For instance, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. is making some headlines now, not just for his “extra-constitutional” exhortation to Obama he made recently. That was an incredibly stupid thing for a US House of Representatives member to say, someone who is sworn to uphold the Constitution. That was bad enough. But some of you may recall that Rep. Jackson was one of the people who wanted to buy Obama’s IL Senate seat.

Yes, Jesse Jackson, Jr., the man who was Obama’s go-to guy in harassing and threatening members of the Black Caucus to toe the line and support Obama over Hillary Clinton (like Rep. John Lewis, whom he threatened with a primary challenger, and then made good on the threat even after Lewis changed because he shouldn’t have supported Hillary in the first place over Obama). Remember him? Obama’s National co-chair for his campaign? Right, well now he is in a tad of hot water in the House with an impending ethics probe regarding his attempt to buy Obama’s seat.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving man, if you ask me. And it is a bipartisan decision:

A statement on the committee’s website notes that the chairman of the committee, Alabama Republican Rep. Jo Bonner, and the ranking member, California Democratic Rep. Linda Sanchez, “have jointly decided to extend the matter.”

The probe into Jackson’s involvement was initially deferred due to a request by the Justice Department. That request was withdrawn after former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was found guilty of corruption in June.

Jackson testified at Blagojevich’s trial in May that he never authorized an associate to make a deal with the former governor in exchange for the Senate appointment.

An affidavit detailing the alleged crimes of Blagojevich describes how a designee of “Candidate 5” — later revealed to be Jackson — offered to gather $1,500,000 for Blagojevich in exchange for the seat.

In a clandestinely recorded Dec. 4, 2008 phone conversation, Blagojevich said that Jackson was being considered for the appointment because “we were approached ‘pay to play’” by a Jackson associate, who said that the congressman would “you know, he’d raise me 500 grand.”

Blagojevich said that the congressman’s representative had offered to have another fundraiser rake in an added $1 million. “An emissary came. Then the other guy would raise a million, if I made him (Senate Candidate 5) a senator.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Oopsie daisy. That doesn’t sound so good for Jackson. Sure sounds like a “pay to play” request to me, so I am not sure what took the House Ethics committee so long. That was a few years ago, after all. I suppose better late than never, though sooner would have been best (say, before the 2010 election – just sayin’).

And then there is this little story about the dirt rising to the surface, or should I say, becoming more “transparent”? Turns out that the White House wasn’t really all that keen on the whole transparency thing, despite the frequent Obama campaign claims to the contrary. There are any number of instances in which Obama has already failed miserably in that regard since taking office (a quick Google search brings up a fair amount).

But this one is particular, well, hmm, what is the word? It would be amusing if it weren’t so freakin’ hypocritical:

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by government watchdog group Judicial Watch suggest that the White House had direct involvement in shutting a transparency hearing to the press. (Emphasis mine.)

“Please don’t have them reach out to any reporters before I clear [with White House] press,” wrote White House Deputy Associate Counsel Blake Roberts to the Office of Information Policy (OIP), about what should have been a fairly noncontroversial training session.

The workshop was conducted by the OIP for Department of Justice employees on FOIA compliance procedures.

Yes, the workshop was one over Freedom of Information Act procedures. Incredible, isn’t it? Do you think that these Administration folks are aware of how duplicitous they are? If this is any indication, I doubt it:

Another email, from DOJ Press Release Deputy Director Gina Talamona to the OIP and the attorney general’s office, says “after talking with … [then-Assistant White House Press Secretary] Ben Labolt, the decision is that the training will be closed to the press.”
[...]

These documents suggest that it is the Obama White House that is directly responsible for this unprecedented lack of transparency,” wrote Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement. “Only in Washington would political appointees think it appropriate to keep secret a government workshop on transparency.” (Click here to read the rest.)

No kidding. And only the most gullible would still believe that Obama was the least bit transparent in his dealings on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, there seem to be a whole lot of gullible people in this country.

But one way or the other, the truth does come out. Some may still refuse to see the very facts in front of their eyes, but there is little one can do with those who staunchly refuse to admit they have been had (like my Physical Therapist who claims the Republicans’ primary objection to Obama is his race, and that Obama himself has never played the race card). But for those of us in the Reality-based community, we are able to see the truth when it is revealed. Better late than never, right?

What’s on your mind today?

Remember the days when we all hooted and hollered (okay, maybe we Southerners did that – the rest of y’all may have yelled and screamed) over Bush’s desire to have us rat out neighbors or others who said something negative about the country, as in they might be terrorists kind of way?

Yeah, well, that was then, this is now. One was about the country, the other about the Emperor. Or the man who would be Emperor if we would just let him.

Here is a “commercial” (satire alert) for Obama’s newest campaign ploy. It lays it all out for you (bonus – it mentions the other nark sites Obama has put up for snitches all across the land):

My buddies, Nunly and Helenk, have done the dirty work for me so I didn’t have to click on this site, one the Washington Post has referred to this “campaign site” as a “laughingstock of the internet,” the Twitter section of the “Attack Watch.” Uh, ya think?

Here are a few of the Tweets Nunly was kind enough to secure (before they get erased):

Obama: Moooommm!! People are being mean to meeeeee!!!!! #attackwatch

Dear #attackwatch – I heard someone laughing that shovel ready jobs “weren’t so shovel ready afterall”

Dear #attackwatch, there is a Socialist in the white house! And he lies! His LFBC is false and his SS# belongs to a dead guy! Send help!

#attackwatch Gibson Guitars are 100% American made..have DOJ raid them..oops u did that already

People are calling our President the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, that’s not allowed is it? #Attackwatch @AttackWatch

DepressedDarth Darth Vader
Obama launched a program to track attack threats. We had a similar program on the Death Star, but that didn’t stop Luke. #AttackWatch

Funny, right? Helenk provided this link with merchandise for the Obots in your family for this lovely item:

Come on, how much do you want that t-shirt?? Click here to see more t-shirts available at Cafe Press.

Wow. So this is what it has come to, is it? I gotta hand it to Obama, this is some major change I didn’t see coming – the US becoming the USSR from back in the day…

So, what’s on your minds today? It’s an Open Thread, folks – have at it!

First there is the massive upset in New York City when a Republican, Bob Turner, took Anthony Weiner’s seat, the first time a Republican has gotten the District 9 seat in almost 90 years. Holy cow. It Every report I have seen claims this is most definitely a referendum on Obama:

[snip] Republicans sought to turn the race into a referendum on President Obama, tying Weprin to the surprisingly unpopular commander-in-chief at every turn. (Obama’s approval rating was at 43 percent in the district, according to a survey conducted by Siena Research Institute).

Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cast the result as a rebuke of Obama’s new jobs plan.

Obama’s position on Israel became, fairly or not, an effective wedge against Weprin. The Democratic candidate tried to distance himself from Obama’s assertion that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders but Turner effectively linked that position, deeply unpopular in the district’s Jewish community, to his Democratic rival.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner and explained that a victory by the Republican would be the best way for Democrats to send a message to the President. [snip]

You might want to check out the rest of that Washington Post article. The author could not have worked herself into more circles trying to claim why this was NOT a referendum on Obama and the Democrats. It is almost comical, if this wasn’t supposed to be a REPORT, and not an opinion piece.

Meanwhile, there was also a special election in Nevada. This one wasn’t anywhere near close (and the Turner v. Weprin was not exactly a squeaker).Republican Mark Amodei beat Democrat Kate Marshall by at least a 20 point spread (hey, it’s Nevada – you have to talk in betting terms, right?). Not even close. Yeah, apparently the Democrats are getting a bit worried about 2012.

In Obama’s usual tone deaf manner, and despite the Solyndra debacle that is costing us over half a billion dollars, he is pushing on with his agenda for “green jobs.” Now, you know I am all for doing work that helps preserve the environment, and would certainly support viable alternatives to foreign oil, like wave power, for instance, or geothermal energy, things of that nature. But Obama just doesn’t seem to get how his agenda fails to hit the mark:

[snip] More recently, approximately 500 Texans lost their jobs Monday because of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the energy industry.

And the president has offered no specific regulatory relief, other than a single ozone regulatory proposal he nullified a few weeks ago.

Former Sen. Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the former ranking member of a “green jobs” Senate subcommittee, told The Daily Caller he has warned the administration and the American people about the perils of agenda-driven green jobs programs before, to no avail.

“This was a very important subject when we raised it in the spring of 2009, and again in the summer of 2010, but people didn’t really catch on,” Bond told TheDC. “Now, I’m watching the regular news media; even CNBC has figured it out.”

While in the Senate, Bond authored a report just after Obama took office predicting much of what has happened with the “green jobs” agenda. Promised technologies have not panned out economically, and few new U.S. jobs have resulted.

“As we talk about stimulus, people might want to dig deeply into the green jobs initiatives, even high speed rail, to make sure we don’t spend money in very wasteful, unproductive ways,” Bond said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Speaking of Solyndra, seems there is more afoot than the Administration wants us to know. Apparently, some pesky little emails are making their way out to the light of day. Yep, seems there was some concern about Solyndra , but someone – as in the White House – pushed for the loan for Solyndra. Check that, they RUSHED the loan through:

[snip] One e-mail from an OMB official referred to “the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra.” Another complained, “There isn’t time to negotiate.”

“We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),” one official wrote. That Aug. 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.” (Click here for the rest.)

See, this is why I think Congress should read bills before passing them, like Obamacare, and Obama’s Newest Stimulus bill. Because rushing things through without due diligence is just a tad problematic, especially for the taxpayers of this country.

Just out of curiosity, just what does it take to impeach a president? I’m just wondering since there seems to be one damn thing after another coming out about Obama and his ways. Oh, dangit – I reckon that is going to get me a mention on Obama’s new Watch list. And the Democrats don’t have a problem with this? Wait, that’s right – Obama did this in 2008, too – rat people out who might disagree with him even when the truth backed them up. Can’t have that, after all, can we? (I am purposely not linking to this because, well, I don’t wanna. Ahem. However, Helenk, did provide the link, bless her heart.) Somehow, that isn’t sounding particularly American, is it?

Good grief. After all of this, I feel the need for a metaphorical shower. I imagine you might, too, so I want to share with you the incredible story, also from Nevada, about a principal in Las Vegas, Sherrie Gahn:

Click here to view the embedded video.

How amazing is Ms. Gahn? Just in case you were wondering, she was on the Ellen Show, and Target not only gave her school $100,000, but provided backpacks filled with books, pens, paper, etc. Go, Target – always did like that store. Anyway, Ms. Gahn is an amazing example of how much just one person can accomplish. I tip my hat to her. (For those who have a hard time accessing videos, here is a link about this incredible woman.)

What other stories are on your mind today?

A U.S. law enforcement operation intended to crack down on major weapons traffickers on the Southwest border spiraled out of control as federal agents were told by superiors to “stand down” and ignore weapons bought in Arizona headed for Mexico, a House panel heard Wednesday.

Three federal firearms investigators told the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that they wanted to “intervene and interdict” loads of guns, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside.

“Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals — this was the plan,” John Dodson, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent, testified to the panel. “It was so mandated.”

He added: “My supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather, to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy cow. I don’t know about you, but I find that to be incredibly disturbing.

This program was halted when Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, 40, was killed with one of the guns from this incredibly misguided, ill conceived, dare I say, idiotic, program.

Here’s the thing – finding out who actually authorized this program has been much harder than it should be. Obama denied that it was Eric Holder, though the ATF is under his purview. If you have seen any of the hearings on Capitol Hill, you know that trying to get that name has been like trying to pull hen’s teeth. But Obama said that there will be swift action against whoever it was, though it sure wasn’t Holder. Yeah, okay. Well, SOMEONE approved this plan.

That was then. This is now. And that is not the end of it, not by a long shot. The All Stars discussed this very issue on Tuesday night after several Mexican officials, in response to deaths in Mexico as a result ofn “Operation Fast and Furious” spoke out:

Yes, this is a big deal, and Eric Holder has lots of ‘splaining to do. That’s what Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley think, too, as this Daily Caller article highlights:

Top Republican lawmakers have authored an explosive new letter containing details of secret testimony by acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson, which reveal for the first time the extent to which his agency was involved in an international gun selling scandal.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, fired off the letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Tuesday detailing what Melson told Congressional investigators in a secret July 4 testimony.

One key takeaway from the meeting was that Melson acknowledged to investigators that agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns afterwards. Straw purchasers are people who could technically legally buy guns in the U.S. but their intent was to turn around and sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.

Another point Melson clarified for investigators was that the ATF group carrying out the mission of Operation Fast and Furious was placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office. The U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, is a political appointee of the Obama administration.[snip]

Here’s the thing, though – it seems that, Obama’s pledge notwithstanding, the DOJ is not being at all helpful in getting to the bottom of this. Gee, aren’t you surprised by that? No? I wasn’t, either:

The DOJ has not been fully cooperative with a number of Issa’s and Grassley’s requests for documents and other evidence in this investigation. According to the July 5 letter, Issa and Grassley said Melson told them he asked the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) to be more cooperative with Congressional requests for information, evidence and documents.

Their letter also details how Melson told Issa and Grassley that he and other senior ATF officials moved to reassign every major official involved in Operation Fast and Furious. Melson said Obama administration Justice Department officials directed him and other ATF officials to not communicate to Congress the reasoning behind the reassignments. [snip]
(Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, the plot thickens. No doubt, it will get thicker before all is known about this incredibly stupid, moronic plot. As you might guess, those firearms that were purchased were done so on our dime.

Despite the Democrats’ attempts to try to defuse this issue and make it all about gun laws, this is about the DOJ, and the ATF. It is about who crafted, and authorized, this program which cost the life of an agent, and lives across the border. I hope Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley stand firm in getting to the bottom of this.

I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg. What do you think?

Both sides seem terrified of Trump while calling him a joke. It reminds of the Indian warrior in the film “Dances with Wolves” who screams at Kevin Costner’s soldier character at the top of his lungs: “Do you see how I am not afraid of you!!!”

Trump is a forceful competitor who is raising some interesting issues about our economy and global interactions, the “birther” issue notwithstanding. What is the harm in letting the American people decide what interests them? If he talks on long enough, voters might conclude he is a blowhard and not bother. Then they will turn him off without any help from the mainstream media. But of course, the governing elites of both parties must fear the opposite is true. Political analyst Charlie Cook recently offered that after three consecutive “wave elections,” 2012 could be the year Independents rise up and say “a pox on both their houses.”

Many have grown tired of arrogant talking heads who, happily trapped in their own echo chamber, have little awareness of what is transpiring on the ground but see fit to decide for us who is relevant and who is not.

“They” decided to trash Hillary Clinton in 2008. The hazing was non-stop and look where that got us…These self proclaimed political geniuses have now taken to criticizing the inexperienced Illinois Senator they once championed. Yet every time President Obama is in trouble in the polls, another profound pundit floats the idea that Secretary Clinton should trade places with Joe Biden and become the VP next time around. They are content to have her carry President Obama’s water, lift his numbers, and come to his rescue when she could likely do his job far better — though they will never admit it. Certainly, she would not have taken 61 golf outings and who knows how many vacations in the first two years of her presidency.

After dispensing with Hillary, the media went after Palin and now it is Trump’s turn. While each of them bring something different to the table, and one could argue they are not of equal merit, we should be able to decide for ourselves who we want — which means we need to hear all the facts first. But the American people do not get the privilege of making such a decision based on the facts of each person’s record, so loudly do their critics trumpet their negatives, while running interference for our current President much the same way they did for our last one. I used to say that President Bush was made of Teflon, but I have never seen Teflon with the thick protective coating the likes of which the media uses to shield our current chief executive.

Moreover, the alternating tactics of trumpet/trash that comprise the 24-hour news cycle are designed to manufacture crises and obscure the issues with bread and circuses rather than sharing real news. That is part of the reason it seems no punishment is ever meted out for any wrongdoing, so distracted are we with the next bit of nonsense media shoves down our throats. Now the media is shoving “The Donald” down our throats while in the same moment telling us to ignore him. Danger, Will Robinson. That tactic might backfire.

Here’s a thought…what if Donald Trump raises a couple of economic issues worth discussing by all those vying for office? What’s the harm? If pundits complain Trump steals focus from more “serious” candidates, surely they have the ability to cover those other candidates’ policy positions 24/7 and elevate their importance and profile. If the media is choosing not to do so and instead focuses on more demagoguery, is that Donald Trump’s fault? The man hasn’t even said he is running yet.

We need to open the political field up to more than the same old same old. I have no feelings about Trump, nor does that matter. What matters is that free speech be exercised and that the Hillary Clintons and Russ Feingolds and Dennis Kucinichs and Ron Pauls and Sarah Palins and Paul Ryans and yes, even the Donald Trumps of this world — have an opportunity to be heard. Along with Joe and Josephine Q. Public.

Then we can decide what is valid and important. Not the media.

People vote their pocketbooks and ultimately will make their own decision about who best addresses their concerns — that is, if they have an opportunity to hear more than just one person’s incessant drum.

And for those on both sides who are deeply offended by the “birther issue” as it has been called, it is unfortunate that the President has himself to thank for much of this, having spent so much money on lawyers to keep this information secret. While I never gave this matter credence, instead choosing to focus on President Obama’s continuation of George Bush’s policies and his lack of transparency, I can see where all his obfuscation would make even the most dubious person curious.

The President is arguably the most powerful man in the world and could obtain and present his long form BC in about five minutes — so why bother to keep this circus going? And by the way, it could be discovered President Obama is from Mars and such information would never be allowed to surface. The ramifications are too dreadful to imagine. This is no more than tilting at windmills. It will never happen. I think Donald Trump raises this issue just to make a dent in the mystical Obama narrative. No more. No less.

Just spitballing, but it is far more likely that the reason for secrecy is not to do with the place of President Obama’s birth, but something on the birth certificate he would rather not divulge. Although what the big deal secret could be, I cannot imagine.

I remain far more concerned by the world’s most media-exposed politician’s preoccupation with fundraising twenty months before the election rather than dealing with pressing problems, foreign and domestic. Where is the “fierce urgency of now” in dealing with continued joblessness, skyrocketing gas and food prices, Libya…

After hailing and helping to elect as President a man with a short resume, whose past actions and voting record contradicted his lofty campaign rhetoric, it is downright silly for the media to call anyone else a “joke.” They are going to have a hard time condemning a “celebrity candidate” when they were fine with creating one three years ago. Mainstream media and pundits on both sides have made themselves a joke. But if we continue to allow them to dictate the debate, the joke will be on us.

I hasten to add, the stories of the six victims in Tucson, Judge John Roll, Christina Taylor Green, Giffords Aide Gabe Zimmerman, Phyllis Schneck, Dorwin Stoddard, and Dorothy Morris, need to be held in the fore, our prayers going out to their families. The continued updates regarding Rep. Giffords miraculous improvements, as well as the condition of the other 13 injured, is also important to keep in the fore.

But here are some of the things you may have missed. Amy Siskind of The New Agenda had a very interesting post about Obama, and the number of women in his cabinet/inner circle. Bottom line, it is low, as her post, “After Arizona, Will Obama Learn to Include Women?” indicates:

[snip] Yes, just as I was snapping to, Air Force One would be landing back in D.C. Senator Gillibrand and Congresswomen Wasserman Schultz and Pelosi would deplane and return to their 17% minority. President Obama would be head back to the White House — or should I say, the “fraternity house”: his inner-circle is composed almost exclusively of men.

Yes, to the president’s credit, he did appoint two women to the Supreme Court. That’s the end of the good news for women. Here’s the bad news:

* Obama’s cabinet picks are just 25% women.

* Obama’s czars are only 12% women.

* No women have leadership roles in running our country’s economy.

* Obama has only one woman in his inner-circle: Valerie Jarrett.

[...]

Paradoxically, Speaker Boehner in his opening days seems quite comfortable with women. One of his first symbolic gestures: to build a women’s restroom near the House floor. Next, Boehner shocked even me: he officially endorsed a woman for RNC chair (Maria Cino). And here’s a prediction: Boehner’s ability to cry in public will make it easier for women candidates to do the same in the future. Hey — I gotta admit — although I agree with Speaker Boehner on very few issues, I like the guy! He walks the walk for women on the right.

[...]

So I say this to our president: yes, let’s live up to the dreams of Christina Green, the nine-year-old who was tragically and senselessly killed in the Arizona shooting. The girl who was interested in politics and therefore came to see Congresswoman Giffords, Arizona’s only female representative in the U.S. House or Senate. Why don’t we have more women in leadership for girls like Christina to see and model after? And President Obama, what will YOU do to live up to her expectations? (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Yes, I can see why so many “feminists” wanted to support Obama over Hillary Clinton. He is SO good on the women’s equality issue – not.

But wait, there is more. Once again, LGBT groups are unhappy with Obama. Yes, yes, I know he signed the bill to repeal DADT, but he did blessed little to get that to come about, and did exactly what I thought he would do – have it in the Lame Duck session so he could blame the Republicans in case it didn’t pass.

Well, that is exactly what he did in terms of DOMA, but not before his Justice Department did this:

Supporting DOMA: Gay rights advocates are criticizing the Obama Justice Department after its attorneys filed a court motion Thursday in support of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the president’s view that the law should be repealed.

[...]

The Justice Department says it’s obligated to defend U.S. policy regardless of the president’s personal beliefs. The department made the same case after it had to, awkwardly, fight a judge’s ruling against “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the months before it was repealed by Congress.

But that’s no salve to the gay rights community, which has called on the administration to show more resolve against laws like DOMA. [snip]

And it is not true, either. Other Administrations have stood up to laws they thought were un-Constitutional, not continuing to defend them, as the Obama Administration has done repeatedly with DOMA. Indeed, it continues in that same vein in this filing:

[snip] “All families deserve the recognition and respect of their government. We know the president supports us. It’s time for him to help lead the American public toward full equality for all Americans,” Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement. The gay rights group said the Justice Department should at least “acknowledge that the law is unconstitutional.”

It does not. In its filing, Justice Department attorneys said the law was “not unconstitutional under this court’s binding precedent.” The Justice Department argued that the law “reflects Congress’s reasonable response to this still-evolving debate among the states regarding same-sex marriage.”

Why Solmonese, that Hillary Clinton backstabber, continues to act all insulted is beyond me, but I will spare you my diatribe on him this time around.

But here’s what I knew would happen with Obama:

[snip] “The Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the administration disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here,” the brief said.

“Indeed, the president supports repeal of DOMA and has taken the position that Congress should extend federal benefits to individuals in same-sex marriages. But a consensus behind that approach has not yet developed, and Congress could properly take notice of the divergent views regarding same-sex marriage across the states,” it said.

[...]

He told a gay-and-lesbian magazine last month that while a repeal of DOMA may not be possible, particularly with Republicans in control of the House, “that’s something that I think we have to strategize on over the next several months.” (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Yep, like I expected, Obama will blame the Republicans if it doesn’t get changed now. The Democrats were in control of the entire Congress for FOUR years, and now it is all the Republicans fault…(Civility? Oh, that is only for Conservatives, not Democrats.)

Here is a whopper of what came out this week. It was foretold by none other than Sarah Palin back in November when the government was looking to buy more bonds:

“All this pump priming will come at a serious price. And I mean that literally: everyone who ever goes out shopping for groceries knows that prices have risen significantly over the past year or so. Pump priming would push them even higher. And it’s not just groceries. Oil recently hit a six month high, at more than $87 a barrel. The weak dollar — a direct result of the Fed’s decision to dump more dollars onto the market — is pushing oil prices upward.”

I intentionally withheld the title of that article: “What Sarah Palin Gets Wrong About Inflation.” And that would be what, exactly? Haven’t all of those things, along with foreclosures setting another record high in 2010, and an increase in unemployment claims, come to pass? Yes.

In that same article, though, there was this (condescending) response:

[snip] Sudeep Reddy of The Wall Street Journal pointed out that Palin didn’t seem to be quite up on what’s been going on with inflation. In fact, he noted, grocery prices haven’t risen that much. “The consumer price index’s measure of food and beverages for the first nine months of this year showed average annual inflation of less than 0.6%, the slowest pace on record (since the Labor Department started keeping this measure in 1968).” [snip]

Hey, Reedy – guess which one of you is wrong here? I’ll give you a hint – it is not Palin. No need to take my word for it. Here is Stuart Varney discussing this issue:

These are just a few of the issues that have been going on this week (I know, Daley came onboard on Friday, but the massacre on Saturday pretty much knocked that way down, as it should have). Women still are underrepresented, Obama’s Justice Department is still targeting gay people, and we are increasingly in an economic world of hurt.

We cannot forget the victims of last week’s shooting, but nor can we allow ourselves to allow the political smoke and mirrors to distract us from what else is going on in our country.

What else happened this week that was low on the media totem pole? Consider this an Open Thread.

These progressive champions don’t seem to realize they have delivered the President more grievous insults than the ones they have long sought to protect him from. By framing President Obama as lacking in leadership skills, or being held captive by the opposition party, or too beholden to the far left of his own party, these pundits are telegraphing their belief that he is too soft, not a capable executive, not responsible for his own actions and a victim.

Their reasons for depicting Obama this way are their own, but I suspect it is too horrible for them to contemplate that they were taken in by branding and attractive rhetoric. Mr. Obama is doing precisely what he has done since well before his election – capitulate in the face of challenge. Were the “principles” pundits expected the President to uphold really his or theirs? A candidate must draw a line in the sand via his or her own record, demonstrating a willingness to go down fighting for a cause over the course of years before it can be proven that such principles are any more than projections by optimists wanting to be swept up by “history” and romance.

His State Senate record in Illinois recalled a man who voted “present” 130 times, along with 6 “wrong” or “oops, I hit the wrong button” votes. As a freshman US Senator he missed over 40% of his votes, particularly risky ones. In 2008, he reneged on FISA, was guilty of double dealing on NAFTA, reneged on his written promise to take public financing in his presidential campaign, and surrounded himself with corporatist advisors like Austan Goolsbee who have long favored privatizing Social Security. Contrary to his upstart, new kind of politics image, he receiving more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and was backed by the old guard of the Democratic Party. He praised President Reagan while belittling President Clinton and campaigned down south with Donnie McCurkin, ex-gay man “reformed through prayer. That the Obamas had long lived beyond their own means, receiving help with their house purchase from now convicted felon Tony Rezko and his wife should have given pundits pause.

This list went largely unchecked.

Most important, though the left favored Obama because of his purported anti-war stance, his little known 2002 anti-war speech regarding Iraq involved no vote or political risk yet when in the Senate three years later, he voted twice to continue funding a war he disagreed with.

Reviewing the above facts along with contradictory campaign promises Mr. Obama made in 2008, one has to wonder who these pundits thought they were urging the rest of us to vote for. And why do they complain that he is behaving in an unthinkable or incomprehensible way now? If one logically considers his record and his actions, not just his words, his current behavior was at least somewhat predictable via his past deeds.

President Obama showed himself to be a political opportunist wont to help those who helped him the most. Ergo, special considerations to unions and corporate bailouts by the truckload. This is not to fault Mr. Obama by the way. He presented his best self to the American people. If there were those who chose not to question his contradictions, who would not take advantage of such great good fortune?

The fault and responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media and pundit class who abjectly refused to do their jobs in vetting Mr. Obama as a candidate. Those of us on the ground who saw inconsistencies and voiced our concerns were roundly and viciously insulted.

Further, the current furious flailing and complaints of liberal pundits are as empty and false as their previous accusations of “racism” were toward President Obama’s critics. Come 2012, they will all fall in line behind his candidacy, believing Republicans to be six kinds of evil. This is precisely why our President feels comfortable capitulating on tax rates, or pushing healthcare (without a public option) that is years away from being fully enacted rather than concentrating on putting Americans back to work. As far as President Obama is concerned, the left “has nowhere else to go,” despite Politico posting an article yesterday stating that President Obama was continuing and even growing a number of President Bush’s past policies.

While editorials on Huffington Post, diaries on DailyKos along with other print media are rumbling about a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, the likelihood of its success is slim. And whether one feels the left’s wish list is right or wrong headed, or “sanctimonious” – as President Obama just called it – is hardly the point. Unless those who are furious now are willing to lose to win, offering more than idle threats, we will have more of the same rhetoric that we have been getting from both parties for years – lip service paid to a cause without effective solutions or legislation to back it up.

Solutions, anyone?

Now his gift has all but deserted him, and all that prevents the story from becoming tragic is his own apparent refusal to be affected by it. There are many explanations for why he seems diminished by the power of his own office, from the vestigial racism of the American public to his misreading of his own mandate.

Again, the race card. That part of his argument does not even deserve to be dignified with a response. As to the rest, Mr. Junod ignores the fact that people actually expect you to do the job once you get into office.

President Obama made incredible, lofty promises to the American people, to the point of being irresponsible in his campaign pledges. The greater the promise, the harder the crash, particularly when the American people are in dire straits, having to watch the golfer-in-chief recite platitudes from the do as I say not as I do school of governance.

Junod continues his musings:

Of course, Obama has never turned his back on us, but so many Americans have turned their backs on him that it amounts to The Anointed One, as he is sometimes referred, being stripped of something that can never return: his anointment. And without it — without his air of destiny, without the idea of Obama augmenting his actuality — the rooms he used to occupy so effortlessly have changed dimensions on him, until at times he might as well be speaking from the bottom of a well.

Never turned his back? The tone deafness of his administration focusing on everything but job creation would seem to indicate the opposite is true. Even Bob Herbert of the New York Times, long an Obama fan, resoundingly agrees on that score.

Mr. Junod also forgets, by design perhaps, that the only reason Obama was larger than life, seemingly eloquent and brilliant, was the media’s endless willingness to bestow those qualities upon him by virtue of the daily tongue bath they administered. Pundits built this outsized soufflé into something it never was – namely, a man with a miraculous ability to govern, to transcend politics and his own lack of experience or narcissistic nature.

Does anyone remember the speech he gave at West Point, when he escalated the war in Afghanistan after six weeks of slow-ketchup decision making? He was all alone on that stage, and he looked all alone and somehow outnumbered by the space that surrounded him. It was the first time he was betrayed by his own stagecraft. It was the first time the enormity of his decision dwarfed the eloquence he found to express it, and he has never again looked like a man born to fill stadiums. All this was in play on Wednesday, at the press conference he gave after the bloodletting of the mid-term elections. Could anyone have ever imagined that Barack Obama would be made to look inauthentic by the sloppy last-call tears of someone like John Boehner? Could anyone have ever imagined that he’d be in a room of reporters who wanted something from him — that he wouldn’t be able to deliver? The man acclaimed as the most gifted communicator of our age had to be prodded into admitting “it feels bad,” and after nearly an hour of prolix boilerplate offered but one takeaway line, “The Slurpee is a delicious drink,” before warming up and saying that he was going to invite Boehner to a Slurpee Summit. Indeed, the press conference was so painfully incommensurate to its historical moment that one had to wonder if he knew it — if he knew that even on this observance of loss he was losing his audience; if he knew that that he had lost not only the House of Representatives and a broad swath of the American electorate but his ability to talk his way into or out of anything; if the great singer knew that he had lost his voice. …

Inauthentic? Isn’t that what they always called Hillary? Inauthentic and overproduced. Aah, now the truth comes out – as Mr. Junod discovered when he followed Hillary morning, noon and night to see a real leader at work. Mr. Junod also acknowledged she would make a great president “now” but assumed her chance was forever gone to get the job. But had the mainstream media not been so reactively addicted to Mr. Obama as the antidote to Mr. Nuk-u-lar, perhaps they would have bothered to vet his claims or even his history, also largely romanticized. Perhaps we would have seen a different contest in 2008.

Finally, Junod observes:

In less than two years he had gone from sounding like a man who could always count on his ability to strum the mystic chords of memory to a man who, no matter what he said, sounded like a politician, and one in over his head at that. Now he sounded like a man who had already realized that he had lost more than he imagined he could but was just starting to understand that he was never going to get it back. He wasn’t going to cry about it — leave that to the Republicans — but he was going to take stock, and that may have represented a beginning of sorts, even if it was also clearly an end.

The big question everyone wanted answered after Tuesday night’s drubbing at the polls: Will Mr. Obama pivot? Does he get it? So far, the answer seems to be no. He has admitted to believing his own press – he is surrounded by true believers who never tell him he shouldn’t. Nancy Pelosi is still in denial. As to our likely new Speaker, John Boehner, he struck the right tone – understanding that the election was a rebuke of Democrats but there is no applause from Republicans either. I worry less about “mojo” than people willing to plant their feet behind the desk and get to work. I can’t offer much optimism is the ability of these two sides to work together, particularly if President Obama doesn’t the reality of our economic situation.

It is sad to observe that the “ability” Mr. Junod worries Obama has lost always came from the media more than Obama himself. The pundit class occupies themselves with the one thing they feel will keep them relevant – their ability to continue penetrating musings on the rise and fall of an idol. The pundit class is not capable of self-reflection. Else how could they not hold the mirror up to their own folly. Why should they? It pays good money to devote another hundred buckets of copy to Mr. Obama’s problems rather than admitting the media’s culpability in putting us in this situation in the first place. A gullible portion of the public is also at fault for believing them.

Mojo has nothing to do with it.

In a radio interview, Caprio said Obama could take his endorsement and “shove it.” He further pointed out that President Obama didn’t even bother to do a flyover when Rhode Island experienced its horrrible floods. Caprio said Obama only comes to Rhode Island to “use it as an ATM machine.” Ouch.

President Bill Clinton has also been delivering pokes in the eye to the Obama Administration for some time now, albeit more delicately. It started with his assisting Dem. Blanche Lincoln to win the Arkansas primary after Obama’s union pals sunk millions into her opponent. Now, after President Obama’s idiotic and incomprehensible snub to candidate Caprio, Bill Clinton is going to campaign for him. Clinton has stated repeatedly that he out there campaigning for everyone who helped his wife in 2008, making it clear which portion of the party he is efforting to save. The non-clueless portion.

While Obama’s brand is faltering and he is considered “box office poison’ to many, Bill Clinton is the most in-demand surrogate out on the campaign trail, trying to stanch the upcoming midterm bleed. Jonathan Allan and Maggie Haberman of Politico quoted a democratic strategist on the matter:

“It’s like living in a political twilight zone. How rich is the irony that the President Obama won’t endorse Caprio, but former President Clinton will. Given this political fiasco, every democrat should seriously question whether the White House understands that their goal in 2010 is not to position themselves for a 2012 relection campaign on the poltical carcasses of good democratic candidates. Thankfully, President Clinton is focused on 2010 and saving ALL democrats.”

Again, Obama cares about Obama. Some have theorized he is happy to lose Congress in the mid-terms, creating a foil for himself in the name of those “evil Republicans” so he has someone to blame and run against in 2012. He has never stopped campaigning. Someone should have told him that he might also have to spend some time governing.

Meredith Viera later interviewed Frank Caprio and while he was polite, he stood by his statements about President Obama. Viera wanted to know if Caprio thought he was being punished because he endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2008. Caprio said he “stands by the Clintons.”

The Clintons, apparently, stand by him, too.

Payback’s a…

Well, you know.

With the mid-term elections five weeks away, it’s desperation time. President Obama scolds voters for “apathy,” and for “not being serious in the first place,” VP Biden tells them to “stop whining,” and Senator John Kerry pronounces voters ill-informed on the issues, i.e. stupid. One has to wonder if that is going to be a successful strategy for getting people to the polls on November 2nd. Well, it may get them to vote, but whether they vote FOR your party or AGIN it is another matter.

President Obama had his best professorial, condescending tone on display these last few days both in his campaign appearances and at the end of his interview with Rolling Stone magazine. As Ben Feller of AP reported in his piece, Obama Now Blaming Democratic Voters for Their Apathy:

Admonishing his own party, President Barack Obama says it would be “inexcusable” and “irresponsible” for unenthusiastic Democratic voters to sit out the midterm elections, warning that the consequences could be a squandered agenda for years.

“People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up,” Obama told Rolling Stone in an interview to be published Friday. The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and “if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place.”

Nice.

The president has been telling Democrats to “wake up” and recognize that he and the Democratic-run Congress have delivered on promises, from a new health care law to tougher rules for Wall Street to more aid for college students. Obama wants disenchanted supporters to see that Republican wins in November would undermine the ability of Democrats to get the unfinished business done, from climate change legislation to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

However when Obama had a supermajority in the Senate and House last year he did not repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, though he could have. Whether one agrees with the repeal or not, there is little doubt he could have done what he campaigned on if he had truly wanted to. The vote on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was more political tomfoolery. The Dems waited until now so they could say – See, we tried!

CBS news reported on “a stern, lecturing tone from Obama….”

“The idea that we’ve got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible,” he said in the interview. ”

I find it a tad irritating when a millionaire who throws half million dollar pizza parties on our dime deigns to tells struggling citizens what is irresponsible and inexcusable.

The president said he keeps a checklist of his campaign promises and that he has met, by his account, about 70 percent of them.

However, just checking the “done” box is not enough. Passing legislation is not the same as passing effective legislation. Someone ought to remind Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden and Kerry of the same.

And do we need scolding now? The president is pretending that people are apathetic because change has not come quickly enough but perhaps they are apathetic because the type of change they are getting is not what they bargained for – nor is it helping.

Even the opportunistic Arianna Huffington noted in her article, Will Obama Appease Wall Street or Struggling Americans, that Obama is not looking out for Main Street in his choice of a replacement for economic advisor Larry Summers. She writes:

At this late date in the recession and with the midterms shaping up as they are, the president can take in the economic landscape and conclude that what most needs repairing is his administration’s relationship with Wall Street? How about hiring someone who would repair his relationship with the 26 million unemployed or underemployed Americans, and send the message: Help is on the way! After two years of governing a country locked in economic misery, you’d hope that Obama and his economic team would’ve learned that what matters isn’t the economic team’s resume or what “signals are sent” to Wall Street, but the actual state of the actual economy. But apparently not!

Rabbi Michael Lerner penned an opinion piece in the Huffington Post just below Arianna’s where he aptly characterized the reasons for Obama supporter apathy. The President and his team seem to think his supporters are angry and apathetic because they did not get everything on their Christmas list. In his article, Obama and Biden Have No Clue What’s Bothering Their Political Base, Lerner states:

It’s easier to believe that their liberal and progressive base is naïve than to acknowledge that we are not alienated for their failure to pass appropriate legislation, but for their failure to fight for such legislation. …[snip]

It’s one thing to make compromises after you’ve struggled for something you believe in, another to make the compromises without ever trying. Liberals and progressives had already been deeply disillusioned after the Democratic sweep of Congress in 2006, continued to fund the war in Iraq despite overwhelming popular opposition to that war. So when Obama entered the primaries and spent much of his time distinguishing himself from Sen. Clinton on precisely the grounds that he had opposed the war from the beginning, he gave his base the impression that he would be a leader who would challenge the war makers. Similarly, when he challenged the selfishness and materialism that pervaded Wall Street, we felt we had a candidate who would be willing to speak truth to power.

But Rabbi – it was words, just words. Didn’t you know that?

We did.

Just as he reneged on his promise to filibuster on FISA and reneged on his signed statement to take public financing during the campaign, President Obama means what he says – until he doesn’t. How could Rabbi Lerner have chosen Obama over Hillary when he had no record of delivering on his promises? Lerner continues…

Many of us will vote Democratic in November, despite all this. But don’t expect us to be able to rally others when the best we can say is that the Democrats and their national leader are better than the plausible alternatives. That is not a rallying cry likely to produce many votes or move us beyond our deep disappointments.

This is the final nail in the coffin and the most honest assessment of the “apathy” many of us predicted two and half years ago when we wrote about the Obama Change Ring and other cheap novelties…

And many others, feeling humiliated at allowing themselves to have opened to the hope Obama elicited, now find themselves either totally uninterested in politics or wishing to strike back at the Democrats for making fools of those who trusted. Obama and the Democrats remain clueless.

Humiliated. Feeling like fools.

People do not like to be humiliated and then scolded for their trouble. Or as Hillary Clinton pointed out on the campaign trail, “you don’t need a President who looks down at you.”

And for some “News You Can Use,” there is this tidbit – guess who else owes back taxes (you know, besides Charlie Rangel, and Timmy Geithner before he became the head of the IRS)? That would be the developers of the mosque near Ground Zero:

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show. (Emphasis mine.)

El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oops. So, after all of this brouhaha around this developer building a mosque so close to Ground Zero (for its proximity to that hallowed ground), all of the angst this has caused so many people may very well have been for nothing. Are you kidding me? Sure seems that way since this massive delinquency this could violate their lease.

Um, no one thought to check the tax records before? What a mess, and getting messier by the day.

Oh, and here is another good one from the Dallas News about Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas:

Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes.

The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member’s district.

Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

As Rev. Jeremiah Wright said, “Americans chickens are coming home to roost…” Amen to that, brother, but I bet this isn’t what he meant by it. Still, truth will out, at least sometimes.

Just ask the drivers on Northbound I-5…

Leave it to Maureen Dowd to miss the forest for the trees in her argument that

“The Obama White House is too white.”

In Dowd’s latest NYT column, You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing, she discusses the Shirley Sherrod incident, and writes that “unlike Bill Clinton, who never needed help fathoming Southern black culture,” the Obama white house just doesn’t get the “central African-American experience.”

Dowd contends the Obama administration had better shape up otherwise…

“…[T]his administration will keep tripping over race rather than inspiring on race.”

and

“We may not have a “nation of cowards” on race, as Attorney General Eric Holder contended, but we may have a West Wing of cowards on race.”

They are cowards. Period. Yet they use the Rovian tactic of blaming others for sins of which they themselves are guilty.

While Dowd understands that Barack Obama’s exotic background and upbringing in Hawaii may be a contributing factor to his seeming lack of understanding, she cannot admit that White House insensitivity on racial issues is due to much more than his being surrounded by “smart-ass white boys” as she puts it. The real problem stems from something far worse. His administration’s actions are governed by branding, political expediency and preserving Obama’s popularity.

When polling rather than conscience drives your actions, the Shirley Sherrod firing fiasco is the result.

Dowd then resorts to the typical “let’s attack FOX News for the hell of it” gambit:

“The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce…”

Dowd does not clarify what Glenn Beck “pouncing” actually meant – Glenn Beck pounced on the White House, not Sherrod. Beck felt they had unjustly fired her. But Dowd could not possibly admit that Beck took Sherrod’s side. Sherrod could not either from the looks of it and wanted to continue to paint FOX News as the bad guy when the network held off on covering the story until they got all the facts – unlike President Obama. Sherrod was forced to resign before FOX did any “pouncing.”

And what of the NAACP? They were the ones with the entire tape – why didn’t they speak on her behalf, if indeed they had the basis to do so?

Perhaps Andrew Breitbart was wrong to show the edited tape of Sherrod’s remarks. It is up to you to decide whether you believe he did so less to slam Sherrod and more to slam the audience at the NAACP dinner who reacted appreciatively to what he felt were reverse racist sentiments on her part.

Dowd also complains…

“At some level, [Obama] acts like the election was enough; he shouldn’t have to deal with race further. But he does.”

…“Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official.

Um. I did. So did a lot of other folks on this blog.

In May of 2008, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson penned a piece entitled The Card Clinton Is Playing – accusing Hillary Clinton of playing the race card to advance her candidacy while ignoring the fact that the Obama campaign had been playing that card daily and with impunity. I responded to Mr. Robinson’s accusations. In pertinent part, I wrote:

…The few like Tavis Smiley, who criticized Sen. Obama for skipping the State of the Black Union, and I believe [Senator Obama] also decided not to speak at MLK’s anniversary event, raise an interesting point. Senator Obama is, perhaps of necessity, courting the white vote and taking for granted the African American community who vote for him in droves. I believe, if he were to be elected, aside from the great symbolic value of having him in office, which I grant you is no small thing, the AA community may suffer because the white liberal elite in the party pushing to elect him will feel they’ve put a band aid over the racial divide in this country, while in actuality doing little to heal it.

Apparently Dowd agrees, complaining that Obama is “light years” behind Bush on developmental help to Africa and wouldn’t let Muslim women in head scarves appear behing him at a rally because Obama staffers were afraid he would be painted “as a radical/Muslim/socialist.” She accuses his staffers of insensitivity — as if Obama were somehow not involved in these decisions. Isn’t he the President?

Ms. Dowd – it is not “insensitivity.” It is Obama’s ‘you are a notch on my bedpost, I use you for my own purposes and otherwise you can get lost attitude.’ This White House is run by a bunch of arrogant frat boys. What do you expect?

Dowd also reported:

“I don’t think a single black person was consulted before Shirley Sherrod was fired — I mean c’mon, “ said Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. [snip]

“The president’s getting hurt real bad,” Clyburn told me. “He needs some black people around him.” He said Obama’s inner circle keeps “screwing up” on race.

A laughable comment to be sure. I don’t know whether President Obama needs “some black people around him” as much as he needs to grow some genuine leadership ability and the willingness to do his homework before making a judgment on an issue of which he knows nothing.

A disproportionately high number in the black community have been adversely affected by high unemployment, something NYT columnist Bob Herbert has pointed out many times. He too, is wondering why the President is “screwing up on race.”

Perhaps Rep. Clyburn and others are now regretting having played the race card on the Clintons during the primaries, who have done more for the African American community than Obama ever has.

President Obama had never in his career exhibited compassion or understanding of these issues, certainly not to the point of taking action on them. How did Dowd, Herbert, Robinson, Clyburn or anyone else assume he would be magically transformed once elected?

President Obama’s administration only uses the race card as a defensive tool and a shield against criticism of his inane policies and actions. That has officially backfired. It backfired in Massachusetts with his “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” remark, as it has once again with Shirley Sherrod.

More is required than different advisors.

The White House has a horrible habit of working reactively, resorting to a “don’t blame me — it’s the other guys fault” mantra. That is not genuine leadership, which, of course, has been the problem all along. Every time one of these incidents gets played out before the American people, it is further evidence that those in charge have not done their homework and cannot grow beyond making pathetic excuses for the same. Slowly but surely, the country is getting a glimpse into the real character of this administration.

And what does it mean for our foundational rights as a country?

Recently, J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, made some serious accusations about how the DOJ is doing business under Obama. Adams’ initial comments had to do with the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) about which I wrote recently, and the refusal of the DOJ to pursue a case against the NBPP despite irrefutable evidence of voter intimidation. Those charged with this issue flat out refused to even read the memoranda on the NBPP’s actions. Consequently, for this and other reasons related to this case, Adams resigned his position at the DOJ.

Here is Mr. Adams describing the situation at the DOJ to Megyn Kelly, also an attorney:

But wait, there is more. Mr. Adams is no longer holding back, and has exposed another issue related to the DMV and Voter Registration law at the DOJ in this piece:

This is beyond the pale.

So, let me see. NBPP 1, Voters 0. Dead People voting 1, fair elections, 0. Lawlessness in the DOJ 1, true justice, 0.

Mr. Adams testified before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about this very issue this past week, stating:

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

That is a staggering claim. Just think about that for a few minutes. This is the DOJ, after all.

One more quote from this article should also give you pause (and thanks to Ani for highlighting this):

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

We knew that, of course, but now we have a DOJ whistleblower confirming it. Wow.

That Obama, fulfilling his campaign promise of bringing change to America. He surely is, just not good change. Now, despite the protests by the NBPP to the contrary, voter intimidation is permitted by the DOJ, depending on who is doing it, of course.

This is a sad, sad time in our country, when voter intimidation is not just allowed, but protected, by the Department of Justice. When the DOJ states it won’t be bothered with enforcement of the law against voter rolls being padded with the names of dead people, and those who are ineligible to vote.

This is our fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote, free of intimidation and threats. It is our duty to have our votes counted, and to have the process as clean as possible. It is clear that Obama’s DOJ has zero interest in making that happen.

And that cannot stand.

Suddenly, this is the word on everyone’s lips — Hillary!

Sally Quinn of WaPo, the grande dame of all that is socially correct, who called Hillary ‘a tortured person who doesn’t know what she wants,’ who accused her of all manner of evil over the years, now wants Hillary and Biden to change places. Quinn says “Hillary Clinton should be Obama’s vice president” and opines…

She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life.

In short, the arguments against Hillary Clinton being Obama’s vice president have pretty much evaporated.

So Ms. Quinn thinks that she is cheerful — like a puppy, who will be happy to be of service yet again and hold the incompetent in chief up — helping him to win a second term. Once again — they want Mommy to save him. It’s so tiresome, it almost doesn’t deserve comment. Peggy Noonan is talking about all eyes turning to Hillary for President in 2012 and Dems admitting they made a mistake and that Hillary would have been better. No kidding. Leslie Gelb is talking about her taking over SecDef. All are teeing her up for 2016 — after spending the last years raining down all manner of insults on her head.

They just can’t admit she should have had the top job all along. They keep figuring out ways to “use her” to save the Emperor. I’m so glad all these people have figured out what Hillary’s career path ought to be. How generous!

The BP disaster woke up a lot of people, I guess.

Speculation notwithstanding, I thought I’d share the musings of the always entertaining conservative Mark Steyn. These words concluded his latest column, taking President Obama to task…

Chris Matthews and the other leg-tinglers invented an Obama that doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, they’re stuck with the one that does, and it will be interesting to see whether he’s capable of plugging the leak in his own support. If not, who knows what the tide might wash up?

Memo to Secretary Rodham Clinton: Do you find yourself of a quiet evening with a strange craving for chicken dinners and county fairs in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe next summer? Need one of those relaunch books to explain why you’re getting back in the game in your country’s hour of need?

“It Takes a Spillage.”

Aah. I can dream, can’t I?

In attitude and methodology, Ms. Huffington most closely resembles Bill Maher. She does her best, as he does, to get ahead of a change in the political currents, so as to ride the wave in an effort to stay relevant. That can be the only explanation for the populist tone in her article, condemning Washington for a financial reform bill that does little to help the American people and pays no more than lip service to reforming the destructive mechanisms of those inflicting their ponzi schemes on the rest of us. She never mentions, though that Dems have been in control of Congress since 2006, and Obama has had a super majority, or near it, since his election. Odd, eh? Who does she think is passing this legislation? The tooth fairy?

One can google the title to read the article in its entirety. I have included some choice paragraphs here:

It’s mission accomplished for financial reform.

Unfortunately, it’s more of a Bush 43 “mission accomplished” than an Apollo 13 “mission accomplished.” That’s because the financial reform bill passed by the Senate last week, like Bush’s ship deck ceremony, is more notable for what it has left to still be done.

The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 will do no such thing. First, it doesn’t do enough to rein in Wall Street. It doesn’t end “too big to fail” banks, doesn’t create a Glass-Steagall style firewall between commercial and investment banking, keeps taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts, and leaves open dangerous loopholes in the regulation of derivatives. And we can expect more loopholes to be inserted as the bill heads to conference committee. In D.C., crafting a bill without them would be like baking bread without yeast. Though you can’t see them, they’re what makes a Washington bill rise.

There’s a reason a longtime investment banker, speaking to the New York Times, said of his colleagues’ reaction to the new bill, “If you talk to anyone privately, there’s a sigh of relief.”

Don’t expect a similar reaction on Main Street. Despite its name, this bill will not be restoring financial stability to the tens of millions of hardworking Americans whose lives have been turned upside down by the economic crisis.

On nearly every front in the real economy — from jobs to consumer spending to foreclosures — we’ve made virtually no progress at all. While Washington and the media have been consumed with the titanic debate over this reform bill, talk of the actual suffering by actual people in the actual economy is virtually a taboo subject, at least judging by how rarely it makes the front pages or leads the TV news.

She points out that millions of Americans have an unfortunate new perspective: “Now the American Dream is to try to not fall, or do all you can to slow your rate of decline.” She states the “average jobless stint for those unemployed who are 55 and over was around 43 weeks” and college grads entering the…“job market with their expensive degrees will be confronting a youth unemployment rate of almost 20 percent — the highest rate since the Labor Department started tracking youth unemployment in 1948.”

She mentions that those keeping their jobs have had to make due with lower wages and less benefits, paying more of their health care costs. Further:

Adding insult to injury, a growing number of working mothers are having to give up their jobs and rely on welfare because states are cutting back on child care services that allowed them to keep working. And kids across the country are scrambling to find something to do this summer as a number of states make deep cuts to summer school programs.

And where the rumored “green shoots” are concerned

…Turns out, there was a surge in spending — but almost exclusively by the rich. As the LA Times’ Don Lee put it, the “little-noticed reality” behind the “encouraging numbers” was that “much of the new spending has come not from America’s broad middle class but from a small slice of affluent people at the top.”

As the Washington Post reported last week, “lavish fringe benefits” are back at the top end of corporate America, including “country club dues, chauffeured drivers, personal financial planning services, home security systems and parking.” Of the 29 biggest public companies that took taxpayer money, around one in three decided to funnel some of it to its chief executive. As the Post’s Tomoeh Murakami Tse dryly put it: “Those raises contrast with the belt-tightening that many Americans have experienced during the recession.” Nell Minow, co-founder of the Corporate Library, put it more directly: “Marie Antoinette could fit into this crowd without missing a beat.”

Consumer lending is likewise dismal, but as Ms. Huffington reports “the Wall Street economy is happy to accept massive transfusions of cash from the fading middle class.”

She further laments:

This isn’t to say that there were no provisions that would help Main Street considered as part the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. There were plenty — it’s just that almost all of them were either voted down or taken out and never even put up for a vote. Even something as simple and sensible as putting a cap on credit card interest rates. Sheldon Whitehouse’s amendment to do just that was voted down 60 to 35. So much for “financial stability.” Though I suppose it depends on whose financial stability you care about — the banks’ or the taxpayers’.

By the way, 21 Democratic Senators voted to kill the bill that would have capped usury rates by credit card companies.

And I believe President Obama promised not to hire lobbyists…

…[t]he line between Senator, staffer and lobbyist is pretty blurry these days. A joint report released by SEIU, the Campaign for America’s Future, and the Public Accountability Initiative found that the finance industry has 70 former members of Congress and 940 former federal employees on its lobbying payroll. This includes 33 chiefs of staff, 54 staffers of the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee (or of a current member of those committees), and 28 legislative directors. Five of Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd’s former staffers are now working as banking lobbyists, as are eight former staffers for Banking Committee powerhouses Richard Shelby and Chuck Schumer.

And the revolving door spins both ways. As Arthur Delaney reported on HuffPost, 18 percent of current House Financial Services committee staffers used to work on K Street. All told, the financial industry has spent nearly $600 million on lobbying since the collapse of Bear Stearns in March of 2008 — almost a million dollars a day.

Huffington discusses the Merkley-Levin amendment “that would have forced big banks to get rid of their speculative proprietary trading activities, a version of the Volcker rule” which likewise wound up on the cutting room floor.

While Huffington makes a stab at blaming Republicans in her piece, Democrats have to shoulder plenty of blame as well, particularly since they have shielded the practices of Fannie and Freddie at every turn, a fact Huffington conveniently omits even as she complains of the institution itself:

Another reform completely left out of the bill was any reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This despite the fact that in just the last quarter Freddie — one half of what the New York Times’ Gretchen Morgenson calls “the elephant in the bailout” — reported a loss of $6.7 billion.

Serious delinquencies on Freddie’s single-family conventional loan portfolio are at 4.13 percent, up from 2.41 percent for the same period last year. And the number of foreclosed units Freddie controls stands at nearly 54,000, up from 29,145 at the end of March 2009.

“I don’t understand why people are not talking about it,” says Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It seems to me the most fundamental question is, have they on an ongoing basis been paying too much for loans even since they went into conservatorship?”

And why would they do that? It’s part of what Morgenson calls a “backdoor bailout of the banks.” In other words, an under-the-radar way to continue shoveling money from struggling taxpayers over to the richest Americans.

But Ms. Huffington saves this damning bit for last –

We’ve been told time and time again over the last two years that right after Washington deals with what’s on its plate, “jobs is next.” Well, it’s been “next” for quite some time now, but it never seems to come to the floor. And now that a financial reform bill has passed, the talk on the Hill is that climate control or immigration will be tackled next. Or that members will just go off for the summer and campaign, flush with all the donations many of them just pocketed from the banks in this latest effort.

I often have a nightmare — a common sort — in which I’m stuck in a forest and I can’t find my way out. I have a friend whose version is that her feet are stuck to the ground and she can’t move. Not a bad description of our leaders’ approach to the massive suffering that’s going on across America.

Our leader? Doesn’t he have a name, Ms. Huffington? Why be so dainty about it? She never pussyfooted around when she trashed anyone else.

I did a word search in Arianna’s lengthy article and nowhere were the words “President” or “Obama” mentioned. The man who Huffington touted as great and gifted now has his feet stuck in the mud and cannot move – or are his feet stuck in miles of BP oil sludge that has washed ashore? Hard to tell.

Since Mr. Obama received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and has done nothing but compromise, make back room deals and talk about change without offering up much that is effective thus far, it can be no surprise to Ms. Huffington that this legislation is more of the same. He gets to check the “done” box and those of us out here on the ground get laughed at by those in power while we continue to struggle. She has suddenly noticed that the President along with Pelosi and Reid could give a fig about putting Americans back to work? Where has she been?

My sense is that she is seeing the writing on the wall and fears an upcoming bloodbath and sea change in November and wants to get ahead of it. I am not convinced she has had a sudden attack of conscience. Still, I was glad to see Ms. Huffington point out the facts of the situation – even though she seems to have had a memory lapse when it comes to naming those in charge.