanoff disclosures stop short of incriminating Obama in Blagojevich’s allegedly criminal scheme. But they shed new doubt both on President Obama’s declared commitment to transparency and the credibility of the staff account of his role in the Blagojevich matter. If the Craig report chose to omit any mention of a conversation with a known go-between for Blagojevich, in which the President is, at least, understood to be recommending Jarrett, then there is no telling what other salient facts were also left out. The trial continues today.

  63. ‘Transparency’ is just another word for shuck and jive.

    (Shuckin’ and jivin’ usually involves clever lies and impromptu storytelling, used to one-up an opponent or avoid punishment.)

    Slick Rick the Poverty Pimp.

  64. AmericanGal
    June 29th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
    What is the Kos complaint against the pollsters? Anti-Obama, not pro-Obama enough…what are they suspicious about?
    &&&&&&&

    Probably Kos can use it to justify why Kos himself was so prObrama…if he had only gotten good facts…

    Sucka.

  65. Obama’s Katrina problem is incompetence.

    The problem isn’t that the President can’t find someone to do this job. The problem is the President himself isn’t up to the job of leadership required by the crisis.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&

    I noticed that the Democratic Congressman Gene Taylor referred to the “Obama Administration” as incompetent, not specifically Obama.

    Smart move. If he singles out the president, people could say he’s being racist. Putting in on the whole administration defangs that charge, yet puts the blame on Obama anyhow, because Obama is the one who selected his administration.

  66. VOID AT THE TOP: OBAMA WITHOUT SPECIFIC IDEAS ON ENERGY SEEKS “SHARED URGENCY”

    Another vacuous, purposeless photo op. More NOTHING from Obama.

    Money quotes:

    “Mr. Obama neither offered specific ideas of his own nor endorsed any of these proposals, but said all parties shared an urgency about enacting some form of energy legislation this year, the White House account said.”

    Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said Mr. Obama was attentive but noncommittal. “He’s not saying, ‘Here’s what I want you to do,’ ” Mr. Brown said. “He probably needs to say that and push one approach. He hasn’t done that yet.”

    The whole deal:

    nytimes.com/2010/06/30/science/earth/30energy.html

    White House Energy Session Changes No Minds
    =======================================

    By JOHN M. BRODER
    Published: June 29, 2010

    WASHINGTON — The senators who emerged from a White House meeting with President Obama on energy policy on Tuesday made no effort to paper over the large differences that remain between them.

    Democrats continued to insist on putting some sort of price on greenhouse gas emissions; Republicans continued to insist that to do so would be to impose a tax that would smother the economy.

    “We have to take a national energy tax off the table,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

    “There is no energy tax,” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, sponsor of a bill that would significantly raise the cost of greenhouse gas pollution.

    This battle has divided the Senate for a year and must be somehow resolved in the coming weeks if the Senate is to produce a comprehensive energy bill that also addresses the gases contributing to climate change.

    It does not appear that Tuesday’s meeting moved either side, although Mr. Kerry said Tuesday that he was willing to scale back the bill he and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, proposed this spring to cut energy use and reduce global warming pollution. Mr. Kerry suggested starting with electric utilities only, a plan tentatively embraced Tuesday by Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine.

    Mr. Obama summoned the 23 senators, of both parties, to the White House to try to find some way out of the impasse. He repeated his call for putting a price on climate-altering pollution through a cap-and-trade system or some other sort of emissions tax, but acknowledged the adamant opposition to the idea from most Republicans as well as some Democrats.

    “Not all of the senators agreed with this approach,” noted an account of the meeting provided by the White House, “and the president welcomed other approaches and ideas that would take real steps to reduce our dependence on oil, create jobs, strengthen our national security and reduce the pollution in our atmosphere.”

    Among the ideas circulating in Washington are a so-called energy-only bill that would encourage conservation and greater efficiency in buildings and vehicles; more government incentives for alternative fuels; a plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants while delaying regulation of other major sources of pollution for years; and a measure to rapidly build nuclear power plants and electrify the American vehicle fleet.

    Mr. Obama neither offered specific ideas of his own nor endorsed any of these proposals, but said all parties shared an urgency about enacting some form of energy legislation this year, the White House account said.

    Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said Mr. Obama was attentive but noncommittal.

    “He’s not saying, ‘Here’s what I want you to do,’ ” Mr. Brown said. “He probably needs to say that and push one approach. He hasn’t done that yet.”

    Mr. Brown said no one offered support for expanded offshore drilling as a way to reduce dependence on imported oil. Mr. Obama proposed just such a plan three weeks before the BP Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April, killing 11 workers and sending an uncapped geyser of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

    As Mr. Obama tried to nudge the Senate forward on a comprehensive energy package, both chambers were moving swiftly on measures to address the oil leak in the gulf and the industry and regulatory practices that contributed to it.

    House and Senate committees will begin debate on Wednesday on bills that will change the way offshore drillers operate and the government oversees them.

    There are several proposals to lift the current $75 million limit on liability for drilling accidents; the strongest, by Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, would eliminate the cap entirely.

    There are bills before both chambers to revamp the Interior Department agency that regulates drilling on public lands and waters. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has already proposed splitting the agency formerly known as the Minerals Management Service into three separate offices and renaming the minerals service the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Two Congressional panels are studying alternative overhaul plans.

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee will take up a bill called the Blowout Prevention Act that will require oil companies digging high-risk wells in deep water to use more sophisticated emergency equipment with backup systems to ensure they work in the case of a blowout. The bill also sets strict new rules for how wells are designed, cemented and encased and requires that a relief well be started within 15 days of an accident.

    There is broad support in both parties for new regulations on offshore operations, for measures to aid the Gulf Coast and for some form of energy legislation that tries to reduce dependence on imported oil. But consensus ends there.

    Mr. Lieberman said he believed that he and other proponents of a strong energy bill could win some Republican support, though he said he had not yet found the formula for gaining those votes.

    “I’m not naïve about the difficulty of doing this in an election year,” he said.

  67. Cinie rocks it on the Kooks…

    Kos Polls Bunk, He’s Shocked!

    How’s that for a headline, huh? Well, it seems Daily Kos has been running polls done by a company called Research 2000, with results seemingly made outta whole cloth, but, get this, Markos Moulitsas swears he had no idea! Haven’t had time to read all the stories yet, but folks are having a conniption over this, especially other “progressive” bloggers like the folks over at Talking Points Memo. They’re weighing the implications with hands a-wringing.

    The story for publication is that Markos hired a polling firm that fudged the numbers, so he’s gonna sue. From what I gather so far, the whole mishegas came to a head via cyber poll analysis man, Nate Silver, who said, “whoa, what’s up with this?” or, words to that effect. Kos replied, “uh, whatchoo talkin’ ’bout, Nate? You, uh…talkin’ to me?” or something like that, and it was on like Donkey Kong.

    A report released Tuesday by Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos shows “quite convincingly,” he says, that the weekly poll Research 2000 conducted for his Web site for the past year and a half was “likely bunk.”

    In a statement that surely stunned many in the political and polling communities, Mr. Moulitsas’ alleges that, “while we don’t know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can’t trust it.” He said he intends to soon file a lawsuit against the polling firm.

    Research 2000 had conducted a weekly poll for Daily Kos since early 2009, but was fired by Mr. Moulitsas earlier this month, in part, he said, due to the company’s poor rating in Nate Silver’s pollster rankings on fivethirtyeight.com. Aside from Daily Kos, the polling firm has been employed by a host of media clients and its results have been broadly cited, according to the company’s Web site.

    Oh, the pain! How could you, Markos? We trusted you, and you lead us astray! (snicker, snort!) Ha!, bet there’s some KoolAid shooting out the noses of a few exploding Obot heads right about now. Or, if there’s any decency left in the world, there should be.

    http://cinie.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/kos-polls-bunk-hes-shocked/

  68. McChrystal to come down and help him with the Gulf gusher, that he is a great General, that “ran his mouth” too much, but “we all have done that”
    *******
    The RS article was just the convenient exit point for McCrystal. He was axed because he was “off message”. The Afghan war is rapidly going into the shitter with no workable options but the message from the SIC is that the War in Afghanistan is the “good war”. It’s a replay of the psychology of Bush II vs Bush I in Irag except it’s Obama vs Bush II in Afghanistan. The Marjah offensive was supposed to be the warm up to the Kandahar offensive. Marhar was supposed to be a confidence building “push-over” but as McCrystal said it’s turned into a “bleeding ulcer”. Kandahar probably isn’t going to happen if for no other reason that the “campaign” season will end in the fall. I think that Obama decided to get rid of McCrystal after the NATO meeting last month when the General told the NATO ministers that the Afghan War wasn’t going well.

    It’s all about him:

    “On Sunday, Obama said at a press conference following the G20 summit in Toronto: “Now, there has been a lot of obsession around this whole issue of when do we leave. My focus right now is how do we make sure that what we’re doing there is successful, given the incredible sacrifices that our young men and women are putting in.”

    So Obama is going to “double down” by killing more NATO soldiers and Afghan civilians so that he can claim “success”.

  69. “Is that what he is claiming, or is this just a hypothetical question?”
    ____________________________-

    No- Felder said he sold his oil stock when he decided to take the case. My question is a hypothetical.

  70. The Balanoff disclosures stop short of incriminating Obama in Blagojevich’s allegedly criminal scheme. But they shed new doubt both on President Obama’s declared commitment to transparency and the credibility of the staff account of his role in the Blagojevich matter. If the Craig report chose to omit any mention of a conversation with a known go-between for Blagojevich, in which the President is, at least, understood to be recommending Jarrett, then there is no telling what other salient facts were also left out. The trial continues today.
    ——————————————
    I fully expect that the original Craig Report made mention of this and Obama’s cabal or Obama himself had that information stricken from the report. We will not know however until the Republicans take office, convene a hearing, subpoena Craig, ask him whether his investigation discovered such evidence and if not why not, or if so why it was not included in the report. Then the next question would be whether, as White House counsel charged with that investigation, he presented that finding to Obama. And if at any point along the way Craig pleads attorney client privilege and/or the Fifth Amendment, well then you will have your answer. My guess? He knew, he told Obama and it was stricken at Obama’s request. It is a wonderful box to put him in where he is either incompetent or corrupt. He could be neither but it is unlikely.

  71. No- Felder said he sold his oil stock when he decided to take the case. My question is a hypothetica
    —————————–
    Pretty good hypothetical Mrs. Smith. If he sold it before he made the decision then what is all the fuss about?

  72. The savvy of Hillary and Bill, will she run again…..

    Hillary in 2012? It’s not a farfetched notion

    bill-and-hillary

    ‘The two most shrewd and savvy politicians’: Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, describing the Clintons

    THE FORMER U.S. SENATOR AND FIRST LADY
    HASN’T STOPPED RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
    SINCE OBAMA DEFEATED cheated HER 2 YEARS AGO

    By Alan Z. Forman

    Recent speculation discounting a run for the White House by Hillary Clinton in 2012 fails to consider the obvious: The former first lady/U.S. senator has not stopped running for president since well before Barack Obama defeated her and was himself elected.

    Nor has her husband stopped campaigning tirelessly toward that end.

    The junior senator from New York surprised nearly everyone when she accepted Obama’s offer to become his secretary of state, a move by the new president widely considered at the time to be brilliant: He could unite his party, obtain a competent high-profile cabinet member who would support his policies, satisfy female voters, and remove his major rival from presidential consideration — all in one fell swoop.

    What everyone failed to consider is that William Jefferson Clinton is the shrewdest politician in this country in recent memory; that he sees his wife’s election as the missing element/fulfillment of his own presidency and as necessary to cementing his place in history — and that he has the uncanny ability to read the political future.

    It is that uncanny ability that his and Hillary’s political opponents continue to underestimate. And it is that ability to see things unfold before they occur that most likely prompted the former president to advise his wife to take the job, and set the stage for her ascent to the highest office in the land.

    Don’t believe it? Let me explain.

    NOT IN THE CLINTONS’ BEST INTERESTS

    It was not in the Clintons’ best interests for Obama to be elected — they would have been better positioned to campaign against a President McCain. Still, they touched all the right bases and did all the right things to support their party’s nominee, campaigning enthusiastically for Obama — albeit with mostly verbal support — but not really wanting him to win.

    So it seemed brilliant when the first black president — not Clinton, who was often called that by many African-Americans, but Obama — made it clear he wanted contradictory cabinet officials and advisers peopling his presidency, as President Lincoln had done (cf., Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, 2005).

    Like Lincoln in selecting his cabinet a century and a half before, Obama named his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination he had recently won to be his chief cabinet officer in the new administration. Or did he “pick” Hillary because that was the price he had to pay for the Clintons’ show of support during the campaign against John McCain?

    Conventional wisdom during the general election campaign of 2008 was that it was not in Hillary’s interests to be secretary of state. Having just been defeated by Obama, why would she want to help or join him?

    Even more important, how could she hope to become president if she became a member of the Obama team? In eight years she would probably be too old to be a viable candidate. Wouldn’t it be better for her to remain in the Senate, where she could maintain her independence, assert and extend her leadership, and criticize the new president — if and when the time became right — from the sidelines?

    The flaw in that line of thinking is that Obama could have easily thrown a monkey wrench into the scenario simply by appointing her to the first vacancy on the Supreme Court, thereby eliminating her as a rival permanently. She would have been hard-pressed to refuse the appointment — no one refuses a president’s nomination to the Supreme Court — and would thus have been removed from presidential contention for life.

    Bill Clinton sees those things, with his uncanny ability to look into the political abyss that is the future. He frequently makes mistakes, to be sure, but he learns from them: He doesn’t make the same mistake a second time. For example, in the last campaign, he hurt his wife’s candidacy against Obama by, among other things, taking center stage.

    He won’t do that again.

    PAULA JONES AND MONICA LEWINSKY

    One might argue that he repeated his mistake regarding girlfriend Paula Jones with intern Monica Lewinsky. [snip]

    Newt Gingrich, the former GOP speaker of the House whom Clinton vanquished in 1996 despite being under threat of imminent impeachment — and himself a Republican presidential prospect for 2012 (albeit a weak one) — has described Hillary as “one of the two most shrewd and savvy politicians” he has encountered in his lifetime. “The other one,” says Gingrich, “is her husband.”

    Consider therefore, that Bill Clinton foresaw the prospect of Obama’s eliminating Hillary from contention by appointing her to the high court, thus removing her from the Senate and marginalizing her political base — and also Clinton’s own place in history by preventing his wife from fulfilling his presidential legacy.

    Consider in addition the prospect that Clinton, and probably also Hillary — she may not be as shrewd as he is, but she certainly runs a close second — recognized from the outset that Obama’s inexperience would ultimately bring about his failure, that his rhetorical skills would not suffice in the absence of real political acumen, that too much promise accompanied by too little delivery would quickly wear thin with the electorate — and that by 2012 the president might well be vulnerable to a serious challenge from within his own party.

    Add to that the growing perception that Obama, while well-intentioned, is out of his depth as chief executive, that he just isn’t up to the job; that he isn’t Harry Truman firing an immensely popular but insubordinate Douglas MacArthur, he’s merely an inexperienced president firing a brilliant and successful, albeit loose-lipped, Stanley McChrystal.

    There were no wusses in President Truman’s White House. And MacArthur was warned repeatedly by Truman before the president took the drastic step of firing him in the middle of a war.

    Obama’s never had to make a decision like whether or not to drop a nuclear bomb, shut down the steel industry, or institute a Marshall Plan to repair and rebuild a former military monolith his nation had just defeated in a World War. Iraq and Afghanistan are not Germany and Japan.

    Nor is history on the president’s side. The only Democratic chief executive since Franklin Roosevelt to be elected to a second term is Obama’s adversary’s husband Bill, only the second White House Democrat since 1916 to accomplish the feat of reelection.

    NO CHALLENGER HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL

    However, it’s not unprecedented for incumbent presidents to be challenged for renomination, although no such challenger has been successful since the late 1800s. The closest to winning in the 20th century was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, followed by Ronald Reagan in 1976 and Edward Kennedy in 1980. In 1968 former Senator Eugene McCarthy caused incumbent President Lyndon Johnson to drop out of the renomination race.

    Will Hillary run in 2012? It’s probably too soon to know. If President Obama can prevent the Democrats from losing a substantial number of seats this year in the House of Representatives and Senate, then likely no.

    But if the Republicans do well in November — especially if they regain control of either house of Congress — the president will have to absorb a substantial portion of the blame, thereby further weakening his own candidacy two years hence. He already has been blamed for high-profile Democratic losses in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts this past year, where he foolishly put his personal prestige on the line in support of losing candidates.

    And just last week a Rasmussen poll revealed that a majority of Americans think Hillary is more qualified to be president than the president.

    A Clinton candidacy, while not a certainty by any means, is nonetheless a distinct possibility.

    No one doubts she wants it. No one doubts her husband wants it.

    If she runs, he can be counted on to not make the mistakes that hurt her in the last campaign. If she makes the decision to do what’s only been done three times in exactly a hundred years, he can be counted on to be a major player by her side.

    She can’t do it without him. But with him she can change history. It’s a heady challenge.

    Whatever one may think of the Clintons’ political marriage, they are in tandem and in synch when it comes to waging political war to win elections.

    And this time, she will have yet another credential to recommend her to the voters, that of secretary of state — an office held by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison when it was a stepping-stone to the presidency, as well as other presidents before they became chief executive.

    As secretary she has steered a course of non-confrontation and competence and has received high marks from virtually all quarters, without being connected in any way to Obama’s failures.

    If she runs against him she’ll be hard to beat.

  73. Shadowfax, here’s a supplement to your Bill Clinton comment:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/maggiehaberman/0610/Burton_confirms_no_headsup_on_Romanoff.html

    White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton confirms something I’d heard floating around from sources close to the Obama administration – that they had no heads-up about Bill Clinton’s Andrew Romanoff endorsement. It relates to the story Ben and I did last night about the relationship between the two camps.

    Here’s the relevant portion of the gaggle transcript:

    Is the President at all offended by Bill Clinton’s endorsement of Romanoff?

    MR. BURTON: I have not talked to him about it. It sounds to me like just a difference of opinion in a primary.

    Q Gibbs was asked yesterday if the White House had any heads up on that. He wasn’t sure. Do you know if you guys got any heads up?

    MR. BURTON: We didn’t.

    Q You did not?

    MR. BURTON: No.

    Q You all found out when everybody else found out?

    MR. BURTON: That’s right.

    Q Do you know what the reaction inside the White House was?

    MR. BURTON: It was — there is a lot of things that happen in the White House every day. This was just one of those things where, okay, we have a difference of opinion in this primary.

  74. What everyone failed to consider is that William Jefferson Clinton is the shrewdest politician in this country in recent memory;
    ********
    Reminds me of seeing BC in the Capitol Hotel bar talking to a small group of people in 1987. There was mild speculation that he might run in ’88 and he was asked what his plans were. To paraphrase: “George Bush can’t be beaten in 1988, however, the economy will deteriorate and he can be beaten in 1992.”

  75. Alan Z. Forman is a political scientist (Columbia University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences) and freelance writer/ editor who formerly worked as a reporter/copy editor for the Baltimore Sun. A Navy veteran, he served as principal speechwriter for the U.S. Small Business Administrator and Federal Maritime Commission Chairman as well as other high-ranking presidential appointees, members of Congress and the military, and has been an adjunct professor at Loyola University Maryland plus other academic institutions in the Baltimore metropolitan area. The Charm City native grew up in Reservoir Hill, Windsor Hills and Mt. Washington, and is a graduate of Baltimore City College.
    —————————
    Smart guy. Pretty interesting analysis above. He puts the dolts in main stream media to shame. I am not sure he is correct on the protocol of appointments to USSCt, how she became SOS, and how the DNC rule changes will affect things, but if Obama is seen to fail these hurdles will be surmountable. And, he is most definitely failing.

  76. Spector slams Kagan for dodging real answers to their questions…

    The third day of Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings may have demonstrated that there are limits to her charm offensive, as Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) went to notable lengths to chastise the Supreme Court nominee for, as he put it, avoiding “substantive discussion.”

    The Pennsylvania Democrat, in what seems likely to be the last Supreme Court confirmation hearing of his Senate career, reached a point of clear frustration on Wednesday with Kagan’s unwillingness to engage in detailed legal conversation.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/specter-gets-frustrated-w_n_630952.html

  77. Here we go………

    EPA opening public “Decontamination Stations”; 400 people seek medical care after visiting Florida beach

    he Escambia County Health Department lifted a health advisory on Pensacola Beach on Friday on the advice of a beach official and against the advice of a federal environmental official. …

    Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency plans to put decontamination stations along the beach, possibly as early as this weekend. …

    Dr. John Lanza, director of Escambia County Health Department, said the reason for leaving the decision up to beachgoers on whether to swim is because the oil situation on the beach is “very dynamic.”

    “We have a situation that changes from one hour to the next, from one tide to the next, from wave to wave, from one wind direction to another,” he said. …

    Read more..

    http://thejournalreport.com/2010/06/epa-opening-public-%E2%80%9Cdecontamination-stations%E2%80%9D-400-people-seek-medical-care-after-visiting-florida-beach/

    (Link from PUMApac)

  78. So far, 400 people have sought medical care for upper or lower respiratory problems, headaches, nausea, and eye irritation after trips to Escambia County beaches, Lanza said.

  79. So far, 400 people have sought medical care for upper or lower respiratory problems, headaches, nausea, and eye irritation after trips to Escambia County beaches, Lanza said.
    ——————————
    ObamaPlague

  80. Shadowfax
    June 30th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    The savvy of Hillary and Bill, will she run again…..

    Hillary in 2012? It’s not a farfetched notion

    bill-and-hillary

    ‘The two most shrewd and savvy politicians’: Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, describing the Clintons

    ———————————————————

    Shadowfax, what a great article. I had shivers reading it.

  81. Speaking of Bill Clinton, it is heartwarming to see how beloved both he and Hillary are when they visit other countries.

    bambi on the other hand is getting treated more and more with no respect by foreign leaders.

  82. Is McKrystal coming to the coast to help with the oil spill??? If so, it was Carville who told him to come….this is getting very INTERESTING!

  83. politico.com/news/stories/0610/38826.html

    from the politico article above…this just about says it all when it comes to
    O vs BC:

    Democrats with a close knowledge of the Clinton-Obama relationship declined to talk about it publicly, because both sides see the value of public harmony.[snip]

    But it retains an intensely competitive edge. Obama’s criticism during the campaign of Clinton’s compromises when he was in office deeply rankled the former president. One former Clinton aide put a comparison of the men’s political skills bluntly: “He’s still the best. He’s better than Obama.”

    Clinton, by virtue of the coalitions he built as a candidate and as president, and his current freedom from the realities of governance, has political advantages his successor lacks.

    (…and he is still the best…He’s BETTER than O) end of story…period!

  84. anyone else see the clips of O whining away today…he is back to his primary punkiness in front of crowds…what an embarrassment…this man will never be a statesman…take away that teleprompter and he is a stuttering mess…

    all he does is whine and complain and point fingers…and LIE…shrill does not begin to describe him…btw, i noticed the people behind him were motionless…not laughing, not clapping…no, ‘yes we can’…just robots sitting behind him while he pontificates…

    Feingold has a good article out today stating why he will not vote for financial regulation…it is another sham/scam…how stupid can the left be buying this stuff?!

  85. it is another sham/scam…how stupid can the left be buying this stuff?!
    *******
    Because the “Right” and the “Left” are both being paid to play on the same team. In the “street theater” of partisan politics Sen. Dodd and Cong. Frank are “lefties”.

    “The measure has been dubbed the Dodd-Frank bill, after its main authors and congressional sponsors—Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (Democrat from Connecticut) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Democrat from Massachusetts). These two individuals exemplify the corrupt relationship between Wall Street and Congress.

    According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dodd’s single biggest campaign contributor over the course of his Senate career has been Citigroup, which has donated $427,694. His top five donors include three banks. The biggest source of campaign funds has been the securities and investment industry, which has plowed over $6 million into his coffers. Included in his top five industries are insurance, real estate and commercial banks.

    The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Frank’s top contributor has been the American Bankers Association ($78,950). Ranked second is JPMorgan Chase ($74,500). His top five industries for campaign donations are real estate, securities and investment, insurance, lawyers/law firms and commercial banks.”

  86. yes, SHV…Dodd, Franks, Geithner, Summers, O…Pelosi, Hoyer…all of them…one for all and all for one…I have to laugh at my “progressive” friends that railed about Glass Steagall and BC…but now…after the crash and when reform and dems control everything…not a peep…even though Maria Cantrell and of all people, McCain tried to reinstate it…the WH worked against it…this is a repeat of the health scam…same wheeling dealing…same players…same theft…

  87. Dick Morris on O’Reilly Report (hosted tonight by Laura Graham) is theorizing on Bill Clinton and his slapping of Barack Obama.

  88. one for all and all for one
    *******
    Perhaps the major difference between the political parties is that the Democrats are much more corrupt than the Republicans.

  89. Dick Morris’ column, which essentially echoes what we wrote a long time ago (which is now conventional wisdom – if the Dimocrats lose big in November, so does Obama and the opportunity presents itself for us to get rid of him):

    http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/06/30/clintons-distance-themselves-from-obama/

    A little bit of daylight has begun to emerge between the Clintons and President Obama. As the president’s ratings drop — recently, particularly among liberals — the first signs are beginning to show of distance between the former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    As always with the Clintons, the signs are made evident by a carefully choreographed two-step in which they fill their separate roles, one as an outsider and the other as a loyal insider to the Obama Administration. But never doubt that everything these two do is coordinated and orchestrated.

    On Bill’s end, there emerge faint signs of disagreement with the president. Commenting on the Gulf oil spill, the former president warned against ratcheting up the rhetoric against BP noting that it is that firm’s expertise upon which the Administration must rely to end the spill and terminate the slide in his ratings that it has triggered. More confrontationally, Bill has endorsed Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff for the Democratic Senate nomination in Colorado even as the Obama White House is strongly backing Michael Bennet, the Democratic Senator appointed to fill the seat vacated by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. For Bill Clinton to challenge Obama so overtly to a proxy battle in the Colorado Senate primary is, indeed, remarkable considering his wife’s role in the Administration.

    Hillary, as befits her position — but not necessarily her personality — is more demure. While she takes no shots at her boss and does not cross him in any way, she is gradually expanding her purview beyond the foreign affairs mandate of her job. It was Secretary of State Clinton who first released to the media the fact that Obama’s Justice Department would be suing the state of Arizona over their new anti-illegal immigration law. And it was also the Secretary of State who noted that she felt that rich people were not paying their “fair share” of taxes in the U.S., while carefully explaining that she was only expressing her personal views. Would Condi Rice have thusly spoken out? Or Madeline Albright? Or even Colin Powell?

    Hillary’s forays into domestic policy issues come through her role as a former presidential candidate, not the most comfortable of hats to wear while working in the White House of one’s former adversary.

    So…where will this lead? If Obama recovers his popularity and keeps control of Congress it won’t lead to anything. But should his drop continue and the Republicans win the 2010 elections, a groundswell could emerge for Hillary for the 2012 nomination. The Clintons’ moves indicate that they are fully aware of this possibility and want to be in a position to exploit it should the opportunity arise.

    The more immediate impact, however, will likely be harsh and swift retaliation from the Obama White House, particularly against Bill for his Romanoff endorsement. These boys and girls come from Chicago where politics is played a little bit differently. Look for no more presidential missions to North Korea or Haiti for a while for the former president and for some strong indication of White House displeasure.

  90. I love the article about HRC running in 2012. Problem is, how can Forman call BC prescient when he failed to see the shoddy job Mark Penn was doing for HRC’s campaign or the fact the DNC had pre-selected BO as their candidate?

    BC is brilliant but (sorry to say) if he could foretell the future HRC would be POTUS, now.

  91. A few observations now that Judge Felder is holding up Obama’s delivery to Soros the Gulf’s oil rigs released from his Interior Secty’s moratorium.

    Does anybody find this completely sickening that this ‘Vote’ to seize the assets of a US Company happened less than one day after Obama nominated a new Embassador to Venezuala? Why is Obama protecting Venezuela and allowing this takeover to happen?

    (An off the cuff comment not indicating a preference for Bush but a contrast between a global puppet and a partisan puppet.) “If Bush was in office Hugo would be getting bombed right now.”

    “Hugo Chavez will keep to his promise to use military force if neccessary when taking over property owned by US companies. This time, Venezuela will commendeer oil rigs worth millions with an earning potential of billions.”

    “How is it that a government, a socialist-communist government take over assets of a contracted US owned corporation and we don’t hear a blinking thing about it in the news? ”

    “The only way to find out about it is to dig deep and unless you have been watching the tensions of the region, and following European News Agencies, we would never know about it.”

    “This article is buried so deeply in Y! News that in the eight hours that it has been posted, only four previous comments have been made. Is this yet another attempt by Y News! to protect the president for more disgraceful acts of misconduct? I would hope our president would protect our people, our businesses, our earnings and all else that is important to our success as a nation, but it appears that Obama is really Obummer as it appears that he will ALLOW Hugo Chavez to seize control of these assets creating the needed precedent for all other Dictators and Communist regimes to harm, destroy, remove or seize US owned assets all over the world.”
    __________________

    Obama is gifting the oil rigs to Chavez and Chavez will in turn pass the rigs onto Soros- watch and see how it’s done.
    ____________________

    Venezuela govt to nationalize 11 US-owned oil rigs

    CARACAS (AFP) – Venezuela’s legislature has voted to nationalize 11 oil rigs owned by the US firm Helmerich & Payne.

    The rigs, located in Monagas, Anzoategui and Zulia states, will be taken over by state oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the official news agency AVN said.

    PDVSA had asked the legislature controlled by supporters of leftist President Hugo Chavez to take over the rigs after the US firm declined to negotiate a new service contract, unlike 32 other foreign firms.

    The oil giant is South America’s top oil producer.

    Since 2007 Caracas has nationalized companies in industries from oil to utilities, to telecoms, cement, steel and banking.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100630/bs_afp/venezuelanationalizationoilus

  92. Some news i just heard, 2012 DNC convention site finalists apparently are : St. Louis, Charlotte, Cleveland and Minneapolis. In case you were wondering.

  93. admin
    June 30th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
    Dick Morris on O’Reilly Report (hosted tonight by Laura Graham) is theorizing on Bill Clinton and his slapping of Barack Obama.
    _______________________

    Everything Bill and Hillary predicted about Obama has come True. Unusual for 2 people in one family known for their prescient abilities. 🙂

  94. So Which City do we want Hillary to accept the 2012 nomination in. I want Cleveland as Ohio was the only one of these states that backed her last time.

  95. I don’t know but election night I’m hoping for Madison Square Garden.. I plan on being there.

  96. jbstonesfan
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    Jon Voight has been an outspoken critic of Obama ever since he took office. Voight deserves kudos for his daring and speaking his mind. He is one of the few in Hollywood risking all, his career and his life, speaking Truth to Power.
    ______________________

    moononpluto
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Cleveland is most likely the best choice for various reasons.

  97. JanH
    June 30th, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    NO OTHER FEMALE POLITICIAN CAN UNDERSTAND THE HARDSHIPS THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAS GONE THROUGH
    ———–
    Great reminder and who would have thunk it was by Michael Moore?
    Yup, it’s been a long road for some of us that have hitched our wagon of hope to Hillary, and I am not going to give up until she is President.

  98. jbstonesfan
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:38 pm

    And he also contributed in giving us Angela Jolie:)
    ____________________

    And Angelina and Brad gave us Mr & Mrs Smith. ahem… 🙂

  99. #
    moononpluto
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    Some news i just heard, 2012 DNC convention site finalists apparently are : St. Louis, Charlotte, Cleveland and Minneapolis. In case you were wondering.
    ——

    #
    moononpluto
    June 30th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    So Which City do we want Hillary to accept the 2012 nomination in. I want Cleveland as Ohio was the only one of these states that backed her last time.
    ————

    Rats…so dang far away again for the convention? (At least it’s not smoggy, airless Denver. Why not the West Coast?

    I haven’t been to any of these cities, if I have to pay so much money to travel to the convention and stand outside without a pass, why not make it Hawaii??? 😉 At least I could order a Snowbama and smash it on the ground while sipping a tropical drink watching the beautiful sunset.

  100. Bubba is back, and that’s bad news for Barry

    By: Chris Stirewalt
    Political Editor
    July 1, 2010

    The current Clinton resurgence may or may not be the groundwork for a 2012 primary challenge of our beleaguered president. That will depend on when (and if) President Obama can pull himself out of his current skid.

    But whether this is the start of Hillary’s revenge or just some flexing by the former first lady and her globetrotting husband, it’s still bad news for Obama. Americans may not be certain if they’re ready for a Republican president, but the chorus of regret over Hillary’s 2008 loss is deafening.

    Obama, anointed as “our first female president” by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker for his preference for talk over action, has proven himself passive and vain. His secretary of state, meanwhile, seems tough, decisive and a self-sacrificing team player.

    The first 18 months of the Obama presidency have played perfectly to Hillary’s 2008 pitch: Obama is not man enough for the job, but she is.

    It’s not just the 3 a.m. calls that Obama seems to struggle with. Whether it is an emerging crisis, like the explosion of an oil platform, or a long-standing problem, like the stalled American enterprise in Afghanistan, Obama prefers to let all the calls go to voicemail.

    Obama likes to talk about comprehensive, abstract solutions to concrete problems. You say “border security” and he says “path to citizenship.” You say “plug the hole” and he says “global warming.” You say “unemployment” and he says “economic sustainability.”

    It’s no wonder that in a poll by Rasmussen Reports, 57 percent said Hillary was qualified to be president compared with the 51 percent who said Obama has what it takes.

    We’ve felt a few tremors of ambition from the former first lady in Foggy Bottom.

    She has stampeded the administration on announcing some topics near to her heart, particularly the awarding of partner benefits to gay federal employees and filing a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s illegal-immigration crackdown.

    There has also been the occasional Clinton insider whispering to a friendly reporter about how the secretary is left out of the Obama inner circle and can’t overcome Obama’s aloofness.

    Also note well where she has made her friends in the administration. She is chummy with the warriors — siding with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and keeping lots of channels open to the trigger pullers, including the recently ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

    But that’s the kind of maneuvering that you’d expect inside an administration.

    Her husband, though, has not been so constrained of late.

    When you heard Bill Clinton tell Wolf Blitzer that he felt bad for Obama about the pounding he was taking on the oil spill he might as well have been saying “I told you so.”

    Bubba’s pitch two years ago was that Obama might make Democrats feel good, but that he couldn’t deliver.

    When Clinton then suggested that it might be time to bring in the Navy to blow up the leaking oil riser and then dump a million tons of stone on the hole, he showed that there was another way to handle the situation than holding meetings on whose ass to kick.

    Billy Jeff Clinton has been everywhere lately: Taking the heat for the administration’s effort to bribe Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary. Saving Blanche Lincoln’s candidacy in Arkansas. Blowing his vuvuzela with Nelson Mandela in South Africa for the World Cup. Laughing off Valdimir Putin’s denials about the recent Russian spy bust.

    But the big moment came when Bill endorsed former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who is running a campaign to knock off Obama’s man, Sen. Michael Bennet.

    Clinton’s endorsement came when Romanoff needed it most — just at the end of the fundraising cycle when Romanoff needed a boost to show he was viable against the White House-backed Bennet.

    It was a neat play for Clinton. By lobbing a grenade into the race, he shows that he’s hip with the more “progressive” Romanoff and that he has his own mind on politics. Rather than just running Obama’s errands and trying to get people out of races as he did with Sestak, Clinton is bucking the system.

    Just as he did in 2008, Bill is testing the limits of how hard he can hit Obama without causing a backlash.

    If Obama continues to weaken, count on Bill to take heavier shots.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Bubba-is-back_-and-that_s-bad-news-for-Barry-97500389.html

  101. Obama, anointed as “our first female president” by Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker for his preference for talk over action, has proven himself passive and vain. His secretary of state, meanwhile, seems tough, decisive and a self-sacrificing team player.
    ————-
    Obama claimed as the first female president is a total insult to women, how dare Kathleen Parker make such a nitwit statement about women and saying Hillary is man enough to be president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Hillary is one of the cream of the crop of what women can do if they believe in themselves, work hard and never give up.
    Kathleen Parker is a stupid jackass that doesn’t have a freakin’ clue.

    Obama is a man, like it or not, he sucks as a president.

  102. Bubba is back, and that’s bad news for Barry
    ********
    The only President affected by the 22nd Amendment was/is Bill Clinton. If Clinton had been elected to a third term…no 911? no endless wars? no economic collapse?

  103. ChicagoLand:

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/06/stunning_development_possiblit.html

    A little-noticed federal appellate panel ruling may trigger two elections for an Illinois Senate seat on Nov. 2 — one to fill a new six-year term and, in a stunning development, another to elect someone to finish the remaining days of Barack Obama’s original Senate term.

    “There is still time to do it right,” said Marty Oberman, the former Chicago alderman who is the lead attorney on the case. He argued that the 17th Amendment was violated by not having an election.

    Oberman’s lawsuit was not aimed at Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), but would have the practical effect of slicing a few weeks off of his Senate tenure, which was set to expire when a new senator from Illinois is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2011.

    Election officials are shellshocked” at the possibility of the concurrent — and potentially costly — elections, Chicago Board of Election Commissioners spokesman James Allen told me Tuesday.

    You may have thought the matter of filling the Senate vacancy created when Obama was elected president was settled when then-Gov. Blagojevich, with much controversy, appointed Roland Burris.

    Blagojevich’s various alleged schemes to “sell” the appointment have been a subject of his criminal corruption trial.

    Today, in the same building where Blagojevich is being tried, lawyers will gather in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge James F. Grady to deal with a June 16 decision handed down by the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, written by Judge Diane Wood.

    In essence, the decision said that Burris is only a temporary appointee until an election is held to fill the Obama seat. Wood handed the matter back to Grady to figure out the details, including how nominees would be chosen and if a primary — which could cost the state millions of dollars — would have to be held.

    Allen told me, “It’s nuts to spend $30 million for a special primary for someone to serve 30 days over the holidays.Shoe-horning a special primary into September will be a logistical nightmare that will threaten the November election. There are huge problems with the idea of programming, testing and deploying all of the election equipment for a statewide election in early September and then attempting to get all of the equipment back in the warehouse, repair it, re-program it, re-test it and redeploy it for voting that, by law, starts in early October. The November double-election for the same office creates some minor issues, but nothing compared to the problems and cost of cramming in a special primary in September.”

    Spokesmen for the campaigns of the major Illinois Senate contenders, Democrat Alexi Giannoulias and Republican Mark Kirk told me it was premature to comment.

    At a June 23 hearing before Grady, Assistant Illinois Attorney General Thomas Ioppolo disagreed with Oberman’s argument that an election process could be streamlined and a costly primary could be avoided.

    He told Grady the situation was “fraught” with the potential for voter confusion and asked for a rehearing.

    Ioppolo told Grady that trying to supplant Burris “doesn’t make sense”; the appellate panel did not understand how Illinois election law works; by the time an election would be certified in December there would be maybe 30 days left to Obama’s original term, and who knows what the Senate would do because the senators ultimately decide who gets seated in the chamber.

    Grady replied that all that “makes no difference whatsoever in my view. . . . There shall be an election.”

  104. admin – not sure if you already covered this, but looks like the oregon PD are reopening the case with the massusue, she says she has evidence against Al-gore.

    Gee, looks like the media doesn’t care to pretend to be impartial anymore.

  105. Hey, I want St. Louis as it will kill two birds with one stone…the first is that it is a hop, skip and a jump from me and I will get to go…secondly it would rub the nose of Claire McKaskill’s in it. That would be sooo enjoyable on both accounts.

  106. Confloyd, absolutely. St Louis is in the middle of the country and easier for people to get to. Oh, how we’d love to see our senator’s nose rubbed in it after what she said about Bill Clinton and what she did to defeat Hillary.

    Although we are partial, St. Louis is a great town.

    Meet “us” in St. Louis in 2012 and let’s defeat Barrycakes and put in the real president and leader…HILLARY!

  107. Rats getting ready to jump ship and your tax dollars at work”

    “US lawmakers have voted to cut almost $4bn (£2.7bn) in aid to the government of Afghanistan, after allegations of corruption.”
    (snip)
    It comes after the Wall Street Journal reported that huge sums of cash had allegedly been flown out of Kabul international airport in recent years.
    (snip)
    On Monday, the Wall Street Journal claimed that US investigators believed that “Afghan officials and their associates were sending billions of diverted US aid and logistics dollars and drug money to financial safe havens abroad”.

    And for real stupidity:

    “Republican lawmaker Mark Kirk, however, expressed concern that the slashing of funds could put important projects at risk and would not help the war effort.

    He cited the example of Kandahar’s electrical system, which he said was an important step to winning over the residents of the area to the US mission.”

    How exactly are my tax dollars that are being sent to Afghanistan and then flown to Switzerland, etc. helping to re-build the Kandahar electrical system? Also since Kandahar is a Taliban enclave why does Mark Kirk want to send money to the Taliban?

  108. Yeah that op-ed piece by Kathleen Parker about Obama being the first female President is bunk.

    Parker’s thesis is based on the following attributes she ascribes to feminine communication:

    Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.

    Is she on the same planet that we are on? Obama is horrible at forming coalitions. Mr. “I won” has polarized both Republicans and Democrats like no President before him, so I’d hardly call him a paragon of coalition building. And don’t get me started on “forming circles and talking it out.” Obama is not interested in talking anything out — time and again we have seen his modus operandi is classic narcissism — “my way or the highway.”

    Parker then goes on to channel all the most horrible things by which one can characterize “feminine communication.” She defacto implies “Women are chatterboxes. Women lack the ability of immediate, commanding action, thus they lack leadership skills,” as these are qualities she observes in Obama. And while I don’t disagree with Parker that “chatterbox” and “lack of leadership skills” are qualities Obama possesses in spades….where I do disagree with her is calling this “feminine communication.”

    Such things are not “female communication”, Ms. Parker, they’re just simply “failure to communication”, and such failures are indeed gender neutral. The fact that she would even reduce such failings as simply aspects of “the gender which is not one” (to borrow from Irigaray) is IMO, quite patriarchal on her part.

    But if I may add one aspect of “female communication” that she did not elaborate on much (and one that I think is quite telling)….it’s that women are generally considered to communicate in a very empathetic manner. In that respect then, Obama is hardly “female”….because let’s face it, hardly anyone feels these days that Obama truly empathizes with them.

  109. Precious goes to g-20 and gets his ass kicked hard twice. Those dumb world leaders don’t seem to realize that they are dealing Messiah. He should wear a sign which says This Ass Is Not For Kicking. Nevertheless, they seem determined to make him earn that Nobel Prize gifted to him by Soros–or return it along with the bust of Churchill which he gladly got rid of. He is a reckless amateur.
    ————————————————————–
    Obama and the Fiscal ‘Road to Hell’
    Wall Street Journal
    By KARL ROVE

    G-20 leaders don’t agree with the president that more spending will revive the economy. Nor do most Americans

    At last week’s G-20 meeting, President Barack Obama achieved a two-fer. He suffered a significant international defeat, and he increased the chances his party will suffer a major domestic one this fall.

    Mr. Obama’s international defeat was self-inflicted. He went to Toronto to press other major nations to do as he has done: Expand government spending, or suffer, in the president’s words, “renewed economic hardship and recession.”

    View Full Image

    Getty Images
    President Barack Obama speaks at the G20 Summit in Toronto

    Canada, Germany, Great Britain and most other countries declined Mr. Obama’s invitation. The German economic minister “urgently” prodded America to cut spending at a press conference on June 21, prior to the G-20 meeting. The president of the European central bank took direct aim at Mr. Obama’s argument, telling the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on June 16 that “the idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect.”

    The European Union president, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, tore into Mr. Obama’s stimulus and other spending policies in a stunning address to the European Parliament in March 2009, calling them “the road to hell” and saying “the United States did not take the right path.”

    If it sounds strange to have European leaders lecturing the U.S. about fiscal restraint, it should. But that is where America finds itself after Mr. Obama’s 17-month fiscal orgy.

    The other flaw in his G-20 appearance is domestic. The president’s statements that more deficit spending was “necessary to keep economic growth strong” and his cautioning against “the consequential mistakes of the past” when stimulus spending “was too quickly withdrawn” puts his administration and party squarely in favor of policies unpopular with most Americans.

    Since 2000, the Gallup organization has asked voters what they believe will be the most important problem for the U.S. in 25 years. This year Americans are saying the challenge will be the deficit. And last month, almost eight in 10 voters surveyed by the Associated Press called the federal budget deficit an “extremely” or “very important” issue.

    There was more bad news Tuesday for Democrats from recent focus groups conducted in battleground congressional districts in Iowa, Ohio, New Jersey, Arkansas and Florida.

    A report on these focus groups issued this week by Resurgent Republic (a group I helped found) showed that both political independents and tea party participants passionately denounced federal spending and deficits, using words like “reckless,” “out of control,” “unnecessary” and “unhelpful.” The evidence suggests that both groups remain deeply skeptical of Mr. Obama’s stimulus package and are unpersuaded by the administration’s arguments in its favor.

    The authors of the Resurgent Republic study concluded that both independents and tea party voters believe “nearly unanimously” that reckless government spending, not lack of tax revenues, is responsible for the deficits. This goes to the very heart of the modern Democratic agenda with its guiding philosophy of bigger government and higher taxes.

    All of this negative news is wearing on the president. At the G-20’s concluding news conference, Mr. Obama—brittle and petulant—attacked GOP critics “who are hollering about deficits,” saying he would be “calling their bluff” next year by “presenting some very difficult choices.” Then “we’ll see how much of . . . the political arguments they’re making right now are real, and how much of it was just politics.”

    The president’s problem is largely a mess of his own making. Deficit spending did not begin when Mr. Obama took office. But he and his Democratic allies have supported, proposed, passed or signed and then spent every dime that’s gone out the door since Jan. 20, 2009.

    Voters know it is Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders who approved a $410 billion supplemental (complete with 8,500 earmarks) in the middle of the last fiscal year, and then passed a record-spending budget for this one. Mr. Obama and Democrats approved an $862 billion stimulus and a $1 trillion health-care overhaul, and they now are trying to add $266 billion in “temporary” stimulus spending to permanently raise the budget baseline.

    G-20 Agrees to Cut Debt By 2013
    Obama’s Growth Goals Face Hurdles
    It is the president and Congressional allies who refuse to return the $447 billion unspent stimulus dollars and want to use repayments of TARP loans for more spending rather than reducing the deficit. It is the president who gave Fannie and Freddie carte blanche to draw hundreds of billions from the Treasury. It is the Democrats’ profligacy that raised the share of the GDP taken by the federal government to 24% this fiscal year.

    This is indeed the road to fiscal hell, and it’s been paved by the president and his party. Voters will have their chance this November to render their verdict on the Obama years. No wonder Republicans feel confident these days.

  110. Fifth Dimension
    July 1st, 2010 at 1:37 am

    Yeah that op-ed piece by Kathleen Parker about Obama being the first female President is bunk.
    ———-
    I agree and you said it much better than I did. 😉

  111. wbboei
    July 1st, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Precious goes to g-20 and gets his ass kicked hard twice. Those dumb world leaders don’t seem to realize that they are dealing Messiah. He should wear a sign which says This Ass Is Not For Kicking.
    ———-
    Obama came across as a would class spending fool. He may stick his nose in the air, act as arrogant as he wants, it doesn’t make him more credible. I would be embarrassed for my country if it wasn’t plain as day to everyone, that he was elected for his DNA and reading teleprompter skills. It’s time for the fool to go home to Chicago.

    Bye Bye Bama.

  112. SURPRISE! CNN Talking To Joy Behar About Replacing Larry King

    ——-
    Gag me with a spoon. CNN is going down the tubes.

  113. Gulf beaches hit as distant hurricane pushes oil

    By MARY FOSTER and TOM BREEN (AP) – 18 hours ago

    GRAND ISLE, La. — Rough seas generated by Hurricane Alex pushed more oil from the massive spill onto Gulf coast beaches as cleanup vessels were sidelined by the far-away storm’s ripple effects.

    The hurricane was churning coastal waters across the oil-affected region on the Gulf of Mexico. Waves as high as 6 feet and winds over 25 mph were forecast through Thursday just off shore from the Mississippi Delta in Louisiana to the Florida Panhandle.

    In Louisiana, the storm pushed an oil patch toward Grand Isle and uninhabited Elmer’s Island, dumping tar balls as big as apples on the beach.

    “The sad thing is that it’s been about three weeks since we had any big oil come in here,” marine science technician Michael Malone said. “With this weather,we lost all the progress we made.”

    more…

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9GLJ30O0

  114. I just found this at Real Clear Politics and it’s quite disturbing.

    Former Justice Department Lawyer: Holder Dropped Black Panther Case For Racial Reasons!

    If this story is true and I believe it is, then Holder is a racist and this could bring down the Obama Administration. The Republicans must examine every aspect of these allegations if and when they retake the house.

  115. Mrs. Smith
    June 30th, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    Bush and Clinton would never let this happen. This is a nightmare!
    ***********

    wbb

    Was there really EVER any doubt about this being the reason behind Holders decision? Black on Black. You can take that to the bank.

  116. I think Cleveland is better for the simple reason Ohio rubbed Obama’s nose in it by defeating Bambi in the primary by saying “We Choose Hillary”

  117. Moon, I am uplifted at the comments here today as it appears that everyone agrees Hillary is going to challenge Obama in 12′. Looks also like most people believe she can win.

    What have you heard about the Russians spies in Turkey?

  118. ‘Black on Black. You can take that to the bank.’

    I confess that when I meet and speak with AA’s now, one of the first things that crosses my mind is that over 95 percent voted for BO and close to 90 percent still support him.

    It’s not a very pleasant thought.

  119. I guess maybe I’m the only one here who doesn’t think Hillary will ever run for potus again. I hope I’m wrong though.

  120. Clinton on eastern Europe, Caucasus trip

    July 1, 2010

    WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton travels to eastern Europe and the troubled Caucasus region Thursday on a mission to allay the concerns of regional allies over newly invigorated US-Russian ties.

    A top item on Clinton’s agenda will be to explain warmer relations between Washington and Moscow to countries in the region which once chafed under Soviet control.

    US-Russian ties were strengthened last week during President Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to the United States.

    The ties appear not to have been damaged by revelations about the Cold War-style Russian spy ring operating until this week in the United States.

    President Barack Obama has been less aggressive than his predecessor, George W. Bush, in pursuing two major irritants for Moscow: missile defense plans in eastern Europe, and the expansion of NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia, on Russia’s borders.

    Phil Gordon, assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, said that US allies in the region should not worry about stronger US-Russian ties.

    “We don’t think that anybody should have any concerns,” said Gordon. “To the extent that anyone has any concern about our Russia policy, we’re happy to discuss it with them.”

    Washington wants to “go beyond the notion” that central European countries “need to choose whether they’re going to be pro-Russian or pro-American,” Gordon said.

    Clinton was also set to help seek a resolution to the fighting in the Armenian-backed breakaway region of Nagorny-Karabakh, where an estimated 30,000 people have reportedly been killed in recent fighting.

    Tensions have risen there amid stalled talks over the status of the region, after ethnic Armenian separatists backed by Yerevan seized control from Baku in a war in the early 1990s.

    Clinton is scheduled to arrive Friday in the Ukrainian capital Kiev, and she wraps up her trip Monday in Tbilisi, with stops in Krakow, Baku and Yerevan.

    In Kiev Clinton is to open the US-Ukrainian Strategic Partnership Commission, which provides for increased cooperation on a range of issues including energy and trade, security and defense, and cultural exchanges.

    She will meet with President Viktor Yanukovych and Foreign Minister Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, as well as members of non-governmental groups and independent media leaders, said State Department spokesman Philip Crowley.

    Clinton will then head to Krakow for celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Community of Democracies, which US secretary of state Madeleine Albright and her counterpart Bronislaw Geremek initiated in 2000.

    She also will hold talks with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski.

    Her travels will then take her to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia for meetings with government officials and civil society leaders to discuss bilateral issues, as well as issues related to regional peace and stability.

    Gordon said Clinton remains “dissatisfied” with relations following the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, which Washington supported.

    Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili this week said Tbilisi was ready for talks with Russia on normalizing ties which were severed after the conflict.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iHAbEWXPDaAibi-C0uNSG0FJKQOQ

  121. Confloyd, Most people know Hillary should have been President in 08, its all about correcting a big mistake.

  122. JanH
    July 1st, 2010 at 8:58 am
    I guess maybe I’m the only one here who doesn’t think Hillary will ever run for potus again. I hope I’m wrong though.
    &&&&&&&&

    I think we’re fairly optimistic here, in general, and her strong showing as Sec. of State stands in stark contrast to Obama’s deer-in-the-headlights act.

    She’s hard-working, tactful, effective.

    He’s….not.

    The main gist of Obama’s poor performance is him being tentative, and by now, it is way too late to claim it is first inning jitters.

    * too tentative to order Navy snipers to act in the Somali pirate hijack/kidnapping

    * too removed from being involved in the crafting of legistlation he claims is soooo important to him and the country

    All that he’s got going for him is the celebrity aspect: speeches and greeting athletes. He’s just a ribbon-cutter of a president.

    That’s not good enough to win re-election. And his anti-coattails has unseated him as “Leader of the Democratic Party”, which is de facto for any president and his party. Seems like Bill and Hill are tag-teaming that one.

  123. basil9
    July 1st, 2010 at 8:52 am
    ‘Black on Black. You can take that to the bank.’

    I confess that when I meet and speak with AA’s now, one of the first things that crosses my mind is that over 95 percent voted for BO and close to 90 percent still support him.
    &&&&&&&&

    Apparently 5% of AA’s follow politics closely.

    I would say that a good portion of the other don’t.

    Others may have voted for him strictly based on the color of his skin, and not by the content of his character.

    Other AAs were first time voters in 2008, and having done their once-in-a-lifetime duty of breaking the race barrier, can go back to “more important things”.

  124. I think Hillary can run in 2012 and win by a record margin.

    The country is desperate for an excellent leader.

  125. NPR ADMITS OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION “REFORM” SPEECH TODAY IS CYNICAL PLOY TO WOO HISPANIC VOTERS

    Today on NPR, they discussed that Obama hopes to use immigration reform to tar Republicans as Neanderthals, and to win over Hispanic voters.

    More on this here:

    realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jul/01/in_speech__obama_to_argue_for_immigration_overhaul.html

    In speech, Obama to argue for immigration overhaul
    ======================================

    Darlene Superville
    July 01, 2010

    President Barack Obama hopes to rally new momentum behind the push for an immigration overhaul by explaining why he thinks a comprehensive approach is the only way to fix what he and others say is a system badly in need of repair.

    Obama was laying out his rationale in a speech Thursday, his first as president on the issue.

    Obama wasn’t expected to announce any new proposals or policy changes. But feeling pressure from a range of supporters, he was aiming to jump-start the effort he had promised to make a priority in his first year and which advocates had hoped would be completed by now.

    The speech follows up on back-to-back meetings Obama had with advocates and lawmakers at the White House this week.

    Obama has said a comprehensive solution means “accountability for everybody” — from the U.S. government meeting its obligation to secure the border, to businesses facing the consequences of knowingly employing illegal immigrants, to those who enter the country illegally owning up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.

    Recent developments on immigration influenced his decision to give a speech, White House officials say, most notably Arizona’s enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and protests across the country against it.

    “He thought this was a good time to talk plainly with the American people about his views on immigration,” spokesman Bill Burton said.

    Still, prospects appear bleak for getting a bill to Obama’s desk before lawmakers leave town in the fall to campaign for re-election in November, and the president could be partly responsible for that. In April, he gave lawmakers some wiggle room when he said Congress may not have the appetite to deal with immigration this year following a tough legislative year in 2009.

    The political reality is that to get a bill Obama needs Republican support, mostly in the Senate, where Democrats fall short of the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP stalling tactics. Obama has mentioned that lack of cross-party support in his recent comments on immigration.

    “I’ve got to have some support from Republicans,” he said at a May news conference with visiting Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

    Obama has endorsed a proposal by Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that would require illegal immigrants, among other things, to admit they broke the law, pay fines and back taxes and perform community service to eventually obtain legal status. But Graham since has balked at acting on immigration this year, and no other Senate Republican has come forward.

    Some Republicans want to act first on measures to tighten security along the U.S.-Mexico border, but Obama disagrees with that approach. His administration has acted to improve border security, including increasing personnel and equipment along the border.

    Obama recently ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border to boost security and asked Congress for an additional $600 million to support personnel and improve technology there. More than 500 of those Guard troops are to be sent to Arizona.

    The Arizona law requires police enforcing another statute to clarify a person’s immigration status if there’s reason to believe the individual is in the U.S. illegally. Several states and communities are considering similar legislation, which Obama says is an understandable byproduct of the public’s frustration over the federal government’s inability to tighten the immigration system.

    But Obama also has criticized the law as “misguided” and said it is potentially discriminatory. He has asked the Justice Department to review its legality and immigrant advocates are hoping the government will sue Arizona to block the law from taking effect later this month.

  126. Notice from the above:

    Obama was laying out his rationale in a speech Thursday, his ***first as president*** on the issue.

    Obama ***wasn’t expected to announce any new proposals or policy changes.*** But feeling pressure from a range of supporters, he was aiming to jump-start the effort he had promised to make a priority in his first year and which advocates had ***hoped would be completed by now.***

    &&&&&&&
    The do-nothing president has a plan to give another empty speech short on specifics.

  127. Bambi plummets again in Rassmussen poll after his weekly weekend Democrat boost.

    -19

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 26% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19

    Just 9% say BP has done a good or excellent job responding to the oil spill while 59% rate the response as poor. As for the president, 36% rate his response as good or excellent while 47% say poor.

    Twenty-eight percent (28%) now believe the United States is generally heading in the right direction.

    Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.

  128. OBAMA THE INCOMPETENT

    washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Too-brilliant-to-fail-97425794.html

    Too brilliant to fail
    ===================

    By: Noemie Emery

    June 30, 2010 An irresistible force is meeting an immovable object on the field of perception, and causing an odd sort of storm. The irresistible force is the growing idea that Obama has failed as a leader on a number of items: “Engagement” has failed; our allies are angry; the oil keeps gushing, his ideas are job killers; the recession goes on.

    His party lost three big elections under his guidance and seems poised for a drubbing. The harder he pushes the country’s laws leftward, the more its politics bend to the right.

    David Brooks says, without fixing blame, that Obama has blown the most promising hand ever given a president. In the Hill, A.B. Stoddard is even more caustic: “Seventeen months into office, Obama is increasingly isolated — from his party, from American voters, and from the world.” People are losing their faith in his leadership, he is “so toxic in battlegrounds” that he cannot campaign for his candidates. “The country is more polarized than ever and Washington is even more a target for voter anger than it was under President Bush.”

    The immovable object is the conviction on the part of some who are also his critics that he is the smartest man who has ever held office, and is therefore too brilliant to fail. Citing his “shimmering intellect,” Richard Cohen is at a loss to explain why he hasn’t done anything with it.

    “Obama, for all his brilliance, has no real, felt understanding of management structures,” says Tina Brown, describing the failure to handle the oil disaster, without explaining what, beyond talking, Obama has been brilliant at. He can talk up a storm (though of late this has faltered), but so far his shimmering intellect has led him to think that aggressors can be tamed by making concessions; that he should expand the welfare state just as it is proving unworkable (and very unpopular with the American people); and into replicating to an exact degree every mistake made by George W. Bush in handling Katrina in 2005.

    Jonathan Alter blames this on Bush, while Cohen calls Obama a “sphinx,” and blames his unsettled childhood. No one advances the more likely conclusion: That Obama seems so much like their idea of brilliance that they assume it of him without too much evidence; or that their perception of brilliance — often no more than a verbal facility — isn’t much use in the world.

    Nor are degrees from the very best places. Presidents George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln had next to no formal schooling, a failed haberdasher from flyover country saved West Europe from Josef Stalin, and one of the two most important presidents of the 20th century was an “amiable dunce” from Eureka College and Hollywood.

    There have been many good presidents, and their backgrounds are varied. But none has been a blogger, a pundit, an editor of the New Yorker, or a writer for Vanity Fair.

    When and how then does this president’s intellect shimmer? At meetings.

    He does seem a genius at chairing a forum, as at the “nuclear summit” in April, where the Washington Post claimed that he shone as a teacher, “calling on leaders to speak, embellish, oppose, and offer alternatives,” coaxing consensus and forging agreements among 45 countries at hand.

    The problem was that the value of these things was limited, as the attending countries weren’t menacing anyone, while Iran and Korea, who were not in attendance, went on happily building their bombs.

    He isn’t a sphinx, he’s a seminar leader who’s out of his element. And more and more out of his depth.

  129. KAGAN PLEADS THE FIFTH

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703426004575338682461026458.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

    JULY 1, 2010

    Confirmed: Hearings Aren’t Pleasing Anybody
    ====================================

    By NAFTALI BENDAVID And JESS BRAVIN

    WASHINGTON—With Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court seemingly in the bag, frustrated senators from both parties turned their fire on the hearing process itself.

    Lawmakers suggested the process was empty at best and dysfunctional at worst. Hearings have become highly scripted affairs, and many senators said they provided little insight into a nominee’s views.

    Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) threatened to vote against Ms. Kagan in frustration with her refusal to answer questions on subjects that she said might come before the court.

    The complaints didn’t threaten Ms. Kagan’s prospects. Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas), speaking outside the hearing room, called her “soon-to-be-Justice Kagan.” Asked if that meant she would be confirmed, he said, “I assume she will be.”

    Even so, Republicans laid the groundwork for opposing her, saying the nominee’s testimony had been less than candid, in particular when she discussed her policy on military recruiting as dean of Harvard Law School.

    Over the three days, senators repeatedly came back to the 1995 article in which Ms. Kagan said such hearings had become “vapid” and could benefit from more discussion of the nominee’s views. She quickly backed away from that position on Tuesday and conducted herself much like other nominees, saying little of her beliefs.

    Since the 1987 rejection of Robert Bork, administrations have become adept at coaching nominees to reveal little.

    Several senators said recent nominees had misled them during their confirmation hearings. Democrats accused Chief Justice John Roberts of leading a radical conservative revolution on the court after likening himself during hearings to an umpire reading the law in a neutral way.

    Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) made a similar criticism of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, saying she expressed respect for the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms in confirmation, then voted this week against the gun-rights position in a landmark case.

    The gist of both sides’ complaints was the same: If a nominee’s assertions are no guide to how she will judge, what’s the point of hearing testimony?

    Democrats enjoy a 12-7 majority on the Judiciary Committee, which is expected to vote on Ms. Kagan after Congress’s July 4th break. Democrats hold a 58-41 majority in the Senate, and there is little to suggest the nominee wouldn’t be confirmed by the court’s session starting Oct. 4.

    However, most Republicans are expected to vote no. Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) on Wednesday cited a “feeling among some that she is not being completely forthright and there is more to know than she is telling.”

    But Democrats were delighted with Ms. Kagan. “I think even the other side would have to admit that you have a wonderfully well-ordered mind,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.).

    Mr. Specter was the least happy among Democrats. In one instance, Ms. Kagan declined to address a matter as it related to her job as solicitor general.

    More
    Amid Talk, a Willingness to Curb Some Speech Opinion: How Would Kagan Like to Be Paid? Law Blog: Senators, Kagan, Spar Over Foreign Law “I don’t want to count my chickens,” she said. “Before I am confirmed, I still am solicitor general.”

    “Ms. Kagan, they’re counting your chickens right now,” Mr. Specter responded.

  130. rgb,

    I just don’t see how the dims can deny Bo the nomination in 2012 without drawing the cries of racism they so monstrously stoked in 2008.

    The tactic they followed in ’08 may not make it impossible to throw BO under the bus. If that’s the case, I pray for a POTUS victory by the other party.

  131. PIG-IN-A-POKE is an idiom that refers to a confidence trick originating in the Late Middle Ages, when meat was scarce but cats were not. The scheme entailed the sale of a suckling pig in a poke (bag). The wriggling bag would actually contain a cat (not particularly prized as a source of meat) that was sold to the victim in an unopened bag. The French term acheter (un) chat en poche (to buy a cat in a bag) refers to an actual sale of this nature, as do many European equivalents, while the English expression refers to the appearance of the trick. A common colloquial expression in the English language, to buy a pig in a poke is to make a risky purchase without inspecting the item beforehand. The phrase can also be applied to accepting an idea or plan without a full understanding of its basis.
    ———————————————-
    Kagen, Sotomayer, and King Obama: if you get past the barf bag that is what you are left with: THREE (3) PIGS IN A POKE sold to the rubes in the electorate who danced in the streets and tripped the light fantastic when he stole the election, whereas now the dead sea gulls, sea lions, and fish are the harbinger of his his failed presidency and things to come.

    The other thing you are seeing is the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES play itself out. Backus took Boxer to task at a hearing yesterday, and accused his side of passing legislation with no idea what how it would work and what hidden mine fields it entails. Bad things no one intended. He accused his committee and her as chairman of not understanding what they are doing and passing legislation strictly for the message. Typically, the misleading title is what they want because it can be converted into a big media sound bite, but as for the contents of the bill, well the dimocratic response is what it has always been: the public be damned, what matters is my contributors get their what they want.

    Let me repeat something I said at the time, which was based on good authority. Hillary was unalterably opposed to the reckless spending spree we have seen, she said so when she returned to Congress, and people like McCaskill ratted her out to Obama. As a result, she was summoned to Chicago, and she did not back down. Her position was the economy as of January 2009 was too fragile to pursue this agenda, and the one thing the President must concentrate on before anything else is jobs, and cutting costs. We would not be on the brink of a depression now if the voters had not been bamboozled.

  132. realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jul/01/spin_meter__what_happened_to_the_kagan_standard_.html

    has this excerpt:

    Kagan’s comportment was in keeping with past nominees, whether liberal or conservative, who stuck to truisms about the impartial judiciary no matter how hard senators tried to smoke them out on how they would lean on matters before the court.

    But she demanded a higher standard in a 1995 book review when she wrote, “When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.”

    She says now, “It just feels a lot different from here than it felt from back there.” By back there, she meant where she once sat as a Judiciary Committee staffer witnessing the confirmation hearing for Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

  133. And the reason Obama did not listen to this sound, prudential advice is clear: he had his marching orders from Soros, the neolibs and the big business interests who bought him the presidency. His priorities were IDENTICAL to those being pushed by Soros, including government take over of health care, cap and trade, open borders, a repudiation of our strong bonds to Israel, the ceding of financial regulation to world bodies, stripping entitlements and screwing the middle class. This is the Soros Playbook we are living through and it has brought us to the brink of disaster. It is a mystery to me why more people do not see it for what it is. This is why it is so important for everyone to understand Soros. He is Obama’s godfather.

  134. LIMBO OBAMA: HOW LOW CAN YOU GO?

    maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/US100617/Obama_Oil_Spill/Complete%20June%2030,%202010%20USA%20Poll%20Release%20and%20Tables.pdf

    Dissatisfaction with Obama Grows
    Handling of Oil Spill No Better Than Katrina

    Turning Tides… Half View Obama as Not Meeting Expectations

    For the first time since taking office, more registered voters in the United States think President Barack Obama is falling below their expectations than those who say he is either meeting or exceeding them. Half of voters — 50% — believe Mr. Obama has fallen short. 44%, on the other hand, report Mr. Obama has met or exceeded their expectations. 6% are unsure.

    Public opinion has turned on this question. In March, a slim majority — 51% — said the president either reached their level of expectation or went above and beyond it. 45%, however, reported he missed the mark. 4% were unsure.

    “As President Obama enters a critical time in his presidency, the national electorate has greater doubt over whether he is living up to their expectations of him,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

    While there has been little change among Democrats and Republicans here, dissatisfaction has grown among independent voters. Nearly six in ten — 58% — report the president has disappointed them, and 34% view the president as meeting their expectations or going above and beyond them. 8% are unsure.

    In Marist’s March survey, 48% within this key voting block thought the president was not living up to their standards while 45% reported he either met or surpassed them.

    Dissatisfaction with Obama Grows…Independents Key Players

    Mr. Obama can’t even look to his approval rating for a silver lining. Voters divide about the job the president is doing in office. Currently, 45% of registered voters nationwide disapprove of the president’s job performance while 44% approve. 11% are unsure. Mr. Obama’s approval rating equals his lowest rating — 44% — which he received in Marist’s February survey.

    The president continues to have a tough time winning over independent voters. In fact, there is a 12 percentage point spread between independents who disapprove and those who approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing in office. Nearly half — 49% — disapprove of the president’s performance while 37% approve. 15% are unsure how to rate him. Three months ago, just 6 percentage points separated independents who praised and those who berated the president’s job performance. 45% disapproved, and 39% approved. 16% were unsure.

    Looking at Democrats across the country, there has been little change. 75% applaud the president while 14% disapprove. 11% are unsure. In March, 77% of Democrats gave Mr. Obama high marks while 15% thought he was falling short. 8%, at that time, were unsure how to rate him.

    Fewer members of the GOP, compared with Marist’s March survey, disapprove of President Obama’s job performance. 78% now hold this view while 85% did so three months ago. However, the proportion of those who approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing is relatively unchanged. 14% of the national GOP currently give the president high marks while 11% did the same three months ago. More Republicans are unsure how to rate the president. 8% cannot currently weigh in compared with 4% in March.
    Fewer View Obama as Improving the Nation…

    More Say Towing the Status Quo

    To make matters worse for the president, fewer voters view him as changing the United States for the better. Currently, 38% describe the direction in which the president is moving the country as an improvement. This approximates the lowest rating the president has received on this question — 37% — which was reached in February. In Marist’s March survey, 43% thought the president was changing the nation for the better.

    However, the proportion of those who believe Mr. Obama is negatively impacting the nation has not grown. In fact, it has remained relatively flat. 38% report the president is changing the nation for the worse while 41% thought that way in March. Rather, more voters now say the president has not changed the country at all. More than one in five — 21% — believe this is true while 13% held this view in March.

    Once again, independents make the difference. More than a quarter of these voters — 27% — believe Mr. Obama is doing the same ole political song and dance. This is a 12 percentage point increase from March when 15% thought the president was not bringing about change. 39% currently believe the president is changing the country for the worse, and 29% report he is changing the nation for the better. 5% are unsure. In March, 44% said the president was having a negative impact on the country, 35% thought he was making positive inroads, and 6% were unsure.

    Obama’s Favorability Hovers at 50%

    President Obama still remains likeable in the eyes of voters, but there may be a crack in his armor. 50% view the president favorably while 43% have an unfavorable impression of him. 7% are unsure.
    In Marist’s March survey, a majority — 53% — thought well of him, 41% had less than a positive impression of him, and 6% were unsure.

    Independents are the cause of the president’s slight dip in favorability. They divide with 45% having a positive view of the president and 47% having a negative view of him. In March, there was a more positive opinion among these voters — 49% to 43%, respectively.

    Although nearly three-quarters of Republican voters — 73% — have an unfavorable view of Mr. Obama, 20% have a favorable view of him. That’s a six percentage point increase in his favorability among the GOP since Marist’s March survey.
    80% of Democrats have a high opinion of the president compared with 85% in March.

    Split Decision in Handling of the Economy

    The national electorate is fractured when it comes to President Obama’s handling of the economy. 46% of the electorate approve of how the president is addressing the issue while 48% disapprove. 6% are unsure.

    Similar proportions of voters shared this view in March. At that time, 46% approved of Mr. Obama’s economic management, 49% disapproved, and 5% were unsure.

    And, voters still don’t blame the president for the state of the economy. More than six in ten voters — 62% — think the president inherited the current economic conditions while 28% believe they are a result of his own policies. 10% are unsure.
    In March, 64% thought the economic conditions were passed on to the president, 27% said they were Mr. Obama’s doing, and 9% were unsure.

    57% Say Obama’s Handling of Gulf Spill No Better Than Bush’s Katrina

    President George Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina was a black mark on his administration, and now, there’s bad news for his successor. Nearly six in ten voters nationwide — 57% — say President Barack Obama’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is either the same or worse than Bush’s handling of Katrina. This includes 34% who report Obama’s management of the disaster is comparable and 23% who view itas worse. 37%, however, say he is handling the crisis better than Bush managed Katrina. 6% are unsure.

    While nearly six in ten Democrats — 59% — believe the president is handling the crisis better than how his predecessor dealt with Hurricane Katrina, one-third of Democrats say Mr. Obama is dealing with it only about the same or worse. This includes 28% who say the president’s management is on par with Mr. Bush’s and 5% who report it is worse. Not surprisingly, most Republicans — 80% — believe President Obama has demonstrated equal or worse crisis management skills than President Bush. 44% think they are comparable, and 36% believe they are worse. 14% say he is handling it better.

    Independents align more with Republicans. 63% rank Obama’s management as either on the same level as Bush or below the former president. This includes 34% who say he is on par with Bush and 29% who believe his handling is even worse. One-third of independent voters rate Mr. Obama’s performance as better.

    “Despite President Obama’s frequent attempts to plug the hole in his public opinion, Republicans and independent voters have not taken heed,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

    In fact, when it comes to Mr. Obama’s overall handling of this environmental crisis, a majority of voters — 53% — disapprove of his approach. This includes 34% who strongly oppose it and 19% who just disapprove. On the other hand, 46% think the president’s response is on the mark. Included here are 33% who approve and 13% who strongly approve. Just 1% are unsure.

    Not surprisingly, Democrats and Republicans are on opposite sides of the spectrum here. 70% of Democrats agree with the way the president has managed the disaster while 70% of Republicans do not. Again, independent voters are more in agreement with members of the GOP. 62% report they either strongly disapprove or disapprove of Mr. Obama’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

    Most Disapprove of BP’s Handling of Oil Spill
    President Obama isn’t the only one under fire. British Petroleum (BP), whose rig exploded in late April, is also facing intense criticism. 83% of registered voters nationally either strongly disapprove or disapprove of how the oil company is handling the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. This includes 60% who are strongly against their methods and 23% who merely disapprove. 17%, though, strongly approve or approve of their procedures. Included here are just 3% who strongly agree and 14% who like their approach. When it comes to BP’s handling of the disaster, there is consensus among voters, regardless of party.

    The Great Divide: Offshore Drilling Moratorium
    A federal judge has overturned a moratorium placed on offshore drilling by the Obama Administration, but do voters want the moratorium in place? They divide. 46% support a temporary ban while 45% do not. 9% are unsure.

    Democrats and Republicans have opposing views. 57% of Democrats support a moratorium while the same proportion of Republicans — 57% — opposes it. Nearly half of independent voters — 49% — are against the temporary ban.

  135. Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Thursday, July 1st at 9:30AM EDT
    6 Comments

    This is passing “institutional cowardice” and is rapidly approaching the status of “blackmail threat:”

    Democratic leaders are likely to punt the task of renewing Bush-era tax cuts until after the election.

    Voters in November’s midterms will thus be left without a clear idea of their future tax rates when they go to the polls.

    I can just see the slogan, too. “Vote Democratic, or we’ll burn the country down. Giggling.”

    They’ve been threatening using the lame duck session for passing cap and trade, and I fully expect the Democrats to contemplate using it to pass other payoffs to special interests. What makes this more likely is that: the tax cuts will expire without active legislation keeping them in place; whoever survives November will probably not see their lack of vote come back to haunt them in a campaign ad; and the Democrats simply hate lowering taxes. Which is another way of saying that the Democrats can accomplish one of their favorite policy goals by doing precisely nothing, in a suitably solemn fashion. Seldom does spite, petty partisan maneuvering, and the peculiarities of the legislative calendar line up so well…

    Moe Lane

    PS: The best thing to do with a threat like this is be aware of it, prepare for it – and not let it intimidate you. “Look at what you made me do!” is not an adequate moral defense.

    Crossposted to Moe Lane.

  136. Those dimocrarts who survive the November storm because their term does not expire, had best consider the consequences to them personally of defying the will of the American People and passing this crap and trade legislation during a lame duck session. Nothing would so earn the enmity of their fellow citizens as that. Let us hope that people like Jim Webb understand this.

  137. basil9
    July 1st, 2010 at 10:23 am
    rgb,

    I just don’t see how the dims can deny Bo the nomination in 2012 without drawing the cries of racism they so monstrously stoked in 2008.
    &&&&&&&&&&&

    The Dems don’t have a tough case to prove. Obama’s done all the heavy lifting. Obama is the one who has thoroughly proved the case that Obama is not a competent president, and therefore, not a good candidate for 2012.

    But you are right, those trying to squeeze Obama’s sorry ass into the 2012 nomination will play the race card. But they will be laughed off the stage.

    The evidence of Obama’s incompetence is overwhelming.

  138. Likeable? Obama? What is there to like? Oh I guess if incompetence is high office is your thing, then there is plenty to like. But how in the world can 44 percent of likely voters say this bozo is meeting or exceeding their expectations. Are they nothing more than brand buyers with no powers of cognition? Do the support the Chicago Model of government where corruption is king? Or are they just stupid–I mean really really really stupid?

  139. I guess those 44% would say he is living up to their expectations on how he handled the gulf because as you can see he is now accepting help from foreign nations. They cannot quite wrap their minds around the fact that it took him 72 days to do it and he destroyed an ecosystem in the process, but that is okay because he is their trophy. Looking at this reaction you can understand how the German People fell for the evil deceptions of the Bohemian corporal. Blinded by the spectacle, seduced by propaganda, and preoccupied with their own daily lives, too many surrender their free will and critical thinking. The herd regains its ancient and evil primacy. What is fashionable to undiscerning people is in fact a form of unthinking conformity.

  140. Obama is not a competent president, and therefore, not a good candidate for 2012.
    ——————————-
    I might go a step further and say he is a bloody incompetent president with a perverse agenda who is recking the country.

  141. That “likeability” bullshit never ceases to amaze me as he truly comes off as one of the most unlikeable, uncaring, and snobbish Presidents since Bush 1 (who in later yrs became more likeable).

  142. That “likeability” bullshit never ceases to amaze me as he truly comes off as one of the most unlikeable, uncaring, and snobbish Presidents since Bush 1 (who in later yrs became more likeable).

  143. Obama is not a competent president, and therefore, not a good candidate for 2012.
    ———————————-
    Bumper sticker: “Double Down On Disaster:
    Vote for Obama In 2012!”

  144. That “likeability” bullshit never ceases to amaze me as he truly comes off as one of the most unlikeable, uncaring, and snobbish Presidents since Bush 1 (who in later yrs became more likeable).
    ————————————
    I agree jbstonesfan. It is idiots delight. Big media inundates the public mind with soft rotagrauvered images for older people, revolutionary art for young people and catchy slogan, it produces a warm emotional reaction and people say he is likable. It is like saying even though he is destroying the country, we still like him. Which is another way of saying: other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?

  145. jbstonesfan
    July 1st, 2010 at 11:16 am
    That “likeability” bullshit never ceases to amaze me as he truly comes off as one of the most unlikeable, uncaring, and snobbish Presidents since Bush 1 (who in later yrs became more likeable).
    ____________________________________________

    Gallup Poll “likeability” question:

    “Would you piss on Obama if he were on fire?”

    YES = “personally likeable”

  146. Gallup Poll “likeability” question:

    “Would you piss on Obama if he were on fire?”

    YES = “personally likeable”
    ————————-
    My Answer: yes, but I would wait 72 days to do it.

  147. TRUMP WOULD HAVE HANDLED PLUGGING THE LEAK DIFFERENTLY

    An interesting critique.

    thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-18/donald-trump-hayward-and-bp-henchmen-incompetent/?obref=obnetwork

    Trump Trashes BP
    ================

    by Lloyd Grove

    Tony Hayward and his BP henchmen are incompetent—not just at plugging holes, but also at cutting deals, says Donald Trump. Lloyd Grove talks to him about how they screwed up their negotiations with the feds.

    If Donald Trump were crisis-managing the BP oil spill, the leak would be plugged by now. That thought has occurred to more than one observer of the debacle in the Gulf of Mexico—including, not surprisingly, The Donald himself.

    “I’d do a very good job,” the real estate mogul told me Friday afternoon, calling from the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey. “It’s unbelievable and an embarrassment how incompetent they are,” he said, referring to BP CEO Tony Hayward and his top executives trying to cope with the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history.

    “There are so many ways of handling it. First of all, I wouldn’t be putting small pipes into big pipes; I’d be putting big pipes over small pipes. I don’t know what these people are thinking when they inserted a small pipe in the big pipe that was leaking. They now have an 18-inch pipe, and what you do is put a larger pipe over the top of it. What they need is a plumber, not a scientist.”

    Trump added: “The other thing you do is what Russia does: They blow ‘em up. Russia had this happen four times, and they bombed it, and it breaks up all the rock and the rock falls in and the leak stops. Why aren’t we doing it? What do we have to lose? This stuff is pouring out!”

    As for President Obama and the government, “I’d get other oil companies in there fast. Frankly, I’d bring in Exxon Mobil and the other great oil companies to take over because these [BP] people are grossly incompetent. I watched the way they answered questions yesterday [at the Senate hearing in which Hayward claimed ignorance of the decision-making process before and immediately after the Deep Horizon oil rig explosion] and my son Barron, at 4 years old, could have done a better job.”

    Not one to hold back, Trump also lambasted BP execs for agreeing to put up a $20 billion escrow account to pay damage claims without receiving anything in return from the feds.

    “They make a deal for $20 billion with no commitment of no further prosection? My son Barron is a better businessman,” Trump said. “These were the big bullies that were great as long as they had things going their way. But when things went bad for them they choked—just like a golfer chokes on a four-foot putt.”

  148. The toughest part of being President is figuring out how to get things done in Washington. Hillary called this the ability to deliver. In terms of branding theory, have moved beyond the initial hype and Brand Obama is being tested in the cauldron of real world events, contingencies and difficult political choices. It is being found wanting for different reasons by all sides of the political spectrum.

    Simply put, a brand is more than a line of propaganda delivered through marketing strategies perfected on Wall Street and adopted through Soros Open Society, OFA and other dimocratic think tanks around the world. When you are dealing with a brand, every touch point counts because they all impact on the voter impression. You must manage not only what a voter hears, but more important what a voter experiences in their daily life. And the most important thing to remember is that over the course of time, brand converges with reality. It did with Brand Bush and is doing so now with Brand Obama.

  149. #
    warehouse553
    July 1st, 2010 at 3:18 am

    I just found this at Real Clear Politics and it’s quite disturbing.

    Former Justice Department Lawyer: Holder Dropped Black Panther Case For Racial Reasons!

    If this story is true and I believe it is, then Holder is a racist and this could bring down the Obama Administration. The Republicans must examine every aspect of these allegations if and when they retake the house.

    ——-
    This was discussed last night on Hannity with a pretty blond Fox person, lawyer, I think her name is Megan Kelly.
    She is all over it, and is going to report more on this today on her show at 1:00…there is no tv here at work (imagine that…) so we need to pay close attention to this one.

    We also know that intimidation happened to Hillary voters in the primary, so if this case does not motivate a change at the polling sites, and Hillary runs again, we need to sharpen the points of our pitchforks and take them with us to the voting booth!

    Here’s the scoop on Fox:

    Former Justice Department Lawyer Accuses Holder of Dropping New Black Panther Case for Racial Reasons

    A former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case is accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of dropping the charges for racially motivated reasons.

    J. Christian Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a conservative blogger for Pajamas Media, says he and the other Justice Department lawyers working on the case were ordered to dismiss it.

    “I mean we were told, ‘Drop the charges against the New Black Panther Party,'” Adams told Fox News, adding that political appointees Loretta King, acting head of the civil rights division, and Steve Rosenbaum, an attorney with the division since 2003, ordered the dismissal.

    Asked about the Justice Department’s claim that they are career attorneys, not political appointees, Adams said “obviously, that’s false.”

    “Under the vacancy reform act, they were serving in a political capacity,” he said. “This is one of the examples of Congress not being told the truth, the American people not being told the truth about this case. It’s one of the other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process.”

    Adams claimed an unnamed political appointee said if somebody wants to bring these kinds of cases, “that’ not going to de done out of the civil rights division.”

    Adams also accused Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez of lying under oath to Congress about the circumstances surrounding the decision to drop the probe.

    The Justice Department has defended its move to drop the case, saying it obtained an injunction against one member to keep him away from polling stations while dismissing charges against the others “based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law.”

    But Adams told Fox News that politics and race was at play in the dismissal.

    “There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases,” Adams told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.

    Adams says the dismissal is a symptom of the Obama administration’s reverse racism and that the Justice Department will not pursue voting rights cases against white victims.

    “In voting, that will be the case over the next few years, there’s no doubt about it,” he said.

    In an opinion article published in the Washington Times last week, Adams said the dismissal “raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.”

    Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler dismissed Adams’ accusations as a “good faith disagreement” with ulterior motives.

    “It is not uncommon for attorneys within the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda,” she said in a written statement.

    In the final days of the Bush administration, three Black Panthers — Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson — were charged in a civil complaint with violating the Voter Rights Act in November 2008 by using coercion, threats and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling station — with Shabazz brandishing what prosecutors called a deadly weapon.

    The Obama administration won a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panthers didn’t appear in court to fight the charges. But the administration moved to dismiss the charges in May 2009. Justice attorneys said a criminal complaint, which resulted in the injunction, proceeded successfully.

    The department “is committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of both the civil and criminal provisions of federal law that prohibit voter intimidation. We continue to work with voters, communities, and local law enforcement to ensure that every American can vote free from intimidation, coercion or threats,” Schmaler said Wednesday.

    But the Justice Department’s explanation has failed to appease the United States Commission on Civil Rights, which is probing the department’s decision, or Republican lawmakers who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation.

    The commission held a hearing in April in which Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who has led the charge for answers from the Justice Department, was among those testifying. The Justice Department did not provide witnesses at that hearing. Instead, Perez testified before the commission in May.

    “At a minimum, without sufficient proof that New Black Panther Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls, or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless action on Election Day, any attempt to bring suit against those parties based merely upon their alleged ‘approval’ or ‘endorsement’ of Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jackson’s activities would have likely failed,” he told the commission.

    The commission has repeatedly sought information from the Justice Department, going as far as filing subpoenas. Schmaler said the department has provided 2,000 pages of information in response.

    But Adams said in the Times article that the department ordered the attorneys “to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptably legal limbo.”

    Adams also says that after the dismissal, Justice Department attorneys were instructed not to bring any more cases against racial minorities under the Voting Section.

    Adams told Fox News that the New Black Panther case was the “easiest I ever had at the Justice Department.

    “It doesn’t get any easier than this,” he said. “If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/

  150. basil9

    rgb,

    I just don’t see how the dims can deny Bo the nomination in 2012 without drawing the cries of racism they so monstrously stoked in 2008.

    ———–
    The Race Card has been played so many times in the past three years to cover Barry’s incompetency that the term has become meaningless.

    The boy who cried wolf.

  151. As for President Obama and the government, “I’d get other oil companies in there fast. Frankly, I’d bring in Exxon Mobil and the other great oil companies to take over because these [BP] people are grossly incompetent. I watched the way they answered questions yesterday [at the Senate hearing in which Hayward claimed ignorance of the decision-making process before and immediately after the Deep Horizon oil rig explosion] and my son Barron, at 4 years old, could have done a better job.
    ————————————————–
    This is quite true. Many years ago, an insurance broker named AW Dreysler insured the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. Unbeknownst to anyone but him, he pocketed the premium and bought a series of homeowners policies to provide evidence of insurance, but obviously the coverage was not there. One day, high winds and bad engineering design caused the bridge to collapse. Immediately thereafter the logical question was asked–do we have enough insurance to cover this disaster? It quickly became apparent that not only did they not have enough insurance, they had no insurance. This oversight sent Dreysler to an all expense paid trip to McNeil Island Penitentiary but it left the State of Washington and its then Insurance Commissioner with a big problem. I think it was Karl Herman. What he did was summon every insurance broker and underwriter doing business in the State of Washington and he presented them with a proposal. You as an industry are facing a problem of public confidence, and this is your crisis. You need to put your heads and your check books together and come up with a solution. If you fail to do so you will find yourselves facing a set of regulations which you and your shareholders will not like, so you had best be smart about this. They came up with the money and the bridge was rebuilt all unbeknownst to the public. I knew three of Dreysler’s parters early in my career. They are the ones who told me this story. This story has direct application to the gulf situation. It reinforces what Trump is saying. File it under the heading What Hillary Would Have Done If She Had Been President.

  152. shadowfax,

    I’d like to believe it but I’m not convinced that HRC, for example, would be able to challenge it after giving him a pass in 2008.

    Maybe another candidate from another party but a dim, I dunno.

    Agreed the charge has lost its bite but not among BO’s most fervent supporters who, I fear, are needed for a dim win in 2012. I hope I’m wrong about that.

    I’d love to see an HRC run.

  153. If, and it’s a big if, Hillary does decide to run in 2012 or even 2016, how can she balance her need to distance herself from obama’s failures with her need to be loyal to the democratic party?

    How will she answer the repubs attacks that by being loyal, she supported his mandates and is part and parcel of the destruction?

    Will “I told you so” comments work here, especially after she accepted the sos position? Can she trust her fellow democrats after 2008? Won’t they just as easily throw her to the lions if it works to their advantage?

    To my way of thinking, all this talk of her becoming v.p. makes more sense to me as time goes by. The best scenario is for bambi to step down/be run out of town before 2012 and have her step into the potus position, clean up the party, and show what she can accomplish.

  154. This is all assuming Barry will want to be Potus again in 12′. We all know that this is just too much work for Barry. We also know that this thing with the NBPP is going to bite him in the butt. We also know that the Blago trial isn’t going well for Blago being the only one that has something to do with Obama’s old senate seat.
    We also know there are folks making sure this time that we have a real BC before any can run for Potus.

    I would not bet on the democrats not wanting to run this idiot again…the democrats that decided these things are just plain stupid and out of touch with the american people.

  155. #
    basil9
    July 1st, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    shadowfax,

    I’d like to believe it but I’m not convinced that HRC, for example, would be able to challenge it after giving him a pass in 2008.

    Maybe another candidate from another party but a dim, I dunno.

    Agreed the charge has lost its bite but not among BO’s most fervent supporters who, I fear, are needed for a dim win in 2012. I hope I’m wrong about that.

    I’d love to see an HRC run.
    ——-
    I don’t know either, but some Obots I know are now VERY upset with Obama, and although most of them would never dream of voting for ANY Republican, they would vote for Hillary in a heart beat if she ran.

    Many of them voted for Barry, to give the African American with a good speaking voice a chance, and now, especially with the Gulf Oil gusher and broken promises, fake health care bill are no longer willing to keep giving him time to learn/do his job.

    Unless Barry becomes Bill in the next two years ;-), more of this pretense as pResident will leave Hillary in the position of the only one that can save the Democratic party.

  156. There were no Nazi Collaborators in Paris in 1946. Every Parisian recalled that during the dark days of World War II that they were secretly if not overtly members of the French Resistance. If Bambi falls on his sword again, and/or the Dims implode then there will be no Obama Supporters in 2012. Hillary will stand by the statements she made in the primary.

  157. JanH
    July 1st, 2010 at 12:49 pm

    If, and it’s a big if, Hillary does decide to run in 2012 or even 2016, how can she balance her need to distance herself from obama’s failures with her need to be loyal to the democratic party?

    — Hillary has been doing a great job of supporting her party and distancing herself by working at her job and making it her own. She and Bill are experts at this game…so far.
    Hillary has not given Obots a reason to attack her.

    How will she answer the repubs attacks that by being loyal, she supported his mandates and is part and parcel of the destruction?

    —— Honestly, the Republican’s will always attack the Clinton’s, that’s a given.

    They are attacked because of their popularity, social policies and mainly because they are the biggest threat and stumbling block to the Repubs regaining the White House.

    Right now the Repubs don’t mind pointing out the positive things the Clinton’s are doing, because it shows the incompetence of Obama, but the minute Hillary tosses her hat in the ring, and I really do believe she will, (not sure of 2012 or 2016, it will depend on the circumstances at that time) the Republican’s will attack her like rabid dogs.

    There will be plenty of Republican voters that will vote for Hillary, no matter what their talking heads say.

    That is what I think…but who am I?

  158. That Forman article upthread is thought-provoking, but I still am sure Hillary won’t run in 2012 – unless Obama declines to seek reelection.

    Also, I hate to break it to Dickhead Morris, but Obama will not retaliate against Bill for endorsing Romanoff. People are making this out to be much more than it is. Bill was simply repaying a favor to an early Hillary supporter by making that endorsement. If Bennet wins the primary instead of Romanoff, who’s far behind, Bill will certainly campaign for Bennet in the fall if Bennet wants him to.

  159. HuffPuff forgot her kool-aid again this morning…

    TRASH COLLECTORS
    Bernanke, Geithner Put Taxpayers On The Hook For Junk Bonds,
    Told Congress They Were ‘Investment Grade’

    Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then-New York Fed President Timothy Geithner told senators on April 3, 2008, that the tens of billions of dollars in “assets” the government agreed to purchase in the rescue of Bear Stearns Cos. were “investment-grade.” They didn’t share everything the Fed knew about the money.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

  160. No Quarter

    Skimmers Are AWOL, But Unskilled Workers Are Plentiful »

    It is hard to believe that this oil spill in the Gulf is still continuing, over 70 days later. And, it is hard to believe how much this situation has been mismanaged by both BP and the US Government. Sadly, that is the case on both counts.

    For instance, BP continues to act stupidly by not utilizing fishers from the Gulf area to assist in cleaning up the area, as this article by Matthew Boyle highlights, Local Fishermen Watch As Clueless Out-Of-Staters Take On Cleanup Duties:

    Local out-of-work fishermen around the Gulf of Mexico are fuming at the Unified Command Center and BP after hundreds of people from other parts of the country have showed up for work along the Gulf Coast with their boats.

    Bob Zales, president of the National Association of Charterboat Operators, said that those people from out of the area are taking jobs away from the fishermen and others directly affected by the spill. They’re doing it, Zales said, by getting hired onto BP’s subcontractors’ workforces.

    Companies BP subcontracted to handle cleanup operations include SWS Eagle, Parsons and PEC Premier.

    Zales said things would be better if the workers were experts on the handling these kinds of issues or at least knew the area.

    “These so-called professionals they’re bringing in from out of state don’t have a clue how to set up boom,” Zales said. “They’re just here making money. But we’ve got people begging for work.”

    Zales said the subcontractors should kick out the workers from other parts of the country and hire the local fishermen who know the area and how to do the work correctly.

    “These are companies that are allegedly experts on environmental issues,” Zales said. “But, I can tell you, that from what I’ve seen, they don’t know what they’re doing. If this wasn’t so serious, it would be a good comedy.”

    more…

  161. I’m sick of the false “polarizing” label attached to the Clintons. Either way, I personally hope her wedding is “obama free.”
    ————

    Obama’s Still a Possibility at Chelsea Clinton Wedding

    According to a knowledgeable source with ties to the Clinton’s and Obama’s there has been no final decision on whether the President and First Lady, Barack and Michelle Obama will be at the marriage ceremony or reception of the upcoming Chelsea Clinton wedding

    (PRWEB) July 1, 2010 — According to a knowledgeable source with ties to the Clinton’s and Obama’s there has been no final decision on whether the President and First Lady, Barack and Michelle Obama will be at the marriage ceremony or reception of the upcoming Chelsea Clinton wedding (http://www.chelseaclintonweddingwatch.com/). According to this source, while the public is being led to believe that it won’t happen, security plans are still being developed for such a possibility.

    What would it mean for the wedding, for history and for both the Obama’s and Clinton’s? Would the appearance of the Obama’s, even at the reception, upstage a private, family affair? Or would it add prestige and honor?

    In 1897, Frances “Fanny” Hayes, daughter of former president Rutherford B. Hayes, was married in Ohio. The newly elected president, William McKinley, and the entire cabinet made the pilgrimage, McKinley taking the presidential train, the Air Force One of its day. Did it overpower the Hayes wedding? After all, the nation was fascinated with its new president who had been in office only days. No, by all accounts, Fanny Hayes and her husband, Ensign Harry Eaton Smith, captured the day’s headlines. The public had been following Fanny since her adolescent years in her father’s White House. All of the distinguished guests only ensured that the event would be set in stone as one of the greatest social events in our short national history.

    According to some recent polls, the Clintons are now more popular than the Obamas. So it is not likely that any guest, including the president and first lady, would upstage her marriage to longtime, 31-year-old, boyfriend and Goldman Sachs banker, Marc Mezvinsky.

    News about the wedding has been a story in itself, with speculation that the public, media savvy Clinton’s have purposely dropped disinformation to help shroud the event in privacy. Hints about the wedding last summer embarrassed news agencies when it didn’t happen. It is now set for July 31, 2010. Published accounts were also wrong about the dress. It will be a Vera Wang creation, not Oscar de la Renta as widely reported. And the location will not be at Martha’s Vineyard but deep on the grounds of a Clinton supporter a few hours north of New York City.

    All of these efforts may not be enough to sufficiently dampen public interest. The Jenna Bush wedding took place during a low ebb in the popularity of President Bush and at a time when the war on terror counseled as little publicity as possible. Jenna was married at the Bush family, Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas, a rather remote location. But the Clinton wedding will be within driving distance of the media capital of the world. And at a time when the Clinton presidency is being viewed more favorably in comparison to his two successors.

    Weddings of presidential children, no matter how carefully planned and private they wish them to be, can prompt unexpected public reactions. When the president’s son, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr. married Ethel DuPont on June 30, 1937, the couple had every expectation that their wedding would be a private, quiet affair. The ceremony took place deep in the DuPont family compound in Delaware, far from any public highway. But on the wedding day, several hundred thousand uninvited people lined the roads to wish the couple well. Three companies of soldiers were brought in to escort the president’s family. And the Army Corps of Engineers was asked to set up a makeshift kitchen.

    It is exactly such moments in presidential history that have made the modern presidency more savvy and less likely to be ambushed by either the media or the public. And it partially accounts for the Clinton sleight of hand on the details leading up to the event.

    Still, this is a polarizing presidential family, whose star is now more clearly visible in the historic firmament. With the Clinton’s we experienced a roller coaster of emotions in public life. Some pundits predicted that it would be hard for Chelsea Clinton to ever trust a man or ever get married. So this wedding ceremony is a milestone that marks a marriage that has endured, a presidency that grows fonder by absence and a child who landed on her feet in spite of the odds. The media and public may demand to know more and celebrate it with more fanfare than Chelsea, the so called Garbo of presidential children, would like. With or without the Obama’s it will be a moment in history.

    http://www.prweb.com/printer/4214764.htm

  162. Quoted: Bill Clinton will try not to cry at Chelsea’s wedding

    “I am going to try not to cry because this isn’t about me, it’s about her. And if I am crying, then it becomes partly about me and I don’t even want to be mentioned in the story except that I didn’t stumble walking down the aisle.”

    — Bill Clinton on Chelsea’s wedding (sometime this summer), at the Time Global Forum Sunday in South Africa.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2010/06/quoted_bill_clinton_will_try_n.html

  163. Thing is we are going to have to play dirty in 2012 to get Hillary elected and i mean very dirty.

    He started it, we are going to finish it.

  164. Personally i think its a very good thing for primary challenges to be allowed and should be encouraged, no-one should get automatic incumbency.

    I think all senators and the President should be made to have primary challenges every election to get rid of the complacency.

  165. Personally i think its a very good thing for primary challenges to be allowed and should be encouraged, no-one should get automatic incumbency.

    I think all senators and the President should be made to have primary challenges every election to get rid of the complacency.
    ———————————————
    Absolutely right. Given a choice between accountability vs the divine right of kings, I prefer the former.

  166. The President should be made to go through primaries every election because he should be answerable to the party voters, not just at the election with no other party choice.

    I think it is something we should campaign for now.

    Automatic Open Primaries – The incumbent must face the party.

    We should get that ball rolling now. Its certainly a lever to get Hillary running.

  167. I just don’t see Obama running for re-election. His ego is way too big to want to take responsibility for the mess he has perpetuated from the Bush admin, and the messes he’s created in his own right. He’s not going to want to face the critical audiences and the nasty questions from the press.

    Further, a second term merely puts off him living the life that he wants to lead – leaving in a swanky New York apartment, playing squash with billionaires and being invited to all the best parties for adoration.

    However, he is going to want to pick his successor and I’m pretty sure that’s the battle we see brewing now. He’s going to want to beat Hillary one more time and deny her the presidency. Why? Because he doesn’t give a
    rat’s ass about the nation.

  168. Automatic Open Primaries – The incumbent must face the party.
    —–
    California just passed this, will see how it works out.

    I don’t like either party chasing off candidates running against an incumbent. Too much dead wood and lifers in the congress.

  169. BA

    However, he is going to want to pick his successor and I’m pretty sure that’s the battle we see brewing now. He’s going to want to beat Hillary one more time and deny her the presidency. Why? Because he doesn’t give a
    rat’s ass about the nation.

    —–

    I agree, he sees Hillary as his rival, and one-upping her has been his goal.

    His ‘health care’ bill……he didn’t care what bs was in it, or if it worked, he just wanted it passed before Hillary could pass her bill.

  170. Shadowfax,

    That’s not quite what happened with the health care bill. Obama cared very much what was in it.

    James Roosevelt, who was chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting that halved Michigan and Florida’s delegates (states Clinton won) and gave four of the delegates she won in Michigan to Obama, is also CEO of Tufts Health Care – a health insurance company. Roosevelt published an opinion piece in the Boston Globe about what kind of health care reform we should pass, and lo and behold, it is exactly the plan that passed. Obama is the one who assigned writing the health care bill to Max Baucus and Baucus hired a former staffer, who is now VP at Well Point Health Care, to write the actual bill. Obama made sure he got the exact bill that he wanted and that bill is also the exact bill that James Roosevelt wanted.

    Some kind of coincidence, huh?

  171. JanH, I agree with you about the “polarizing’ bit. But I really liked this line:

    So this wedding ceremony is a milestone that marks a marriage that has endured, a presidency that grows fonder by absence and a child who landed on her feet in spite of the odds.

  172. BA

    That’s not quite what happened with the health care bill. Obama cared very much what was in it.

    ——-
    True, he did care that the bill was what he wanted, as long as the bill was passed before Hillary could pass the Health Care Bill that Democrats wanted from her. (Now that is a twisty sentence, but you get the drift.)

  173. Even the conservative stuff that passed during Bill’s presidency, he took and moved to the left – all of it. He gets lambasted for signing Gramm/Leach/Biley but it was going to pass without his signature. So he took the bill, protected the Community Reinvestment Act and signed it. It was a terrible bill but he used his signature to protect lower income families in inner cities who needed his help. That’s what he always did. He found ways to make destructive conservative items less destructive and less permanent.

    I do miss him a lot.

  174. basement angel-

    It’s about 450-500 words, and mostly touts Romney’s Mass. healthcare legislation. I don’t see the connection, and I’m looking; Help me out here, please..

    Healthcare: Let’s build on what we know
    AN ARTICLE in The New Yorker earlier this year by Dr. Atul Gawande explained the rationale for creating a national healthcare system based upon the fundamentals of existing programs. Gawande provided a terrific overview of the origins of healthcare systems in other parts of the world, and it is instructive for us as we embark upon our own journey toward universal healthcare. His premise is that every nation that has a successful national health plan has built it upon what existed in its own borders – imperfect and patchworked, but foundational nonetheless. I agree with him that that is what America must do rather than create a government-run health plan, or any system that reproduces what is done in Canada or Great Britain, or elsewhere. Building upon employer-based, private health insurance has proven merit.

    The advocates of a government-run plan claim that it will control costs. I am not convinced. The allure of a government-run health plan is distracting and unproven, and brings a high risk of unintended consequences such as reducing competition and consumer choice. Moreover, even if a government-run plan could be designed in a way that preserves choice for most Americans, it would delay the start of universal coverage for years. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to wait for the kind of accessible, portable, universal healthcare coverage that we have available to us today in Massachusetts, or to employees eligible for coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which was touted during President Obama’s campaign.

    Our experience offers a real-time example of what can be achieved when there is a successful public/private partnership. The Commonwealth’s citizens have long enjoyed the promise that healthcare won’t be denied due to a prior health condition. We haven’t had to make the choice between bankruptcy and treatment for serious disease; endure waiting periods before receiving healthcare coverage; or pay hospitals upfront for life-or-death care. The lack of this protection elsewhere contributes to the sense of urgency felt in most of the country.

    We have already learned that for healthcare reform to be successful, individual mandates encourage widespread adoption; that timing and a united will can create a workable solution; and that incentives must be aligned. This public/private partnership has successfully met the needs of more than 97 percent of the state’s citizens and could be a blueprint for private market reform, as we understand what can be reasonably accomplished in a set time frame, what can be improved upon, and where the focus should be for achieving sustainable change while maintaining choice, quality, and affordability.

    In addition, there is much that we do here in Massachusetts that the president wants the rest of the nation to adopt, such as: our leadership in electronic medical records; our commitment to quality through innovative payment models for providers; and our adherence to evidence-based medicine. Of course, this isn’t to say that our state system is perfect, but theoretical perfection should not hold us hostage as we embark upon an idea whose time has finally come.

    Evidence that we inhabit a unique moment is that, unlike 1993, we are engaged in a much different discussion. The country’s insurance industry is now a key supporter and stakeholder, and has already signaled its willingness to be part of the national solution.

    For example, America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national trade association on whose board I sit, has submitted its own comprehensive healthcare reform proposal to achieve universal coverage, reduce the unsustainable increase of healthcare costs, and improve the quality of medical care. No less a national healthcare advocate than Senator Ted Kennedy said of AHIP’s efforts, “The insurance industry has advanced serious proposals that deserve serious analysis and consideration.”

    As Gawande suggests, let us learn from the experience of others who successfully crafted healthcare systems built upon existing foundations. We cannot afford to be distracted. Today’s confluence of will, momentum, and the coming together of stakeholders is rare and must not be squandered.

    James Roosevelt Jr. is president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan and co-chair of the policy committee of America’s Health Insurance Plans.

  175. Shadowfax,

    The administration is on record as seeing their health care bill as capable of preventing single payer from ever becoming a reality.

    It’s not about preventing Hillary’s plan from passing so much, as funneling as much money to the health insurance industry for as long as they can.

  176. However, he is going to want to pick his successor and I’m pretty sure that’s the battle we see brewing now. He’s going to want to beat Hillary one more time and deny her the presidency. Why? Because he doesn’t give a
    rat’s ass about the nation.
    ————————–
    It will not work. It is not in the nature of charismatic leaders to have coattails. Fidel is the perfect example. He is famous for letting people think that someone is his successor and then pulling the rug out from under them. They fear any successor, particularly one they selected. If the successor outshines the charismatic leader then his legacy is diminished. If the successor disappoints then his legacy is diminished as well. Once they have designated a successor, their power begins to ebb, so if they do it at all for reasons of expediency, they later move to destroy him. Other forms of leadership are different. They rely on succession planning. But not charismatic leaders. It is not in their genetic make up.

  177. [ At the site, many of these words are links. ]

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/07/01/climategates-death-rattle/
    The Pennsylvania State University’s investigation into allegations of misconduct by climate scientist Michael Mann found him innocent, specifically saying:

    … the Investigatory Committee determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research, or other scholarly activities.

    Mann, as you may recall, was a key figure in the so-called Climategate fiasco, where leaked emails were purported to show scientists fixing data to make global warming evidence appear stronger. Since Day 1 of this I have been calling it a non-event, a manufactured controversy by global warming denialists trying to make enough noise to drown out any real talk on this topic. And time and time again I have been shown to be correct.

Comments are closed.