Obama Administration

You are currently browsing the archive for the Obama Administration category.

I think it sounds like Arkansas Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln. The Democratic Senate Conference met with President Obama and she came up with this weak ass narrative;

I visited with a constituent yesterday, good Democrat, small business owner, who was extremely frustrated — extremely frustrated because there was a lack of certainty and predictability from his government for him to be able to run his businesses. He’s — he and his father have worked hard, they’ve built three or four different small businesses, and he fears that there’s no one in your administration that understands what it means to go to work on Monday and have to make a payroll on Friday. He wants results. He wants predictability.

And are we willing as Democrats not only to reach out to Republicans but to push back in our own party for people who want extremes, and look for the common ground that’s going to get us the success that we need not only for our constituents but for our country in this global community, in this global economy? Are we willing as Democrats to also push back on our own party and look for that common ground that we need to work with Republicans and to get the answers?

Blanche Lincoln thinks that totally screwing over the President’s agenda is a good political move. Must be why she is at 33% in the polls for re-election versus 56% for her opponent. Lincoln’s approval rating has sunk to just 27%, with 62% of voters in the state disapproving of her, and she only has the support of half of the states Democrats. When the Democrats are in power and you want to keep them in power then you need to keep them popular. Which means you need to ACTUALLY PASS GOOD LEGISLATION that benefits your constituents. Otherwise, voters will see you as part of the problem, not part of the solution, and every punch that you and your fellow conservadems land on Obama that same punch ricochets right back onto your poll numbers and approval rating. They are self-immolating and don’t know why. They think it’s the liberal left hurting them, when in fact they are hurting themselves. If these people studied 1994 they would know this, it’s elementary politics.

Personally I don’t give two shits whether our politicians know what it’s like to go to work on Monday and meet a payroll on Friday. I do give two shits whether they know what it’s like to go to work on Monday and get a paycheck on Friday that doesn’t allow for you to save for your kids education, or allow you to purchase affordable health care insurance, let alone let you save for your future retirement.

Does she and her fellow conservadems think Democrats just lucked out winning blowouts in 2006 and 2008? Could Bush’s low approval ratings have had anything to do with it, ya think? The economy was doing okay in 2006. But Dems swept the election because the Republican president was despised by the antiwar left, and independents had seen enough of their neocon incompetence as well. If the Dems want to avoid the same thing, their best shot is to get Obama’s approval rating above 60%. You do that by passing health care reform, passing real job creation bills, and do something to regulate banks and go after these credit card companies who seem to enjoy raping the American consumer ever month with 22% interest rates.

Perhaps Blanche Lincoln’s current and future bosses at corporate giant Wal-Mart are telling her how to make payroll, because she doesn’t have the experience to comment for herself.

Though she does have the experience of being a backstabber.

  • Share/Bookmark

The public elected President Obama on the basis of his persistent invocation of bipartisanship or a “new kind of politics,”. While a President getting elected on promises of bipartisanship, or working with “the other side of the isle” is nothing new, it was foreseeable that Obama had a slim to none chance of success. I do not blame or criticize Republicans for sticking to their principles (tax cuts are the universal elixir), misguided though I believe they are, but the more I think about this the more I agree that Martha Coakley’s defeat in Massachusetts should mark the end of Obama’s efforts to create a new, bipartisan climate in Washington.

Consider last spring’s $787 Billion stimulus bill which was heavily weighted toward tax cuts in an effort to win some Republican support. In the end, the bill received not a single Republican vote.
Consider that he nominated a moderate, pro-prosecution Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, only to see her tagged as a racist over some rather harmless remarks she made about being a “wise Latina”.
Consider that healthcare reform became bogged down in such a compromise-ridden mess to try an woo Senator Olympia Snow, and appease Senator’s Landrieu, Nelson, and Lincoln. Let’s include the fact that President Obama never truly fought hard for a public option to compete with private insurance companies because those in his inner circle knew it would never get passed.

Obama has done precisely what he condemned while campaigning for the presidency: he has played the old Washington game of compromising on basics to win a few votes. Now the idea was to bring along a few Republican senators thought to hold reasonable views, I get that, but NO Republican support was offered by the other side…none…NADA.

Instead we got calls for this becoming Obama’s “waterloo”. Obama’s attempts to find compromise solutions did not stop Republicans from labelling him as a radical – or their nutty tea-party allies from calling him a “socialist” and citing scripture (Psalm 109:8) calling for his death. He’s being called a radical though he’s doing nothing radical, and yet alienating radicals because he’s doing nothing radical. It’s an old paradox: you can’t chase with the hounds and run with the foxes.

The House should pass the Senate Health care bill and fix it later through reconciliation. Put a “W” in the Win column and move on.

Then he needs to pick another fight….. and then FIGHT, and stop going for these half-assed measures by watering down legislation to get any GOP votes. Maybe he is finally starting with his proposing a tax to recoup some of the billions of dollars in bailout money the bankers received, and has referred to bonus payments as “obscene” at a time when many “continue to face real hardship in this recession.”

The White House and the Democratic Party still have time to change course. Surely Obama knows his strategy of reaching out to Republicans was an utter failure. It’s time to try something new.

I hope he is ready for it.

  • Share/Bookmark

Just a few short years ago wasn’t terrorism supposed to be the the existential threat facing the West in the 21st century? Didn’t Dick Cheney say in 2004 “the 21st-century terrorism threat presents a new and far greater peril”

… than what?

“Today, we face a sophisticated global network of terrorists who are opposed to the values of liberty, tolerance and openness that form the basis of our societies. Their hatred and sense of grievance are not directed at any one government or nation or religion, but against all governments, nations and people that stand in their way.”

Sure seems like he was talking about al Qaeda.

Today religious leaders, right-wing blowhards, and Republicans the like are saying entirely different things.

Neal Boortz is arguing, “ObamaCare will do more damage than a successful terrorist bombing of an airliner … and kill more people as well.”

Allen Quist, a Republican congressional candidate going up against Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN), has made a serious accusation:

“It’s because I, like you, have seen that our country is being destroyed. I mean, this is — every generation has had to fight the fight for freedom. This is our fight. And this is our time. This is it. Terrorism, yes — but that’s not the big battle. The big battle is in D.C., with the radicals. They aren’t liberals, they’re radicals. Obama, Pelosi, Walz — they’re not liberals, they’re radicals. They are destroying our country. And people all over are figuring that out.”

Rep. Walz, the one Quist is describing as a radical enemy of the U.S. and a more serious threat than al Qaeda, is a 24-year veteran of the National Guard, retiring as a command sergeant major and the highest ranking enlisted soldier in southern Minnesota. But he is worst that al Qaeda?

Rep. Virginia Foxx’s (R-N.C.) looked pretty ridiculous in November when she said Americans have “more to fear” from health care reform than “from any terrorist right now in any country.”

Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) said that the health care debate is more consequential than the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

According to Sen. Jim DeMint, a right-wing Republican from South Carolina protecting the American public from terrorism is a priority, but for DeMint, preventing government workers from organizing is a much higher priority.

And finally according to religious right leader Pat Robertson who argued on ABC’s This Week that the “runaway” federal judiciary constitutes the gravest threat to American life. Robertson says the “tyranny” of the federal judiciary is a bigger threat to America than the Nazis during World War II and the Civil War and poses a “more serious [threat] than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings,” referring to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in which nearly 3,000 people were killed.

Do Republicans take terrorism seriously, or do they merely use it as a political tool to attack their enemies — and NOT a set of policy pronouncements?

After all it was an excuse to attack Iraq.

Do we assume that Republicans somehow care if terrorists attack America, especially if that means they get to attack Obama as well? If a terrorist attack occurs under a Republican president it’s the fault of the last Democrat to hold office. If a THWARTED attack occurs under a Democrat it’s because the administration didn’t take “the terrorist threat seriously!”

But, NOTHING could possibly qualify as “taking the terrorist threat seriously” as far as Republicans are concerned — except for Obama to resign and appoint Dick Cheney president.

  • Share/Bookmark

Obama’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) failed to screen for bombs lead to Christmas Day bombing of Airline!

The problem with this headline is that it was Republican lawmakers who opposed funding for the TSA, including money for screening operations and explosives detection systems.

President Obama doesn’t take the terrorist threat seriously! TSA leadership is seriously lacking.

The problem with this healine is that one right-wing GOP senator (Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.) won’t let the Senate vote on the president’s clearly-qualified nominee (Erroll Southers, a former FBI special agent and a counterterrorism expert).

Terrorist released by Obama return to strike America!

The problem here is:

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November 2007 (by President Bush), according to American officials and Department of Defense documents. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the Northwest bombing in a Monday statement that vowed more attacks on Americans.
American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia, where they entered into an “art therapy rehabilitation program” and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

Just imagine the Republican response if Barack Obama or Bill Clinton had released prisoners to enter an “art therapy rehabilitation program.” This sounds almost as silly as an American president in the Nuclear Age, sitting and reading a children’s book for seven minutes all the while told the country is under attack.

  • Share/Bookmark

At 1:19 a.m. (ET), the Senate voted to end the debate on the Manager’s Amendment to health care reform. It needed 60 votes to advance, and it passed, 60 to 40. Every member of the Democratic caucus voted for it, and every Republican voted against it.

So be it. Democrats really shouldn’t have expected any GOP support, and I don’t see why they thought they would. They would never have attracted any GOP support with a pubic option or Medicare buy-in. Republicans probably don’t want to see ANY health insurance reform as a matter of spite just because it is a Democrat administration and they would rather see them fail than pass any legislation, no matter how desperately it is needed. However if I were Obama the pragmatist, what I would have done is press the hell out of the Senate to adopt a number of the GOP’s best ideas: most specifically, allowing private insurance plans to be marketed across state lines, and honest-to-goodness tort reform. This would be both brilliant policy (smart ideas to really bend the cost curve) AND brilliant politics (either the Republicans have to get on board, or they have to reject their own best ideas — a big win for Obama in either case).

This is why I will always consider myself a centrist. I would have listened and brought in some of the opposing side’s best views and ideas and incorporate them into the overall reform plan.

But, no one elected me.

  • Share/Bookmark

On at lot of things Obama has disappointed me, but I still support him, all things considered. He HAS done a lot of good and is a decided improvement over his predecessor (and we all know he’s ten times better than McCain/Palin ever would have been.)

How have the left wing Democrats responded to some of Obama’s actions… or inactions so far?

I read tons of nonsense about Barack Obama being some kind of “failed president” because he hasn’t done everything that the left wants him to do. The left wing is getting kind of ridiculous, and threatening to stay home from the polls in 2010 which is beyond childish. Even little kids act more reasonably than these people are behaving. You know when I was a kid most years I made a list all of the things I wanted for Christmas. It never occurred to me I would get every single thing on the list. Hell, if I got one or two things that were on the list I was cool with that.

These people on the Democratic left are like kids who didn’t get everything on their list so they are throwing away all of the toys that they did get and declaring that they want nothing to do with Christmas.

Barack Obama has not done everything that I want him to do, but I’m actually quite pleased that he has done some of the things that I wanted him to do, because his predecessor certainly didn’t do a DAMN thing at all but screw up this country for the last 8 years. As to the things he hasn’t done; some have been thwarted by Congress or other issues, for some he hasn’t yet had time, and some he doesn’t intend to do at all. So he doesn’t agree with all of my priorities. Fancy that.

I will be critical of Obama and his administration when I disagree with their actions, but I’m certainly not going to dissolve into some massive snit and become the Democratic version of a teabagger.

  • Share/Bookmark

The right wing howler monkey’s are out in force about President Obama’s speech on U.S. policy in Afghanistan in that it sounded like more Bush-bashing.  As President Obama noted last night…

“al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope.”

So by late 2002 things in Afghanistan were going in the right direction … then Bush turned to Iraq … then Afghanistan began to deteriorate … then al Qaeda reorganized … then the Afghan government faltered … then the Taliban started reclaiming much of the country. U.S. commanders requested more U.S. troops and didn’t get them.  All these are facts so in my opinion this hardly constituted Bush-bashing, unless restating known facts about the last 8 years does constitute Bush-bashing then I’ll stand corrected.

Does it not make perfect sense for President Obama to explain how we got to where we are?

  • Share/Bookmark

A pretty rough first 10 months overall, but let’s break down the important economic issues.

1. Monthly federal budget deficits have been decreased by one-fourth. For October 2008, the CBO reported a federal budget deficit of $232 billion. The CBO reports the October 2009 deficit at $175 billion, a reduction of 24.6%.

2. Equity markets have soared by about 59%. After hitting a low in early March just below 6500, the DJIA has risen past 10,300.

3.  The job losses started in January 2008.  All through 2008, the net number of jobs shed by the economy grew each month, reaching its worst point in January 2009, when the economy lost more than 700,000 jobs. From that moment forward, the picture has been improving, with net losses shrinking each month to 190,000 in October. Of course, losses are losses, and so this means that total unemployment has continued to rise. But how can we look at this chart

Picture 14

and not conclude that the jobs market has been heading in the right direction since early 2009?

  • Share/Bookmark

Glenn Greenwald tells us that…

The Obama administration has, yet again, asserted the broadest and most radical version of the “state secrets” privilege — which previously caused so much controversy and turmoil among loyal Democrats (when used by Bush/Cheney) — to attempt to block courts from ruling on the legality of the government’s domestic surveillance activities.  Obama did so again this past Friday — just six weeks after the DOJ announced voluntary new internal guidelines which, it insisted, would prevent abuses of the state secrets privilege.  Instead — as predicted — the DOJ continues to embrace the very same “state secrets” theories of the Bush administration — which Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically once vehemently condemned — and is doing so in order literally to shield the President from judicial review or accountability when he is accused of breaking the law.

It was the Bush Administration that took the position that they could arrest and hold, without trial, anyone on the planet for as long as they saw fit, for any reason or for no reason.

I’m still glad we have this guy in the Oval Office (particularly when I pause to remember who his competition was…), but I will be honest: The disappointments are real, they are legitimate, and they get me pissed off to say the least. I guess now we will hear “well, we’ve changed our mind, we’ll torture people if we want to.” Thanks to George W. Bush, Richard Cheney and now, sad to say, Barack Obama, there seems to be no check on this power once aggregated to the presidency.

  • Share/Bookmark

dithering
–noun
1. a trembling; vibration.
2. a state of flustered excitement or fear.
–verb (used without object)
3. to act irresolutely; vacillate.
4. North England. to tremble with excitement or fear.

Seems Joe Tobacco over at Cadillac Tight sees President Obama’s patient and thorough process towards the Afghanistan troop issue is indeed dithering.

Let’s not talk about the public dithering this president is engaging in with regards to Afghanistan, which is unseemly, unpresidential, and unproductive.

…not only is he a liar, he’s a wishy-washy, indecisive limousine liberal who is so afraid of how a decision on Afghanistan, a war we have troops currently engaged in will affect his domestic policy that he’s literally paralyzed. Get this: The president of the United States promulgated an approach to a shooting war that he now refuses to support. Barack Obama doesn’t support his own war policy, where the hell does that leave our commanding officers in the field, our allies, the Afghani people who don’t know whether the United States will be in their country next year or whether the Taliban will be conducting beheadings in stadiums again?

The Washington Post said:

“President Obama has asked senior officials for a province-by-province analysis of Afghanistan to determine which regions are being managed effectively by local leaders and which require international help, information that his advisers say will guide his decision on how many additional U.S. troops to send to the battle.”

This is what the right wing and Joe Tobacco apparently calls “dithering” – doing what McChrystal ASKED HIM TO DO IN HIS REPORT.

From McChrystal’s report:

“
”[I]t must be made clear: new resources are not the crux. To succeed, ISAF [the NATO command in Afghanistan] requires a new approach — with a significant magnitude of change — in addition to a proper level of resourcing. ISAF must restore confidence in the near-term through renewed commitment, intellectual energy and visible progress.”

Got that? McChrystal ASKED for a NEW APPROACH – and later in the report said that a new approach MUST be found BEFORE any increase in troops.
But please – go ahead Joe and call doing what the general on the ground suggested that he do “dithering” – even though the Bush administration had a general’s request to increase troops in Afghanistan sitting on their desk for 8 MONTHS and did NOTHING about it – and it took Obama to sign it when he came into office to get it done in May of this year.

But please, keep talking nonsense – keep being ignorant instead of knowing the actual facts. It seems it makes you comfortable.

  • Share/Bookmark

« Older entries