Obama Dares Republicans To Test His Willingness to Fight

Dec 07 2010 Published by under Featured News

President Obama held a press conference to defend the compromise that he reached with the Republicans on a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for a long term extension of unemployment benefits. In response to critics of the deal, the President dared Republicans to test his willingness to fight, “I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am.”

Obama emphasized repeatedly in his press conference that he cut this deal so that millions of people would not lose their unemployment benefits. Obama stated that he didn’t want to negotiate with the GOP hostage takers, but he could not let millions of people suffer, “I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

The president discussed what would happen to those two million people if their unemployment benefits expired, “Again, this not an abstract political fight. This is not isolated here in Washington. There are people right now who, when their unemployment insurance runs out, will not be able to pay the bills. There are folks right now who are just barely making it on the paycheck that they’ve got, and when that paycheck gets smaller on January 1st, they’re going to have to scramble to figure out, how am I going to pay all my bills? How am I going to keep on making the payments for my child’s college tuition? What am I going to do exactly?”

Obama knew public opinion was on his side on the tax cut issue, but the unemployed were running out of time, “Now, I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on this. We weren’t operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion. The problem is that Republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. And in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently…The deal that we’ve struck here makes the high-end tax cuts temporary, and that gives us the time to have this political battle without having the same casualties for the American people that are my number one concern.”

President Obama warned Republicans that the tax cut/unemployment benefits standoff was a unique circumstance, and dared them to test his resolve to fight when fate of 2 million unemployed people was not being held economic hostage, “I will be happy to see the Republicans test whether or not I’m itching for a fight on a whole range of issues. I suspect they will find I am. And I think the American people will be on my side on a whole bunch of these fights. But right now I want to make sure that the American people aren’t hurt because we’re having a political fight, and I think that this agreement accomplishes that.”

The people who are outraged over this compromise on tax cuts just don’t get it. They view the issue as a narrow battle over whether or not the wealthy deserve a tax cut, but the situation changed as soon as the Republicans decided to hold unemployment benefits hostage until they got their tax cut. I know this might be impossible for some on the Angry Left to comprehend, but there are millions of people out there right now who can’t find a job, and unemployment benefits are the only income that they have. Unlike you, they don’t have jobs and money.

The people whose benefits were on the line can’t afford for the President to engage in a protracted ideological standoff. If you are a person whose economic circumstances are fine, you’re probably enraged over this compromise, but if you happen to be one of the unemployed whose future was about to be swallowed into uncertain poverty, you are likely breathing a sigh of relief tonight. I don’t know why the Angry Left can’t understand this. Without the prospect of millions of people losing their unemployment benefits, there would have been no compromise.

Obama’s motives had nothing to do with giving the left the victory and feel good moment that they are desperately and selfishly craving. Obama is taking a beating from his base because he decided that making sure that two million people can afford food and heat this winter is more important than an ideological victory. There will be plenty of time for Obama to give the Angry Left their conflict fix later. If Obama would have let 2 million people lose their benefits, the economic and political consequences would have been worse for him than anything that the Angry Left could have done.

There was a time, not very long ago, when the left would have been fighting for the downtrodden and the unemployed. It is with great sadness that I must note that those days appear to be gone. In this tax cut debate, today’s progressive got caught up in a selfish battle of mine versus yours on tax cuts. Some progressives are so caught up in the lustful pursuit of political victories that they have lost their heart and values.

Luckily, we still have a president who understands that taking care of 2 million of our most economically vulnerable fellow Americans is more important than, “winning” a debate over temporary tax cuts. Progressives can moan about their political defeat, but before they turn out the lights in their nice warms homes tonight they ought to think about the millions of Americans who the Democratic President of the United States helped today. In my opinion, the left has lost touch with the soul of their movement. Even if they don’t get it any more, at least the man in the Oval Office still understands what a true liberal never forgets. People always come before politics.

29 responses so far

Liz Cheney Lies About Obama’s Afghanistan Policy

Dec 07 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues

Dishonesty as Policy Making: Dick and Liz Cheney

Look at that photo above. Would you trust those two to babysit your cat? Or even your gerbil? Alright, enough morbid creepification. I want your attention, not the contents of your stomach. This is a simple story to tell. The subject is Afghanistan.

Enter President Obama, stage left:

“We Will Execute This Transition Responsibly, Taking Into Account Conditions On The Ground.” From Obama’s speech announcing the deployment of additional troops to Afghanistan, December 1, 2009

“The Presidents further recognized that developing the Afghan National Security Forces’ capabilities is necessary to facilitate implementation of an orderly, conditions-based security transition process.” In a Joint Statement with President Karzai of Afghanistan, May 12, 2010

“The Pace Of Our Troop Reduction Will Be Determined By Conditions On The Ground.” Discussing the end of combat operations in Iraq on August 31, 2010

And enter Liz Cheney, stage right:

“You know, what I’d like to see — because I do believe that setting the 2011 deadline did cause significant damage to the effort, in terms of convincing people that we’re committed to be there to win — I’d like to see the president repudiate it. I’d like to see him say, ‘Just let’s be clear: We are going to make our decisions based on conditions on the ground, not based on dates we set back here in Washington.’ Fox Broadcasting Company’s Fox News Sunday, December 5, 2010

What conclusions must we draw from the evidence? Liz, you went to law school. This should be an easy one for you, a gimme. I’m sure the University of Chicago Law School must offer a class in ethics.

But let’s not be needlessly magnanimous. Liz Cheney is demonstrably no better than her father was in adhering to facts, as Media Matters for America has revealed. At least she didn’t say “refudiate,” but proper English doesn’t improve her fact quotient and character references.

Oxymoron: See Republican character references

Republican pundits and politicians show repeated and consistent aversion to facts. They are not really interested in the facts but in building a narrative, a narrative that puts liberals and progressives and in particular, President Obama, in a negative light. Contrasted to these is the shining Camelot-like purity of the Republican Party.

Cheney is supposed to be a Republican expert on Near Eastern/Middle Eastern affairs.  Granted, “expert” in a Republican context doesn’t mean much to judge from the examples of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann but Liz Cheney’s resume at least isn’t entirely imaginary: From 2002-2003 she was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs under the Bush administration. After taking 2004 off to work on the Bush-Cheney campaign she returned to the State Department  in February 2005 as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives. In 2006 she added to her resume by heading the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG), a part of the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

Impressive credentials. We have a right to expect that experts try to stay abreast of affairs in their fields. I mean, how do you make or understand policy if you don’t understand the facts on the ground? Isn’t that what she is saying, that policy should be based on the conditions that actually obtain?

Ah yes, but the facts are often at odds with narrative. And when facts get in the way, facts must go in order to not impair the ideological purity of the narrative. When push comes to shove, the conditions on the ground give way before the demands of ideology. Isn’t that right, Liz?

FACT: Liz Cheney and her fellow Republicans feel they are themselves free of any reality-based constraints that (they insist) must bind the president and do not only truth but the American people a disservice by throwing the facts (and our president) under the bus in the name of political posturing.

As Bill Maher said the other day, “the Republican brand of ‘American exceptionalism’ is based on an unrealistic ‘fantasy’ that’s contradicted by facts.” Liz is not a cause but a symptom. “These people love the truth, they just hate facts,” Maher said.

It’s not as if Liz has ever really shown herself to have a scrupulous regard for the facts. Like father like daughter: Liz is a real chip off the old block, the daughter of one of the most reprehensibly creepy figures in modern American history. And this is not the first time Liz has told a big old lie about our president.

Back in September, President Obama reportedly said (according to Bob Woodward),

“We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever … we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

Liz was apparently ignorant of his words when she said,

“Americans expect our President to do everything possible to defend the nation from attack. We expect him to use every tool at his disposal to find, defeat, capture and kill terrorists. We expect him to deter attacks by making clear to our adversaries that an attack on the United States will carry devastating consequences. Instead, President Obama is reported to have said, ‘We can absorb a terrorist attack.’ This comment suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration. Once again the President seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe. The President owes the American people an explanation.”

The real explanation is owed by Liz Cheney (and perhaps Bob Woodward). Why do you keep telling lies, Liz? Why don’t you tell the truth? Why don’t you give us an honest response to what has been said rather than inventing conditions to which to respond? You owe the American people an explanation.

We’re waiting.

9 responses so far

Despite Media Reports Otherwise The Obama Coalition is Alive and Well

Dec 06 2010 Published by under Featured News

It has become a popular theme in the media lately that the presidency of Barack Obama is doomed because the coalition that supported him in 2008 has shattered under the weight of disappointment and anger, but the facts tell a different tale. Polling tells us that Obama remains wildly popular with African-Americans, Liberals, Democrats, Latinos, Voters 18-29, and women. In short, the Obama coalition is alive and well.

As some prominent progressives have grown enraged over Obama’s tax cut compromise, a rage which actually has more to do with the public option not being included in the healthcare bill than taxes, the media has taken this as a sign that Obama’s support has collapsed with his base. No matter what the source, the common theme that you will notice in all the reports about Obama’s demise is that they never provide any statistical evidence to support their point.

The reason why they don’t provide any evidence is due to the fact that none exists. Over at MSNBC’s First Read, they posted some recent poll numbers that reveal that Obama remains very strong with his the same coalition that carried him to victory in 2008. Obama has a 90% approval rating with African Americans, and an 82% approval rating with Democrats. The President also has a 79% approval rating with liberals, a 56% approval rating with Latinos, a 53% approval rating with voters age 18-29, a 49% approval rating with those ages 18-34, and a 52% approval rating with women.

Contrary to the notion that his coalition has splintered, Obama remains as strong as ever with his base. By looking back at the composition of the 2008 electorate, we can easily see how this will impact the 2012 election. Of the 131 million ballots cast in 2008, 25% of them were cast by a minority. Hispanic voter turnout jumped to 49% in 2008, African American turnout was 65%. Obama got 95% of the African American votes, and 67% of the Hispanic votes cast in 2008. Obama’s approval ratings today are still at the same level as the support that he got in 2008 with these two groups. Fifty six percent of women voted for Obama which is right in line with his approval rating with them today.

If Obama’s coalition has not splintered and abandoned him, then where did this false narrative come from? It is my opinion that the mainstream media picked up the grumblings of some of the high profile blogs and websites out there whom they have anointed as speaking for the entire left. They projected the anger at Obama that they came across as a reflection of the way all of the president’s coalition must feel about him.

The reality is that the angry left, the ones who every time Obama does something they disagree take to the Internet to post or tweet or share the threat that “If Obama does ______, I’m done supporting him,” is a tiny, all be it vocal, piece of the Obama coalition. Think of them as the left’s version of the Tea Party. To them the angrier and more confrontational the Democrat, the more beloved they are. These are the Keith Olbermann progressives, but if one needs to find the political ceiling for the angry progressive folk hero, just ask soon to be former Rep. Alan Grayson.

The anger and disappointment of some on the left is legitimate, but they don’t speak for the vast majority of Democrats and liberals. Just because there is an angry minority of progressives that has deemed Obama a failure because he did not pass their ideological purity test, which involves never compromising with the Republicans; this is not accurate description of how the Obama coalition still feels about the President. Despite reports to the contrary, the Obama coalition is alive and well, which is minor miracle considering everything that this president has had to deal with.

The Obama voters will be back out in force in 2012, and if his supporters need a little nudging Obama will have a billion dollars in his war chest and a top notch get out the vote operation that will be virtually impossible for the Republican nominee to match. The media is going to keep giving attention to the angry progressives because conflict bring readers, ratings, and cash, but I wouldn’t give much thought to the anger because when 2012 rolls around and these same outraged progressives are faced with the prospect of a President Palin, they will once again be in the front row chanting, “Yes, We Can” in 2012.

5 responses so far

The DREAM Act: An Urgent Call for Unity

Dec 01 2010 Published by under Featured News

For most of us, the place where we grew up – more so than the place we were born – holds a special place in our hearts. It’s the place we think of when we think ‘home.’ We don’t get to choose where we grow up, any more than we get to choose what family we are born into. But we love our hometowns, just like we love our families, even when they don’t always treat us right.

The children of undocumented immigrants didn’t have a choice in where they would grow up. Their parents made the decision for them. But most children of undocumented immigrants who grow up in the U.S. love their hometowns and this country, even though we don’t treat them right.

What is the DREAM Act?

The DREAM Act would give children of undocumented immigrants who grew up in the U.S. a chance to earn legal resident status in the country that means home to them. First, the law would allow a young person, after completing high school, to apply for “conditional permanent resident status.”

This status would allow the law-abiding son or daughter of undocumented immigrants to work, go to school, get a driver’s license, and go about his or her daily life without fear of being picked up and deported to a land they may not remember. Second, a young person with conditional residency who completes two years of college or a vocational program, or serves two years in the U.S. military, would qualify for unrestricted permanent resident status.

This is legislation that makes sense. It’s only a small step towards immigration reform, but it’s the least we can do for young people who consider themselves part of our family.

Who’s for the DREAM Act?

Public support for the DREAM Act is high, and it’s bipartisan. According to a poll commissioned by child advocacy group First Focus, it’s around 70%. President Obama supports it. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Black Caucus, and Asian Pacific American Caucus support it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, and former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell support it. The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association support it, as do a vast number of universities, such as Harvard, Yale, Georgetown, Columbia, and Stanford.

Who’s against the DREAM Act, and why?

This bill has been around, in one form or another, since 2001. It’s a bi-partisan bill that’s almost passed several times. But now, Republicans who supported the bill in the past are backing away from it because the Tea Party is opposed to it. In fact, several incoming Tea-Party backed Republicans not only oppose the DREAM Act, but want to introduce a bill to change the Constitution to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. of undocumented immigrants.

The Tea Party is riling up their base to fight the DREAM Act and any legislation that would provide a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants. They characterize the DREAM Act as an attempt to “steal” citizenship. They are playing on racist fears, labeling undocumented immigrants AND their children as criminals who only want to import drugs and commit rape and murder on (white) American citizens. And of course, they are very vocal in denying that their motivation is racist.

Why is it urgent to pass the DREAM Act now?

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised the Hispanic community that he would work for passage of the DREAM Act and for immigration reform. But as the 2010 election cycle approached with no progress on this or any measures toward immigration reform, the Hispanic community very rightly began to remind the President of his promise. Why should we support Democratic candidates, many asked, when the Democratic party has not shown that they are willing to work on issues that matter to us?

President Obama reached out to ask for the trust of the Hispanic community, and pledged that the DREAM Act would come to a vote before the end of this year. Sen. Harry Reid made the same promise to his constituents in Nevada, and it’s well-acknowledged that it was the Hispanic vote that saved his Senate seat, and saved the Democratic majority in the Senate. So it’s not just President Obama and Sen. Reid that owe it to the Hispanic community to pass this bill. We ALL have an obligation.
And it’s in our best interest.

The Democratic Party needs Hispanic voters, and needs to show the Hispanic community that we are not just talk. We need to show them that we deserve their trust, their support, and their votes. Passing the DREAM Act would also send an important message to the next Congress, that unlike the party of NO, the Democrats still know how to get the business of our country done.

It will increase the power of the President and Congressional Democrats. It will make it easier to defend the attacks on Health Care Reform, to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to end tax cuts for millionaires, to extend unemployment benefits, and to pass legislation on the environment, job creation, and educational reform.

How can we help?

Tell President Obama and your Congressmen of BOTH parties that you support the DREAM Act. Tell them that law-abiding children of undocumented immigrants shouldn’t have to live in daily fear of being picked up and deported. Tell them that motivated, and educated young people are assets to our country, and deserve an opportunity for legal status. And tell them now, because the DREAM Act may come to vote in the House this week.

Want to know more?

Read the National Immigration Law Center’s ” Five Things You Should Know about the DREAM Act.”

14 responses so far

How Obama Misstepped Into The TSA Body Scan Quagmire

Nov 26 2010 Published by under Featured News

In politics everything happens for a reason. There are very few coincidences, which has become evident once again by the furor over new TSA screening procedures and equipment. Beneath the emotional outrage there is a policy battle taking place on the battlefield of public emotion, and the Obama administration’s reluctance to engage in this realm has resulted in more criticism for the President.

In an interview with Barbara Walters that will air tonight, Obama admitted that the TSA screening procedures are a process that will have to evolve.

Here is the video:

When asked by Barbara Walters about the TSA screening procedures, Obama said, “This is gonna be something that evolves. We are gonna have to work on it. I understand people’s frustrations with it, but I also know that if there was an explosion in the air that killed a couple of hundred people…and it turned out that we could have prevented it possibly… that would be something that would be pretty upsetting to most of us — including me.”

One of the most consistent mistakes that the Obama administration has made on various issues is that they often take the reactive position. Instead of pro-actively defining the TSA changes in emotional terms, “These changes are necessary to keep America safe,” and thereby shaping the parameters of opposition response, the Obama administration has placed themselves in a position where they have to defensively explain their position to an audience that has already had their emotional response defined for them.

This pattern has become common as it relates to areas of policy that become infused with emotion. Obama was on the defensive over healthcare reform. His administration has been on the defensive on DADT. In almost any policy debate where emotion can be infused and manipulated, Obama’s opposition has had free rein to define the mood. The President has the power to set the agenda and define emotion, but Obama has struggled in this area. If when the TSA changes would have been announced the administration would have made the preemptive emotional argument in favor of national security, much of this criticism would have never gotten off the ground.

The President could have used an old, but in this case accurate, Bush and GOP argument, that national security, especially over the holidays where there is a documented history of attempted attacks, has to be the top priority for the nation. He could have stressed that better technology is on the way, and processes will be consistently reviewed, but his job is first and foremost to keep Americans safe. Civil liberties aren’t worth much when al-Qaeda blows up the plane that you are riding on.

At the root of the emotional battle for public support is a political and public policy tug of war. The political battle is something that almost everyone sees. The opponents of the President are using this issue to make the case that he is out of touch. Since 2008, Republicans have been trying to lower the personal popularity of Obama. The TSA body scan issue is their latest attempt, but beyond the obvious political battle is a public policy debate.

The best way to understand the public policy element of the TSA debate is with the garbage can model of policy making. According to the model, policy solutions are produced, and then discarded, or placed in a garbage can until an appropriate problem comes along to fit the solution. When the problem does arise, the garbage can is sorted through as appropriate policy remedies are sought.

In the case of the TSA, the privatization solution has been in the garbage can for almost a decade. As soon as the post-9/11 discussion turned to improved airport security, many on the right saw the then new TSA as a chance to stretch their privatization ideology into a whole new area. Even before these current changes were implemented, arguments were being floated as early as January 2010 that the TSA should be privatized. The privatization advocates have held on to their “solution” and have been waiting for the “problem” to present itself.

In order for momentum to build for their solution, those who wish to privatize the TSA must get public opinion on their side. To do this, they have to transform the public perception of the TSA from being something that keeps America safe to an evil element of big government that is violating our civil liberties. Notice that the question of what would be best option to keep America safe is not a part of the discussion. This isn’t about national security. It’s about privatization. The public policy debate has been shifted from the functionality of the TSA to the very character of the agency itself.

If the Obama administration would have stressed the President’s duty to keep America safe, and framed and defined the TSA body scan issue as one of national security, the privatization ideologues would have never had the “problem” that they needed in order to propose their “solution.” Obama walked into a trap that has been years in the making, and you can bet your bottom dollar, that in January the new Republican controlled House will propose the privatization of the TSA. In this context, the civil liberties argument was nothing more than an emotional frame designed to manipulate the public, which far too many people on both the right and left have fallen for.

Obama now faces the unenviable position of having to defend something which no one likes, TSA screenings, during height of the holiday travel season. However, he and his administration put themselves in this position by letting their emotional argument blind spot be taken advantage of. In the post-9/11 era, rightly or wrongly, the national security argument has always triumphed over civil liberties concerns. Obama has a very powerful argument on his side which he has started to and will continue to use.

The issue of airport security really is a matter of life and death, and from Obama or any president’s perspective invasive security is a better alternative than another terrorist attack occurring on American soil. Obama has always had the right argument, but he shouldn’t have waited so long to make it.

25 responses so far

Obama: “Don’t bet against America. Don’t bet against the American auto industry.”

The GOP lines up against America

“Don’t bet against America. Don’t bet against the American auto industry!” Not something Republicans want to hear. Republicans have been betting against America and the American auto industry for both years of Barack Obama’s presidency. They ran against America in 2010 and they will run against America in 2012.

President Obama is having none of that. He was addressing auto workers in Kokomo, Indiana, an auto-transmission plant that once was struggling and then was saved by the stimulus plan. Yes, the plant has gone back to full production.

Imagine that, after the Republicans bet against and gave up on the American auto industry.  Republican voices from 2008:

  • Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the guy who doesn’t have time now to ratify the START treaty: “Just giving them $25 billion doesn’t change anything,” said on Fox News Sunday. “It just puts off for six months or so the day of reckoning.”
  • Richard Shelby (R-AL), the senior Republican on the Senate banking committee, said the plan was  “a road to nowhere.” He called the “Big Three” — Detroit’s three major automakers — “a dinosaur,” and said on NBC’s Meet the Press that they are “not building the right products. … They don’t innovate.”
  • “The Bush administration opposes using part of the $700 billion financial rescue package to help the automakers. The White House has instead proposed freeing up a separate $25 billion in loans that were designed to help carmakers retool factories to build more fuel-efficient vehicles. They were included as part of last year’s energy bill toughening mileage standards.”
  • John Boehner said, “Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers’ competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy,”

They bet against the auto industry, all of them, from the top down (Shelby was betting ON the foreign auto makers who have facilities in his home state – Honda, Toyota and Mercedes-Benz. And guess what? Chrysler is investing another $800 million in the plant. As Obama told the workers, “That’s real money, $800 million.”

And what did Obama say in 2008?

  • “For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment.”

As CNN reports, “Republicans call the stimulus bill a failure because unemployment grew to well over the 8 percent level predicted by the Obama administration.”

Of course, the stimulus wasn’t everything it could have been, thanks to Republican obstructionism. So it’s nice that they admit they were wrong, even in a roundabout way.

But Obama has triumphed as the American auto industry has triumphed. The Republicans wanted American industry to fail and foreign companies to triumph (don’t forget who Lou Ferrigno advertises for – HINT: it ain’t an American car, folks). They still love foreign money, all the while pretending to be “real” American patriots.

But they don’t love America. They love money. And they don’t care where it comes from. It’s as mercenary a political leadership as can be found. Democracy for sale by RepubliCorp.

9 responses so far

Rush Limbaugh Wants The TSA To Grope Obama’s 9 Year Old Daughter

Nov 23 2010 Published by under Featured News

On his radio show today, Rush Limbaugh suggested that President Barack Obama prove that the new TSA screening procedures are safe by taking his daughter to the airport and, “How about Obama take his daughter to the airport, and have a TSA groper go through the exact routine for Obama’s daughter that everybody else’s daughter goes through?”

Here is the audio courtesy of Media Matters:

Limbaugh said, “How about, you remember when Obama went swimming in the Gulf with his daughter to show everybody it was safe during the oil spill? How about Obama take his daughter to the airport, and have a TSA groper go through the exact routine for Obama’s daughter that everybody else’s daughter goes through? Just to show it safe for everybody, like he did in the Gulf for the oil spill, hmmm?”

The incident that Rush Limbaugh is referring to occurred in August when President Obama took his nine year old daughter swimming in the Gulf after the oil spill. Yep, Rush Limbaugh wants the TSA to “grope” a nine year old girl. By the way, I have not heard anyone argue that the TSA screenings are unsafe. Most complaints center around the notion that they are an excessive invasion of privacy, but I have not heard the search procedures referred to as unsafe before.

When Limbaugh talks about putting Obama’s daughter through the same security screen that everyone else goes through, he means everybody but him. “Common man” Rush Limbaugh has no first hand idea of what the screening procedures are like because, the uber rich, like Limbaugh, don’t fly commercial. Limbaugh’s attempt to discredit Obama as being out of touch with the hassle that Americans who fly would have a lot more credibility if Limbaugh flew commercial at all…..ever.

There is the story out there from last year about the TSA patting down a three year old girl, so excessive searches can and do happen to kids, but the larger question here is why is it fine for the right to drag Obama’s children into their warped fantasies, but even the mention of Sarah Palin’s children in anything but the most flattering and angelic terms results in howls of anguish and anger?

There is something sick and pedophilic about Rush Limbaugh’s desire to see President Obama’s nine year old daughter groped. Where is the outraged tweet and Facebook post from the Mama Grizzly on this? You can bet that there won’t be one, because the right has never had an issue with attacking the children of Democratic politicians, but heaven forbid that anyone dare to point out that Sarah Palin’s adult no talent oaf of a daughter doesn’t belong on Dancing With The Stars, a show which she voluntarily appeared on and put herself in the public eye for, and all hell breaks loose.

It speaks volumes about the true morals and values of the right that they not only condone, but they also embrace Rush Limbaugh’s child molester fantasies about President Obama’s daughter, but I guess the family values end when the children involved belong to Democrats or the TLC cameras stop rolling.

38 responses so far

Lady Liberty Weeps as Sarah Palin Labels Obama a Threat to Democracy

I am so serious! Waaa!

I am out of words to describe the hubris of Sarah Palin and her relentless attack on reality and true exceptionalism, something I’m terribly afraid Sarah Palin will never encounter due to her fear of smart people. Palin can’t manager her own Sarah PAC finances without running into trouble with each filing, she drove Alaska into debt and she left Wasilla in 20 million dollars of long term debt but here she is on FNC’s Hannity tonight, telling us about how President Obama is going to ruin our democracy because of what the “feds”, a.k.a the Fed are doing. File this away under “I refudiate your abuse of the English language”.

You get the sense listening to her (oh, god why?) that she has no idea what quantitative easing means, but that she thinks she’s carrying this deception off with her furrowed brow and determinedly serious beehive. Instead of hitting anywhere near her target, Palin leaves the viewer with that uncomfortable feeling you get listening to a child lie to you about their homework. Why, America? Why?

Here’s our late night theatre of the absurd: Sarah Palin discusses economic theory, also too. Video courtesy of Media Matters:

In a typical Palin disjointed rant, she explained why Obama makes her fear for democracy, “I do. I fear for our democracy, because I recognize, and I know you did too Sean, and you tried to sound a warning bell through your commentary, through the campaign as I was nominated for VP, and running with one of my heroes, John McCain, as we were witnessing what the other campaign was actually telling the American people, warning them what they were going to do to America. They warned, Barack Obama did as candidate that he would fundamentally transform America, that he would redistribute somebody’s wealth. He would take it and he would give it to someone else. Those things that do erode our free market, and our freedoms and are disincentives to a strong work ethic and to productivity, and now what we see are some manifestations of what he warned us that he would do in the campaign. We’re seeing that come home to roost now.”

While talking about the Fed, Palin managed to defend communist China’s manipulation of their currency, “We see with the quantitative easing of the Feds that Barack Obama has now come out and supported, as the Fed says we’re going to print more money out of thin air, and we’re going to incur more debt, and we’re going to devalue our dollar, and we’re gonna mess with China’s currency. We’re going to preach to them that they can’t be messing it, but we’ll be messing with our own. All these things that are taking place right now, especially the incurrence of this huge debt, Sean what it is doing is eroding our opportunities, which ultimately erodes our democracy and our freedoms, and we can not succeed this way.”

She rambled on, “There is no way, with the quantitative easing, with this new $600 billion infusion of fake money into our system. That’s not how we get our economy back on the right track. We became the foremost superpower by incentivizing producers, and job creators, and work ethic. Not by punishing work ethic, but that’s exactly what Barack Obama, and those in the White House, and leftists in Congress are doing to our economy, and our job creators. They’re disincentivizing work ethic.”

In case, you are wondering whose work ethic Palin was referring to and wanting to incentivize, it was not the middle class, or small business — oh, no! The job creators that she is so infatuated with are corporate America and the wealthy. Palin’s plan to get the economy going involves deregulation, a slashing of corporate tax rates, and tax cuts for the rich. Yes, Sarah Palin is advocating Ronald Reagan, and later George W. Bush’s failed theory of trickledown economics.

It was great to see that American secessionist/patriot Sarah Palin defend communist China’s right to manipulate their currency and cause a huge trade imbalance with the United States. Since Palin brought up the deficit, she might want to have somebody teach her that if we could get China to stop manipulating their currency, it would help to lower the US deficit, but this is much too advanced a thought for Sarah Palin.
This is what happens when one’s paranoia forces them to turn to a freelance journalist with no formal training in economics and no experience in public finance to advise her about economic policy.

Sycophantic wanton nastiness is all that’s required to be one of Palin’s advisers. Check. This may be why Palin is cheerfully ignorant of the fact that foreign leaders are not upset with Obama because he is ruining democracy, but rather because the Fed’s plan is likely to stimulate exports and cut into imports. Sigh.

As for Palin’s accusations of socialism, the ignorance, it burns. Sarah Palin was very proud of the windfall profits tax she levied on oil companies in Alaska and then happily redistributed to Alaskans. Not only did Palin do this with the already existing Permanent Fund that gave each Alaskan a $2,000.00 check, but she created an additional energy “rebate” of $1,200.00 for every man, woman and child in Alaska.

This was utterly socialist in that she did it to reduce the inequity in society. Palin defended her actions, claiming she wasn’t socialist, because the people of Alaska owned the resources. Palin explained, “We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Palin is clearly blissfully ignorant that this is the argument for socialism. That’s it: The people own the resources. Are you hitting your head against a brick wall yet?

We must remember that this is the person who told ABC news that were she President, the Department of Law would protect her from the ethics violations charges she claimed forced her to quit as Governor of Alaska. “I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out,” she said.

Not only would this be adding to government bureaucracy (and given the number of ethics complaints filed against Palin, we can certainly not afford to front her legal bill like Alaska did) and expanding the powers of the executive branch, and not only is there no Department of Law in DC….but the Department of Justice’s job is most certainly not to defend our President from the consequences of her grafting ways. The Department of Justice is also not here to defend our President from mean journalists like Katie Couric, nor from evil bloggers, nor from angry Republican ex-allies.

In this interview, Palin also explained why she will not be doing interviews with press like Couric or anyone else whom she doesn’t feel will ask her the right questions or treat her nicely. And President Obama is the threat to democracy? Oh, fourth estate, your toes do burn from the stomping.

In other words, when Palin accuses, she is projecting. Sarah Pain is a socialist, but not the good kind. Palin is the kind of leader who uses socialism to expand her dictator-like powers. She uses populism to hide her graft, mafia like corruption and abuse of power. When Sarah Palin speaks, if you can get past the slimy feeling of having just been insulted and accosted, just know that she has one finger pointed out and four fingers pointed back at herself.

33 responses so far

Hillary Clinton Won’t Run for President in 2012

Nov 22 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues, Republican Party

The field just narrowed in 2012. While there is literally a plethora of potential Republican candidates, Democrats remain focused on Barack Obama, particularly now that Hilary Clinton has dropped out of the running.

She not only will not run in 2012 (sorry, no Clinton vs. Palin fantasy scenario i.e. strong feminist woman vs. pseudo-feminist quitter) but not in 2016 either. No more running for public office, Hilary told FOX’s Mike Wallace.

“I love what I’m doing,” she said on FOX News Sunday:

“I’ve said it over and over again. And I’m happy to say it on your show as well. I am committed to doing what I can to advance the security, the interests and values of the United States of America. I believe what I’m doing right now is in furtherance of that. And I’m very proud and grateful to be doing it.”

It is difficult to see, with Hilary out of consideration, how any other Democrat could hope to challenge Barack Obama, whose own popularity remains high. And contrary to Republican spin, that Obama is a raving leftist ideologue,  a CNN poll released last week shows that American voters don’t think Obama is too liberal (only 38%) and only 9% think he is not liberal enough. Obviously, he continues to appeal to moderate voters, which is what led to his victory in 2008.

The result is that the Democrats are likely to enter the 2012 elections united behind one candidate – a proven, experienced candidate, while the Republicans are divided by numerous candidates, and more, by the growing gap between Tea Party Palin supporters and mainstream Republicans exemplified by Karl Rove. If people thought things got ugly between Obama and Clinton in 2008, they’ll get an education when Palin and Rove go at it in earnest.

I cannot think of another thing better calculated to make Democrats salivate and Republicans wince, than Hilary Clinton removing herself from the equation. And Barack Obama has two years to unite Democrats and re-attract those voters he lost in 2010.

One response so far

A Fox News Fairy Tale: Sarah Palin Will Clean Obama’s Clock in 2012

Nov 20 2010 Published by under Featured News

Yet another example of how Fox News is revving up their Republican campaign machine for Sarah Palin occurred on Hannity last night when Sean Hannity claimed that, “I think Gov. Palin, if they keep up with this radical agenda will clean Obama’s clock.” That’s a nice fairy tale for Sean Hannity to spin, but let’s take a look at what will really happen if Barack Obama meets up with Sarah Palin in 2012.

Here is the video of Hannity courtesy of Media Matters:

Hannity said, “I think Gov. Palin, if they keep up with this radical agenda, will clean Obama’s clock.” When pressed, Hannity couldn’t name a single state that Palin would carry that McCain didn’t in 2008. He chose to back up his argument with that old Republican standard, “It’s a whole different environment. Here is the problem. Barack Obama lost. There was a 20 point swing among Independent voters in this country…At the end of the day, you’re forgetting something. We had the biggest midterm repudiation in 70 years two weeks ago.

Hannity later undercut his support of Palin by claiming that anybody could beat Obama, “It’s going to be very interesting. Here you have a guy that was reading a teleprompter. We find out he’s distant, a little unhinged. He’s ineffective. He doesn’t have the ability to pivot and compromise. He’s tone deaf to the American people. He keeps this up for two more years, any, I could beat him, which says a lot.”

In Fox News fantasy land it is so easy to beat an incumbent president that anyone should be able to do it, even Sarah Palin. I hate to go and spoil a perfectly fine right wing dream sequence with facts, but there is a reason why only four incumbent presidents have lost their reelection bids since 1900. Incumbent presidents are nearly impossible to defeat even when they face a credible challenger, much less the least popular politician in America. Sean Hannity relies on the false assumption that Independents will vote for Sarah Palin in 2012, because Independents swung Republican in 2010. The problem is that fewer Independents voted in 2010 than in 2008.

The bigger problem for Republicans is that Independents hate Sarah Palin. Palin is currently carrying a 53% disapproval rating with Independents. Palin’s terrible poll numbers simply don’t match up with what Hannity is trying to sell. The myth truly crumbles when you realize that Obama’s approval ratings have gone up since he was “repudiated” two weeks ago. Palin has consistently been the poorest performing Republican when polls run their hypothetical 2012 match ups, and she consistently trails Obama by double digits. There is zero evidence that Sarah Palin would do anything other than be convincing trounced by Obama.

Despite employing almost the entire roster of potential 2012 candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, minus Mitt Romney, Fox News is increasingly putting their weight behind Sarah Palin. It doesn’t seem to matter that Palin’s track record in national politics is that of a born loser. Palin, Fox News, Hannity, and others have convinced themselves that the 2010 election was about Obama, not jobs and the economy, and that Sarah Palin will lead them to the promise land in 2012.

Sean Hannity was selling a story to the true believers, and snake oil to the gullible. Obama will win reelection and the wide eyed child like viewers of Fox News will tune in every weeknight at 9 PM to hear Sean Hannity spin the tale of how Sarah Palin should have been president.

31 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »