“Few would have seen on that day that… that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent.”

That comment was SO out of place, and SO unnecessary.

Yet, SO typical.

MSNBC carried a blip of President Obama speaking in New York at a fundraiser. Sadly, the President is up to his old tricks. Remember when he was at a hoity-toity fundraiser in San Francisco and complained of Pennsylvania voters “clinging to God and guns”? That didn’t go over so well. Remember Gates-gate where Obama declared that “the police acted stupidly” before he knew all the facts?

Here, in the name of passing health care he says that “Democrats are an opinionated bunch” likely referring to the trouble he’s been having with the Blue Dogs. He said “y’all thinking for yourselves.” Then he says that Republicans basically “do what they’re told.” His robotic arm movements to make fun of “the other party” are really a sight to behold. When is a President supposed to make fun of American citizens — some of whom actually voted the man into office.

See for yourselves…

Interesting however, is that while he pretends to praise the fact that Democrats are “thinking for themselves” what he is really saying is that he wants Democrats to “do as they are told” as far as passing his fiasco of a health care proposal. Yet he belittles Republicans for “doing as they’re told.”

Which is it Mr. President?

When exactly would he like us to think for ourselves? I guess we already know the answer to that. The real problem is Republicans and quite a few in his own party are not following his instructions.

I don’t like bullies and I don’t care which party they belong to. It is grossly inappropriate for the President of the United States to belittle millions of people. This health care bill has never been adequately explained, nor is it formed. Yet in the midst of a disastrous economy, struggling citizens are asked to forego all good sense and follow the President and this Congress off a cliff without first asking any pertinent questions.

No one, regardless of party, whether an average citizen or a representative in Congress should be “doing as they are told.” What is required now is something we have all too little of — people thinking for themselves, getting all the facts and making a reasoned decision based on what is best for their families and for the country.

The President’s arrogance is staggering. And like the senseless feud he has started with FOX News, the one organization that refuses to pour the Kool-Aid, this is another example of behavior that lessens the gravitas of the office to which he was elected. As Hillary Clinton said during the primary last year, “You don’t need a President who looks down on you.”

I wonder if even those who voted for him are starting to feel this behavior is divisive and destructive.

Thoughts?

The American Idol president is running his own reality show and we are picking up the tab. Mr. Obama seems to think that he and his wife are the most fascinating part of the American narrative. Last Friday, the IOC clarified the butter for the Obamas. In the past months, we have published many articles reporting on Kool Aid drinkers who have lifted their heads from the pink trough, dazed and confused, wondering where the “Change” is. The list is long: Peggy Noonan, Frank Rich, Susan Estrich, Andrew Sullivan, Camille Paglia, Robert Reich. Feel free to add your own. Today I add three more to that growing list.

First WaPo’s Richard Cohen complains Obama Doesn’t Seem Ready to Lead:

Barack Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.

This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.

Mr. Cohen is blaming Gen. McChrystal for someone else leaking his report to the President. The more important point is, as Gen. Wes Clark or anyone else who’s actually been in this position will tell you (and as he did say in an interview this weekend), you’d better listen to your commanders on the ground. Cohen is right that the 25 minute meeting with McChrystal on Friday was merely a photo op. He’s still deliberating. How many more months of ‘deliberating” are required while our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his own rhetoric of just last August, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. “This is not a war of choice,” he said. “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”

President Obama has the disastrous example of Iraq where Bush’s Generals told him from the outset that an overwhelming force was needed. They did not get it. You saw the result. Obama himself admitted that the belated 2007 surge was wildly successful. How much more evidence does he need? Define the mission, and either send the forces in to get the job done or pull all our men and women out of there. Choose. Lead. That’s the job description. Date night I don’t care about. Dog walking I don’t care about.

Cohen concludes:

But the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough — so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

Has the seriousness of the presidency sunk in? Now there’s a question.

You may be surprised to note that NY Times columnist Bob Herbert is wondering the same thing. A huge cheerleader for Obama, Herbert cried racism and even saw phallic symbols in the leaning tower of Pisa in a misguided attempt to defend his chosen hero last year. Now he wonders Does Obama Get It? Well, Mr. Herbert, don’t feel bad. This question has been keeping me up nights, too. He states:

The big question on the domestic front right now is whether President Obama understands the gravity of the employment crisis facing the country. Does he get it? The signals coming out of the White House have not been encouraging.

Clearly Mr. Herbert, if you have to ask, then Obama does not understand the gravity of the situation. Where is his good judgment? How can one not understand 9.8 unemployment – in reality it is a much higher number when one includes Americans out of work for so long they have fallen off the rolls.

The Beltway crowd and the Einsteins of high finance who never saw this economic collapse coming are now telling us with their usual breezy arrogance that the Great Recession is probably over. Their focus, of course, is on data, abstractions like the gross domestic product, not the continued suffering of living, breathing human beings struggling with the nightmare of joblessness.

Even Mr. Obama, in an interview with The Times, gave short shrift to the idea of an additional economic stimulus package, telling John Harwood a few weeks ago that the economy had likely turned a corner. “As you know,” the president said, “jobs tend to be a lagging indicator; they come last.”

The view of most American families is somewhat less blasé. …

Nearly one in four American families has suffered a job loss over the past year, according to a survey released by the Economic Policy Institute. Nearly 1 in 10 Americans is officially unemployed, and the real-world jobless rate is worse.

It is a nightmare. No one is blasé when they are worried how they are going to feed their families. What about the porkulus package? Is this administration waiting to release most of the funds in 2010 to help them at the polls? If that is the case, shame on them.

Why should Obama understand when he isn’t spending his own money? Half million dollar pizza parties, an obscene amount spent on the inauguration and several million on this reckless Copenhagen junket show a frightening disconnect between Obama’s priorities and his fiduciary responsibility to the American people. Herbert continues:

The Obama administration seems hamstrung by the unemployment crisis. No big ideas have emerged. No dramatically creative initiatives. While devoting enormous amounts of energy to health care, and trying now to decide what to do about Afghanistan, the president has not even conveyed the sense of urgency that the crisis in employment warrants.

If that does not change, these staggering levels of joblessness have the potential to cripple not just the well-being of millions of American families, but any real prospects for sustained economic recovery and the political prospects of the president as well. An unemployed electorate is an unhappy electorate.

Mr. Herbert, they are already crippled, but instead of addressing the urgency of the economy and Afghanistan head on, we get what George Will calls The Obamas’ Narcissism on Display. Speaking of Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s speeches before the IOC last week,

…Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about … themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

George Will suggested that since the Obamas used so many “I” and “me” references in their speeches, Obama’s genius speechwriters (Favreau et al) should have substituted the words I and me with “sauerkraut” to underscore the ‘antic nature of their excessive appearances.’ Someone needs to tell the Obamas that what is compelling about America is all Americans – all colors of the rainbow, all states, all social strata – together. All of us. Not just the two of them. And all of us are hurting out here. Our soldiers are hurting, too.

Will also points to Obama’s excessive use of cliché:

“At this defining moment,” a moment “when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations” in “this ever-shrinking world,” he aspires to “forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.”
…
Does our Cicero even glance at his speeches before reading them in public?

All this is indicative of a man not connected to his words or not caring enough about either his audience or the subject at hand to come up with anything better than patented brand phrases that some focus group told him “resonate” with the public.

Our soldiers and our economy need a coherent plan. Now. He has had ample time to figure this out, as has Congress. Too much energy is focused on infighting for a health care plan that is such an incoherent monstrosity that they should trash it and start over. This is not even supposed to take effect until 2013, after the next election. Hmmm I wonder why. All things considered, that leaves health care the least urgent issue of the three.

On Afghanistan and the economy, pressing matters where lives, jobs and homes are on the line – where is the president? Will concludes:

Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is “vain.”

In keeping with the vanity of this man’s administration, we also see that nothing President Obama does is his own fault. This is the job he wanted. And a majority of the electorate voted him in to do it. What is he waiting for? There is no one else to blame if he hems and haws so long that Afghanistan is lost. There is no one else to blame if he insists on focusing on parts of an agenda that are not helping put the American people back to work. This is his presidency now. So I’ll ask again.

Mr. President, why did you want this job?

As to the actual decision to have the 2016 games in Rio de Janeiro,I say Good for them. Brazil has worked very hard as a nation to achieve energy independence, no small feat, among other advances. And the Olympics have never been held in South American before, so this is historic.

What else was historic was for a US President to go lobby to get the Olympics. And that turned out to be a big waste of his time and our money. We were paying not just for the President to take Air Force One, but his wife to take Air Force Two, with Oprah in tow, all on a failed mission. Perhaps they though the new Olympic Rings were going to look like this if they did:

Ahem. Hey, you know you wouldn’t have been surprised by that, and neither would I.

Let’s just look at the cost of this little misadventure. You may not be aware that when the President travels, it isn’t JUST Air Force One that goes places. Nope. It also involves C-17s carrying limos, equipment, staff, all of that. It is a VERY expensive enterprise:

President Barack Obama’s failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.

Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.

A 2006 congressional study pegged the cost of flying Air Force One at $56,518 an hour. The Pentagon recently said it cost $100,219 an hour to fly the huge, reconfigured Boeing 747 without Obama aboard. The Pentagon estimate included more costs for support needs, such as maintenance.

At those rates, the president’s 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 million.

However, presidential travel requires additional spending, especially for security personnel and equipment. Also, first lady Michelle Obama and some administration officials traveled to Copenhagen at public expense ahead of the president.

Uh, yeah. In other words, a gazillion dollars.

Second while there, Obama managed to fit in a BRIEF meeting with General McChrystal, he who has been charged with oversight of Afghanistan:

The Copenhagen trip was not devoted entirely to the Olympics bid. Obama spent 25 minutes conferring with Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, his top Afghan war commander. McChrystal had been in London for a speech, and he made the relatively short trip to Denmark to meet with Obama.

WOW – 25 whole minutes?!?! Holy schmoley, where DID he find the time?!?! Freakin’ spare me. He still hasn’t made up his mind what the hell he is going to do in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, our soldiers continue to die there, 5 of them today, while Obama hems and haws on what to do.

Way to get your priorities in order, President Obama.

And finally, a point made by Larry Johnson in his post, “Barack Obama, Surrender Monkey?” That is this: you do NOT send someone like the president into a situation expending his credibility capital when you do not know for certain what the outcome will be. It is, in Larry’s words, “clueless and feckless.” Amen, brother. You got that right. But clueless they are.

As an aside, I might add so is Michelle. This is in the “You Gotta Be Frikkin Kidding Me” camp. Michelle, in her plea to the IOC, spoke of her youth, watching the Olympics with her dad, sitting on his lap as they watched all of these great athletes win their gold medals. Okay, nothing wrong with that. Until she included Carl Lewis. Just think about that for a moment. That would have made her 20, hardly a little girl. Perhaps the IOC is better at math than she gave them credit for being. Just a thought.

And now, in recognition of Rio de Janeiro winning the 2016 Olympics, I leave you with this:

And don’t blame me when it gets stuck in your head for days!

My fellow writers and I have posted many stories these last two years detailing the same Obama shortcomings that Mr. Fineman covers here. But of course, we are just bloggers, the people who spread rumors and complain without cause. Right? In February I posted The Cost of Enabling Obama, detailing the dangers of pushing his cult of personality with no vetting. He had just been inaugurated and big media was still honeymooning, defending President Obama’s every move. That phase is over – much to the chagrin and dismay of our Celebrity-in-Chief.

Fineman states:

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it.
[snip]
The president’s problem isn’t that he is too visible; it’s the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches.

The phrase, “words, just words,” springs to mind. Fineman actually agrees with his conservative WaPo colleague Charles Krauthammer that our President is just a tad narcissistic. Fineman notes Obama’s “endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East,” as yet has “no boxes checked “done.””

This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he’s not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota.

Re-elected? Fineman states that reaching back rather than forward and making President Bush “the bogeyman” is “starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.”

Members of Obama’s own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is.

They never knew who he was. His proposals were and are, shall we say, elastic. Shame on them. They kicked the more qualified candidate to the curb when they had no idea who they were voting for or if he had a clue how to do the job.

In Washington, the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won’t cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama’s measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care. Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major “reform” bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its “leadership.” It’s not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.

Are you telling me Fineman just figured this out? We saw this coming from our living room couches nearly two years ago and we were not getting paid a salary to do it. You’d think someone who does this for a living would be a bit more perceptive. Fineman notes Obama’s admiration for President Reagan, who made his wishes perfectly clear when he took office and did not outsource his policies to the likes of a Nancy Pelosi.

Obama seems to think he’ll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.

Again, Obama wants us to “applaud the tenor for clearing his throat.” Fineman states that cap and trade is dead for this year, health care is a long way from passage and his banking legislation reform isn’t making much headway either. He concludes:

Doing Letterman again won’t help. It may boost the host’s ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.

To make matters worse, the very teacher’s unions who helped to elect the President are now criticizing him regarding his new education proposals. You will not believe the title of the article in WaPo: Unions Criticize Obama’s School Proposals as Bush 3.

Ouch. How many times have all us wacky bloggers called him the same thing. Read the article here. The teacher’s unions now agree with us? Curiouser and curiouser.

A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times posted an article: Was Hillary Right on Iran? reminding everyone of Hillary’s efforts during the primary to caution Americans about the dangers of buying into the naivete of Obama’s foreign policy. Now they want to quote her? Now they want to stop making fun of her? Now they say she was right?

Now what do we do?

Yes, experience and policy knowledge actually do count for something. I guess all her “tea parties” all these years counted for something, too. Now she’s stuck making the best of the “new direction” he purports to represent.

Please pardon my dust for being a broken record, but I’ll repeat now what I wrote then: It is not possible for someone so inexperienced, with limited understanding of the tangled economic issues we face, a less than sophisticated understanding of foreign policy, or even the machinations of Congress, a man with no governing or executive experience, and precious little legislative experience to be able to step up to the plate at this critical juncture and perform miracles. Even to perform decently. That would be ridiculous. Nothing in President Obama’s life thus far has trained him for these challenges.

The true problem, greater than all of the above, is that his pathology involves his believing naively, or narcissistically, in his own ability to move mountains on the force of his own personality. And further, that the DNC elite and the media enabled him at every turn to believe this was true.

President Obama is going to Denmark to pitch for Chicago to host the Olympics in 2016, he is still campaigning 24/7 with a smile plastered on his face, pitching the same talking points that lack the same substance they lacked for the past two years. He has only had one conversation with Gen. McChrystal since he took command of the war in Afghanistan. As Commander in Chief, Obama appears to be taking the same level of interest he did when he was head of that subcommittee on European Affairs/Afghanistian while he was campaigning — the one where he did not hold one meeting in two years.

What has changed? Who is in charge if he is out there playing salesman in chief? And now Fineman et al want to tell the President to get off the TV screen and get down to work? Why? They enabled his “brand” at every turn. No wonder any news organization that has been mindlessly defending these actions has seen their readership and viewership take a nosedive.

Maybe we need a new influx of people in the pundit class. Fineman, Milbank, Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, Alter, Klein, Mitchell, Kurtz, Dowd, Quinn, Noonan, Rich, Reich and the rest were too busy as Joan Walsh put it “singing along with his lyrics” to bother looking at him in an objective fashion. It is inexcusable that these pundits dare to complain about Obama now. The insults they directed at anyone not falling in line for their chosen candidate were and are disgraceful. How many of us lost friendships last year or were attacked because we refused to be a part of “Buying Brand Obama.” This is not about apologies or “I told you so.” This is about a genuine worry for our country and the direction it is taking under more inadequate and disingenuous leadership.

If a majority of voters insist on continuing to vote for style over substance, the prognosis is not good. Wake up, America.

What a difference a month makes! When my last controversial column posted on Salon in the second week of August, most Democrats seemed frozen in suspended animation, not daring to criticize the Obama administration’s bungling of healthcare reform lest it give aid and comfort to the GOP. Well, that ice dam sure broke with a roar. Dissident Democrats found their voices, and by late August even the liberal lemmings of the mainstream media, from CBS to CNN, had drastically altered their tone of reportage, from priggish disdain of the town hall insurgency to frank admission of serious problems in the healthcare bills as well as of Obama’s declining national support.

…As an Obama supporter and contributor, I am outraged at the slowness with which the standing army of Democratic consultants and commentators publicly expressed discontent with the administration’s strategic missteps this year. … from week one after the inauguration, when Obama went flat as a rug in letting Congress pass that obscenely bloated stimulus package. Had more Democrats protested, the administration would have felt less arrogantly emboldened to jam through a cap-and-trade bill whose costs have made it virtually impossible for an alarmed public to accept the gargantuan expenses of national healthcare reform. (Who is naive enough to believe that Obama’s plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?)

Due respect to Ms. Paglia, she might ask herself why she bought into any of this before the election. We did not. Their disastrous spending plans: using the cover of the economic crisis to push through pet projects under the phony label of stimulus, offering bailouts of Wall St., not Main Street. People are without jobs, losing their homes and they are playing games with our money? Most readers at NQ sensed where Obama’s allegiance would be 18 months ago. I find precious little satisfaction in yet another prominent Obama supporter expressing disgust. The stakes are too high and we are now stuck.

I am grateful, however, that a respected voice is calling the arrogant Dem leadership out on its despicable characterizations of American citizens, who are rightfully outraged at this mess:

By foolishly trying to reduce all objections to healthcare reform to the malevolence of obstructionist Republicans, Democrats have managed to destroy the national coalition that elected Obama and that is unlikely to be repaired. If Obama fails to win reelection, let the blame be first laid at the door of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who at a pivotal point threw gasoline on the flames by comparing angry American citizens to Nazis.

Pelosi needs to lose her seat for that one. Disgraceful.

Paglia seems to think Obama might turn it around with a great speech, but wonders if too much damage has already been done. She has written the Dems off is 2012, unless Republicans nominate someone dead from the neck up – entirely possible. Paglia says she “has been calling for heads to roll at the White House from the get-go”:

…Thankfully, they do seem to be falling faster — as witness the middle-of-the-night bum’s rush given to “green jobs” czar Van Jones last week — but there’s a long way to go. An example of the provincial amateurism of current White House operations was the way the president’s innocuous back-to-school pep talk got sandbagged by imbecilic support materials soliciting students to write fantasy letters to “help” the president (a coercive directive quickly withdrawn under pressure). Even worse, the entire project was stupidly scheduled to conflict with the busy opening days of class this week, when harried teachers already have their hands full. Comically, some major school districts, including New York City, were not even open yet. And this is the gang who wants to revamp national healthcare?

Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators?

Ms. Paglia still betrays a trusting naiveté here, thinking that Democrats were too insulated to know the protests were genuine. Not so. The Obama Administration simply continued the same techniques of the Obama campaign – demonize any opponents in order to silence them. She acknowledges that network and cable TV are not the central forums for debate any longer. They just play out more junk politics, backing their respective brands. Ms. Paglia notes…

…the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web — both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. …[O]n talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco … I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.

While she concludes her column giving the Republicans some well deserved slaps as well (and I encourage you to read the rest of her piece for yourself), most of it is devoted to pointing out Democratic Party arrogance. This is what the Clinton wing of the party, cruelly cast aside along with Hillary after the primaries, have noted as well. Ms. Paglia asks questions many here would find familiar:

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. …Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible.

If any of Obama’s supporters had been capable of critical thought last year, they would have seen through his ridiculous promises and contradictory policy statements and had the sense to turn away. As this article is a prelude to President Obama’s big speech on healthcare this evening, Ms. Paglia’s next comments reveal the shortcomings of a compliant media and congress…

Throughout this fractious summer, I was dismayed not just at the self-defeating silence of Democrats at the gaping holes or evasions in the healthcare bills but also at the fogginess or insipidity of articles and Op-Eds about the controversy emanating from liberal mainstream media and Web sources. By a proportion of something like 10-to-1, negative articles by conservatives were vastly more detailed, specific and practical about the proposals than were supportive articles by Democrats, which often made gestures rather than arguments and brimmed with emotion and sneers. There was a glaring inability in most Democratic commentary to think ahead and forecast what would or could be the actual snarled consequences — in terms of delays, denial of services, errors, miscommunications and gross invasions of privacy — of a massive single-payer overhaul of the healthcare system in a nation as large and populous as ours. It was as if Democrats live in a utopian dream world, divorced from the daily demands and realities of organization and management.

Yes, the party in power does seem oddly divorced from reality as if wishing at the foot of President Obama’s HOPE poster would make their rosy predictions about the effects of their reckless leglislation come true. This past week, other columnists have pointed out that dissent and disagreement are a value to any President. Blank stares and idol worship will not make this Administration better. For the sake of our country, it would be refreshing change indeed if someone in the White House showed actual concern for the needs of Americans and went back to doing the people’s business. I think that may only happen if left, right and center keep speaking out and keep the pressure on. Only fear of the voters might have any effect whatsoever. And I’m not even sure of that.

Ms. Paglia, for one, worries it’s too late for Obama to turn it around…

Uh, yeah. I’m kinda wondering what’s taken that Ethics Committee so long, too. That was my major field of study, and I’m pretty sure that it would not take me almost a year to come to a determination about this man’s lack of ethical behavior (hypocrisy aside, just the ethical issues alone). Sheesh. This is not the first time Rangel has had “ethical” problems while in office. You might recall that he paid his parking tickets out of his campaign funds. Tsk, tsk – that’s not allowed. You’d think he’d learn.

And speaking of not learning one’s lessons, how about Obama appointing ANOTHER czar after his Commie 9/11 Truther guy had to resign (though through no pressure from Obama, who seemed A-Okay with keeping Van Jones close in the West Wing)? Yep – he wasted no time in thumbing his nose at Congress, and us, by elevating Ron Bloom to the position of Czar of Manufacturing Policy (so he uses the term, “Senior Counselor,” but same difference). I might add, once again, it wasn’t just Republicans who thought it was inappropriate to have a Communist working in the West Wing with the ear of the President, either. That’s just a smokescreen to try to blame it on anyone else but Obama. But I digress.

You may remember Bloom from his previous job on the Task Force for the US takeover ofGM. Oops – I mean, Bloom was a member of the Auto Task Force. Again, same difference. And, Bloom was formerly with the United Steel Workers. I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that Obama decided to make his announcement before the AFL-CIO at a picnic, right? Didn’t think so.

And I guess none of us should be surprised when Obama continues to thumb his nose at the process, at Congress, and more importantly, US. I suppose I should be grateful that Bloom isn’t a Marxist Name Calling Fruit Loop, but still – this defiance, no, make that insouciance, by Obama is just a tad irritating, isn’t it? I wonder what position he’ll give Charlie?

In his August 20, 2009, meeting with supporters at the Democratic National Committee and its “Organizing for America” (OFA) arm – formerly the “Obama for America” campaign – President Obama blamed the media for the fact that many untrue claims made by opponents of his health care reform push had been accepted by many Americans as fact.

Stating that end of life care was “previously considered a bipartisan concept,” the president said, “this used to be just a sensible thing that everybody could agree to.”

But it “suddenly became ‘Death Panels,’ and scared Grandma,” he said, “and it’s just irresponsible.”

“Scared Grandma?” Can our President say anything that doesn’t sound condescending and insulting?

The president added, “I have to say, part of the reason it spreads is the way reporting is done today. If somebody puts out misinformation, ‘Obama’s Creating Death Panels,’ then the way the news report comes across is: ‘Today such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn’t true.’ And then they go on to the next story. And what they don’t say is, ‘In fact it isn’t true.’”

Even more preposterous than the President demonizing “grandma” and anyone else angered by the arrogant, flatfooted handling of health care reform legislation, he is now demonizing the press, his strongest allies.

No “death panels” eh? Glad to hear it. But I wonder why a Senate subcommittee then promptly removed a suspicious sounding provision from their bill after Sarah Palin made a stink about it on her Facebook page. Even Obama cheerleader Eugene Robinson admitted she had a point. His monstrous health care bill (I think there are 5) has not even been formulated yet, but the Obama Administration is going full steam ahead selling it to the American people, criticizing anyone questioning their audacity in ramming through a bill no one understands. The latest we hear is that Obama has backed off the public option. This magical health care legislation morphs into something new daily.

As Tapper points out:

Today OFA sent out an email to supporters continuing this line of criticism. (You can see the email HERE.)

“Over the past few months, two things have become clear about the fight for health insurance reform,” writes OFA director Mitch Stewart. “1. Our opponents will create and spread outrageous lies to try to stop President Obama from creating real change. 2. We just can’t count on the media to debunk them.”

Obama cannot count on the media? Not two months ago, he made fun of the media’s fawning when he joked about rolling over in bed to find Brian Williams lying beside him. The President is also being disingenuous. When the “death panels” comment hit the net, the press was all over itself debunking it, and insulting Palin once again. The American people saw through the many conflicting statements on health care and decided they weren’t buying. That is the real issue. But the President can’t come out and tell the American people off for not being seduced by more smoke and mirrors.

This comment is the pièce de resistance…

Stewart then quoted President Obama from August 20, and said supporters need to “double our own efforts to get the truth out. That means more organizers running door-to-door canvases and phone banks to educate our neighbors, more events to spread the word to Congress, and more ads on the air countering the smears. And we’ll need the money to pay for it all. Can you chip in to help make it happen?”

“Stepping in when the media fails is a daunting challenge,” Stewart writes.

Yes, let’s go door to door for more bullying. Let’s raise lots more money people don’t have to push a plan when we’re still not sure what’s in it.

So far, this administration has not earned enough points with the American people to convince us we should take legislation this important on faith. Stewart has a lot of nerve to talk about what should be done when the media fails to do its job. I think there are still a good number of Hillary’s 18,000,000 voters who might like to get a piece of that action.

No one, not even President George Bush ever had such loving, sycophantic treatment by the press. More than owing contributors to his huge war chest, President Obama owes the mainstream media for their blind praise and abject refusal to vet him throughout 2008. That was reason numero uno why this man was elected. Now he is criticizing the press for actually daring to let a little real news see the light of day. In reality, he is criticizing the fact that press efforts to minimize the gravity of grass roots opposition has backfired.

Of course we need reform, but before we do something drastic to 1/6th of the economy in such perilous times, let’s make sure we are doing something to help, not hurt. The Obama Administration has once again chosen bullying and hubris over returning to the drawing board to fix the problem.

The media still defends the President at every turn. It is an indicator of negative public sentiment when the President feels he must resort to criticism of an organism that has largely functioned as his own personal PR firm for 20 months. It will be interesting to see if any of our so called journalists finally declare enough is enough and remember the way they USED to do their jobs.

We’re waiting…

My good buddy, American Girl in Italy, provided me with this article today, Clinton Urged Obama To Talk Tough On Iran. Now, see, this does not surprise me one little bit – both that Clinton wanted to talk tough to Iran, and that Obama left her hanging out to dry. That is her way, and that is his. And that is why so many of us never wanted her there in the first place (though we appreciate having an adult in the room). We knew it was coming.

So, here’s the deal:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged President Obama for two days to toughen his language on Iran before he did so, and then was surprised when he condemned Iran’s crackdown on demonstrators last week, administration officials say.

At his June 23 news conference, Mr. Obama said he was “appalled and outraged” by Iranian behavior and “strongly condemned” the violence against anti-government demonstrators. Up until then, Mr. Obama and other administration officials had taken a softer line, expressing “deep concern” about the situation and calling on Iran to “respect the dignity of its own people.”

Behind the scenes, the officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing internal deliberations, said Mrs. Clinton had been advocating the stronger U.S. response, but the president resisted. When he finally took her advice, the aides said, he did so without informing her first.

This was the first known example of awkwardness between the two former rivals for the Democratic nomination for president since they made up following Mr. Obama’s election. The disagreement also gave some insight into the Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process five months into its term.

“… Obama administration’s foreign policy decision-making process”??? Well, it seems to be, “We don’t know what the hell we are doing, and we will just say or do whatever we can until we get the fawning recognition on which we so depend. If that means screwing people over, even people in the Cabinet, oh well!” And, it is just a continuation of a policy Obama began during the Primary: taking Clinton’s words whole-cloth without EVER giving her credit for them. He did it time and time again. I guess we can’t be surprised that he is doing it now, too:

The officials said they were familiar with the language Mr. Obama used in his news conference because it was sent to the State Department a day earlier, but that Mrs. Clinton did not know until he uttered the words that he would choose that moment to make them public.

“It was a happy surprise,” one administration official said. “It was echoing the line the secretary had been pushing for a couple of days.”

Uh, yeah. I am sure that is exactly what it was, “a happy surprise.” Sure.

Guess when The Decider decided? About when you wold expect:

Another official said Mr. Obama apparently did not make the final decision to go ahead with the tougher stance until shortly before his remarks.

“I don’t think he himself had decided to do it until he did it, but we knew full well it was headed that way, because the White House sent over the actual language he’d use if he chose to take that line for folks to review and weigh in on, which State did,” the second official said.

Oh, he is so gifted, isn’t he?? How many times did he flip a coin? Draw straws? Played “eeney, meeney, miney mo” before he decided just what he was going to say – as he walked to his TOTUS?? Please.

Naturally, as to the tough language:

The White House and the State Department declined to comment publicly on Mrs. Clinton’s “private advice” to Mr. Obama and their internal communications.

As one would expect.

Apparently, Secretary Clinton was not the only one urging Obama to say something stronger:

Key congressional Republicans – most prominently Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was Mr. Obama’s opponent in last year’s election – criticized the president for being too “timid” and failing to speak out early against the Iranian regime’s crackdown on protests following the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Mr. Obama initially said he did not want to appear to be interfering in Iran’s internal affairs and provide ammunition to the regime, which tends to blame the United States and other Western countries for any unrest. In addition, he knew he would most likely have to deal with the current government as part of the West’s efforts to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon, officials said.

“On the one hand, he may have felt that the United States should naturally criticize the Iranian government’s violent crackdown on the protesters,” said Alireza Nader, an analyst at the Rand Corp. “On the other, he acknowledged that the U.S. was still willing to engage with Iran in the future. Strong U.S. criticism of the Iranian government could jeopardize future negotiations.”

Mrs. Clinton agreed with the president, but she thought it was time to get tougher after the June 20 killing of a young woman, Neda Agha-Soltan, on a Tehran street, officials said. A video of the killing was widely viewed on the Internet.

At the same time, they added, she was content to leave the decision to Mr. Obama, because she understood that he bore ultimate responsibility for any consequences.

However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House.

Until about an hour before the presidential news conference, the State Department continued to follow a more cautious public line, using words like “deeply concerned” about the situation in Iran, but refusing to “condemn” the crackdown. Then came Mr. Obama’s surprise.

“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few days,” he said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”

The decision on Iran was very personal, officials said. Mr. Obama knew his senior aides’ views, but it was up to him to “pull the trigger.”

Or to grow a pair. Or read the most recent poll – “Oh, no – not everyone is lapping up every word I read – I must do something! Quick – get me Clinton’s report and I’ll have it put on TOTUS!” Ahem.

Let’s not lose this important paragraph, though:

However, Mr. Obama’s sudden decision to toughen his language on Tehran had the effect of making the State Department look out of sync with the White House. (Emphasis mine.)

You don’t say. Well, OF COURSE IT DID. That was the intent, was it not? If it WASN’T, Obama could have said something like, “In conjunction with the State Department, ” or “As Secretary Clinton and I have discussed,” or SOMETHING that didn’t leave her high and dry. But like I said, that is his way. As is this, apparently:

“We have so few tools when we deal with Iran, and we don’t fully understand what’s going on, so all we’ve got is what the president says,” the first administration official said. “There isn’t a huge process behind it.”

In general, the officials said, Mr. Obama has relied on the government bureaucracy to formulate language on foreign affairs.

For example, before Mr. Obama’s meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday, everything he said was a “result of a long process involving meetings and briefing papers,” the official said. Even with North Korea, another country that has no diplomatic relations with the U.S., “we have a formalized mechanism in the six-party [nuclear] talks and more moving pieces.”

Analysts said the Iran episode shows Mr. Obama’s nuanced thinking and in-depth analysis of foreign policy, although some warned that he risks being too cautious and appearing indecisive.

“Appear”??? How about, he IS indecisive!! Once again, we are getting a load of hooey (”nuanced thinking”) to obscure how woefully out of his depth Obama is. I am sure you caught all of that above about him having the “bureaucracy” basically tell him what to say after they comb through everything for him. So, I guess his big “decision making” is to read, or not to read…

Some people do actually see through him, thank heavens:

“The demonstrators in Iran have revealed the extreme caution of Obama’s approach to the world, as if he is afraid of making a mistake, and his dislike of disruptions to an agenda he has already laid out,” Reginald Dale, director of the Transatlantic Media Network at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in reference to the president’s offer of engagement, which so far has been spurned by Tehran.

Kim R. Holmes, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, who was assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the George W. Bush administration, said: “The caution that we should not meddle was shown to be pointless after the Iranian leadership blamed the protests on America and Britain anyway.”

True that. But of course, there are reasons for Obama’s hesitancy:

Michael J. Green, former senior director for East Asian affairs on the National Security Council in the Bush White House, said Mr. Obama may be trying the learn from his predecessor’s mistakes.

Mr. Bush tended to make decisions during meetings with his national security team, but the problem was that his aides “interpreted his directions differently,” especially during his first term, Mr. Green said.

At the time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell’s aides often said that he “felt good” about the outcome of a White House meeting, because Mr. Bush had taken his advice. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld felt the same way, except that their advice was usually very different.

“It seems that Obama is trying to avoid such confusion by laying out specifically what he wants,” Mr. Green said.

As involved as Mrs. Clinton may have been in the process leading up to Mr. Obama’s decision on Iran, “the secretary of state usually doesn’t have the last say, because he or she is not there with the president all the time,” he said. “With all the modern technology, location still means power.” (Nicholas Kralev
)

Well, Mr. Green – you are assuming Obama KNOWS what he wants. Besides world domination, that is. But does HE know how to go about it? No, he has to leave that up to everyone else to figure out because he hasn’t a clue. Not only that, but he has no grace. Yes, he is the one who has “to pull the trigger,” but there are ways to do that in which others are not left hanging. But, that’s just not Obama’s way, now is it?

UPDATE: American Girl mentioned the following timely video in the Comments section, but it needs to be here:

I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to tell jokes that weren’t funny enough for me to use when we did this five weeks ago. (Laughter.) Whatever. (Laughter.) The jokes may not be as good, but neither is the guest list. (Laughter.) I’m just joking. For me, there’s no contest. Why bother hanging out with celebrities when I can spend time with the people who made me one? (Laughter.) I know where my bread is buttered.

I should say so, Mr. President. The Press threw a yearlong party for you and stuck us with the bill. This video captures part of his remarks:

It is great to be here with so much talent from the world of TV and radio. Despite the flood of new media, I think your programming is more relevant than ever before. At least, that’s the impression I get when I read the blogs every day. (Laughter.)

I appreciate his compliment. Surely big media is increasingly irrelevant while citizen journalists on blogs like this one are doing a helluva lot more to hold our representatives’ feet the fire. Wonder how the Press who have been disseminating his Kool-Aid feel about being told they are, collectively, “his bitch?” The camera cut away to Chris Matthews not looking at all amused. Whatsamatter, Chris, are ya’ pissed the President doesn’t get a tingle up his leg about you?

Mika Brzezinski is here, I believe, in the house. (Applause.) Mika and I have a lot in common. We both have partners named Joe who used to be in Congress and don’t know when to stop talking. (Laughter.)

Gee, I guess Scarborough being the only holdout on MSNBC who thinks our President is kinda goofy has not escaped Obama’s notice. It seems quite narcissistic to so closely monitor every single lowly person who has the temerity to criticize you. But surely VP Biden has done just as much in that regard – thanks, Joe – both of you!

And President Obama cannot help but insult his own senior staff. He talked about wanting to turn Larry Summers into a hologram – you ain’t alone, Mr. President. And of course the evening would not be complete without deriding his very successful and very popular Secretary of State and intimating that her staff wants to maim her:

Now, one person that you know could not be here tonight is Secretary Hillary Clinton. As most of you know, Hillary broke her elbow a few days ago on her way to the White House. And we all wish her a very speedy recovery. I do have to say, though, that while it’s been reported as an accident, there were some suspicious. (Laughter.) Just before the incident, Secret Service spotted Richard Holbrooke spraying WD-40 — (laughter) — all over the driveway. (Laughter.)

No, Mr. President, but I wonder if that’s what you wanted to do – (laughter) – all during the Primary. (laughter).

Not surprisingly, Andrea Mitchell was the one who laughed the loudest at the President’s joke. Why shouldn’t she? She had plenty WD-40 of her own waiting for Hillary last year.

But this is the piece de resistance:

I have to admit, though, it wasn’t easy coming up with fresh material for this dinner. A few nights ago, I was up tossing and turning, trying to figure out exactly what to say. Finally, when I couldn’t get back to sleep, I rolled over and asked Brian Williams what he thought. (Laughter and applause.)

Good one, Mr. President. Brian Williams certainly is in bed with you. Yes, it’s all said in jest, but I wonder if deep down it irks Williams, aka “Mr. Gravitas,” that the man to whom he just bowed his head in an interview sees fit to humiliate him in public. Well, Brian, you broke it, you bought it.

The President then pointed out to more laughter out how “ABC is planning a series called “Dancing with the Czars.” Yeah, let’s celebrate the fact that the people supposed to be doing their jobs can’t do their jobs because we have all these “czars” in the way running interference at every turn. Wow. That is side splitting.

Look, it’s nothing personal, but this dinner conflicts with my date night. (Laughter.) I was supposed to be going out with Michelle for Thai food. In Bangkok. (Laughter and applause.)

That’s a laugh riot! Unemployment keeps rising but you keep making jokes about giving us bread and circuses, spending taxpayer money on these extravagant personal junkets. George Bush got himself into a lot of trouble for giving the impression he was “fiddling while Rome burns.” Let’s see how this behavior works out for you with the voters…

I found this next section particularly telling:

Of course, most of my attention has been focused here back home. As you know, we’ve been working around the clock to repair our major financial institutions and our auto companies. But you probably wouldn’t understand the concept of troubled industries, working as you do in the radio and television.
AUDIENCE: Oooh!
THE PRESIDENT: Oh — we don’t joke about that, huh? (Laughter.) That’s not funny. (Laughter.)

I realize some may hate Hollywood or news networks and blame them for electing Obama, but be aware there are many honorable rank and file folks in TV, radio and film who may not agree with his politics but they still have to feed their families – they are unemployed now too. This is a multi-billion dollar industry that helps keep our country afloat, as much as any other successful industry does. To deride it seems rather ungracious to me. But why not, Mr. President, you’ve got your book deal, right?

And after he made jokes about his fly swatting prowess…here’s a few more tasty treats:

Now, the challenges we face are many, and I’ll be honest — I don’t have all the answers. And when I’m not sure what’s right, I often ask myself, “WWLD?” What would a wise Latino do? …
(snip)
Another difficult challenge is how to help our automakers thrive in the 21st century. We’ve tried a number of different approaches, and tonight, I’m announcing a new one. It’s a plan passed on to me by a close friend and advisor, Oprah Winfrey. So if each of you will look under your seat, you find that — (laughter) — you get a car company! (Laughter.) You get a car company! And FOX — you get AIG. (Laughter.) Enjoy!

The truth is, as I’ve said all along, I have no ambition to run an auto company. I’m not the salesman-in-chief. And GM will rise or fall on the quality of its products — like the taut, athletic design of the new Buick Enclave. (Laughter.) It’s French-seamed leather and warm wood tones make the Enclave more than transportation. (Applause.) It’s a modern driver’s retreat. (Laughter.) Come on, work with me here. I’ve got cars to move, people! (Applause.)

It makes me so happy that the President can mine so much good comedy material from our economic problems and his horrid policies; buying an automaker that even he does not think is much good. Mission Accomplished, Mr. President. Oops. Sorry. That was the other one who said that. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

In closing, the President said the following:

…[D]espite the jokes I’ve told, I’m here tonight because I appreciate the work that all of you do and the role that you play. You report the news as it happens, and you’re covering history as it’s made. With a handheld camera or a mic, or now even a cell phone or a blog, you bring the truth to people and allow people to bring truth to the world.

Well, I’m not sure who in our fourth estate is bringing the truth to the world anymore, but perhaps some of them will take the President’s suggestion to heart and find a way to do their jobs again.

And he’s right, the attacks against him are a great insult.

What kind of firing is this… “Hey buddy, we think it’s time you just move on. Why? Well, we’ve decided we’re going to call you senile.”

What is that?

Jake Tapper has more: Third Inspector General Controversy Emerges

Obama Nominates Superfund Polluter Lawyer To Run DOJ Environment Division

UPDATE: Coal, Electric Industries Big Winners in Climate Bill Deal

Obama appointed an attorney who defended major polluters to head up the DOJ’s environmental division? Doesn’t that sound like what George Bush used to do?

And who made the DOJ announcement? Why it’s the George Soros-backed Center for American Progress. When are you, and your buddies at MoveOn, the ACLU, and the Center for American Progress going to get a clue? Obama is solely interested in helping big corporations and has NO interest in any principals, let alone the “little people.”

Here’s the story, straight from the Center for American Progress:

GM cleanup of the Bedford Superfund site.

President Barack Obama has nominated a lawyer for the nation’s largest toxic polluters to run the enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws. On Tuesday, Obama “announced his intent to nominate” Ignacia S. Moreno to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division in the Department of Justice. Moreno, general counsel for that department during the Clinton administration, is now the corporate environmental counsel for General Electric, “America’s #1 Superfund Polluter“:

Number five in the Fortune 500 with revenues of $89.3 billion and earnings of $8.2 billion in 1997, General Electric has been a leader in the effort to roll back the Superfund law and stave off any requirements for full cleanup and restoration of sites they helped create.

This February, General Electric lost an eight-year battle to “prove that parts of the Superfund law are unconstitutional.” One of the 600-person DOJ environmental division’s “primary responsibilities is to enforce federal civil and criminal environmental laws such as” the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund.

Before General Electric, Moreno worked as a corporate attorney at Spriggs and Hollingsworth. Moreno’s name is found in the Westlaw database as an attorney defending General Motors in another Superfund case, the GM Powertrain facility in Bedford, Indiana:

Historical uses and management of PCB containing hydraulic oils and PCB impacted materials has contaminated on-site areas as well as the sediment and floodplain soil within Bailey’s Branch and the Pleasant Run Creek watershed.

Although General Motors entered into an agreement in 2001 with the EPA to clean up the site, a number of local residents whose land has been contaminated by polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have sued for damages in Allgood v. GM (now Barlow v. GM), in a contentious and caustic dispute over cleanup, monitoring, and lost property values.

During the Clinton administration, Moreno was involved in another controversial case, unsuccessfully defending the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe tuna standard. In Brower v. Daley, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations brought suit against the United States government for actions that were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law,” winning their case in 2000.

UPDATE: Coal, Electric Industries Big Winners in Climate Bill Deal

Even as House Democrats are celebrating their deal with conservative-leaning colleagues on climate change legislation, the real winners under the compromise have been the coal, electric and auto industries, who are largely the source of the nation’s carbon emissions to begin with.

Details of the compromise are still emerging, but already the chief sponsors of the measure — Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) — have been forced to lower carbon-reduction targets, cut renewable fuel standards and dole out billions of dollars in benefits to the nation’s largest polluting industries. Many environmentalists say the compromise comes at the too-high cost of undermining the bill’s very purpose, which is to slash emissions dramatically enough to prevent a warming planet from heating further. Some are asking Democrats either to bolster the environmental protections or to scrap the proposal altogether. …

I wish I could laugh at you. But I’m too upset about Obama’s utter disregard for the issues precious to the Democratic party.

Had you idiots supported Hillary Clinton, you wouldn’t have had to worry about a Superfund attorney being appointed.

Hillary also made a promise to end presidential signing statements. And, unlike Obama, she meant it.

NoQuarter regulars: PLEASE — for the sake of the ignorant who voted for Obama — fill out a list of other issues on which the pro-Obama supporters could have counted on Hillary backing.

And if you Obama supporters still don’t have a CLUE, here’s why Obama will always side with the big corporations: Their executives have the MONEY he needs to win his elections. Forget that tripe about small donations — that was all a big lie, helped along by the likes of ACORN, in order to induce FOOLS into supporting Obama.

DAVID GERGEN: I just disagree with the Wagoner decision. And people say, well, you’re — it’s it’s a double standard. You know, you’re treating the banks much better. This is going to send a shudder through the banking community, “If the government can be capricious here, they will be capricious in dealing with us,” and make them even more, I think, reluctant to play.

COOPER: And, Vince, that’s your fear?

VINCE CREW: And that’s it. That’s absolutely it, agreeing with David here.

When the president of the United States can — can fundamentally interject his — his power, his authority, his — his advisers’ ideas into the private sector, we are on that proverbial slippery slope, the — the — this is not the audacity of hope. This is the audacity of power.

And those of us who — who voted for this man had no idea that this was what we were hoping would happen. And those of us who didn’t vote for this man feared that it would.

COOPER: Very briefly, Stephen.

STEPHEN LEEB: OK. He’s doing now what he has to do in order so he doesn’t have to do a lot more later. If he lets GM fail, you will end up seeing the government so much part of everyone’s life, it will make today look like a picnic.

Susan again: “… so he doesn’t have to do a lot more later. …” Well, of course. Obama’s MO is to make a swift, and easy (aka lazy ass) move that shifts responsibility onto others. Maybe the idea was that a shake-up would wake up GM’s management, but it’s also unsettling. Worse, it’s very unsettling to ALL business executives, including any who may contemplate investing in Geithner’s toxic assets plan, which is supposedly a “one-way bet,” as Krugman calls it, that leaves TAXPAYERS holding the bag for every toxic asset purchase that fails to increase in value.

Obama’s move has also unsettled the auto workers, who fear, more than ever, that GM’s last-gasp effort at restructuring is sure to fail and that bankruptcy comes next, in which a judge will demand hard-nosed benefits cutbacks to workers.

Obama’s move has further pissed off the auto companies who haven’t needed or asked for government help: Ford and all the foreign companies who make cars/parts in the U.S. Why give GM an advantage their company won’t get?

Here is the full discussion segment, from the transcript:

As we mentioned, President Obama is taking heat tonight for demanding Rick Wagoner’s resignation. There’s that kind of anger. Then there’s the kind that has nothing to do with presidents or CEOs or beltway politics.

It’s the kind of captured by local station WWMT outside a Chevy dealership in Wayland, Michigan, that had just announced it was closing and that everyone was losing their job. Take a look what happened, employees fighting each other. It’s actually the second fight of the day there. A short time later, one of the men involved came and spoke to the camera.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn’t really matter how hard that you work, because there’s always somebody a little bit above you that has the right to control every decision, every ounce of energy that you put forth effort to. Don’t you have the right to be a little bit mad when somebody says, hey, we’re all done?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: “Digging Deeper” now with senior political analyst David Gergen, economist Stephen Leeb, author of “Game Over,” and ethics guru Vince Crew, author of “Everyday Ethics, Everlasting Consequences.”

David, what do you make of this? I mean, it has happened before. But we’re kind of in unchartered waters. Firing of CEOs by the government?

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: We sure are.

And I think that we’re going to see more of it, Anderson. The — the toughest part of this is that the government had no good choices. President Obama had no good choices. And what they have decided is, we couldn’t get the bondholders to agree to any kind of out-of-court settlement.

We couldn’t get the UAW, the automobile workers. We’re going to force them. We’re going to give them 60 days to do this or we’re going to take them into bankruptcy and do it through a court.

I — all of that is understandable. It’s tough. It means more layoffs are coming. I think the surprise was firing Rick Wagoner, a man who, as CEO, had done a very good job restructuring the company. And a lot of the congressional delegation, Republicans and Democrats, expressed surprise.

And there is this question now of a double standard about, why do you treat the automobile companies in one way and treat the banks in another way? I think that’s going to be very tough politics for the Obama administration.

COOPER: Vince, what about that? I mean, there are lot of — I was just in Detroit two weeks ago. And a lot of the autoworkers there are saying to me, look, there’s a complete double standard. A lot of these CEOs on Wall Street have cost the government a lot of money. They have gotten more bailout money. Their companies are tanking probably even more than some of these auto companies. They’re not being fired.

VINCE CREW, AUTHOR, “EVERYDAY ETHICS, EVERLASTING CONSEQUENCES”: Well, you’re right, Anderson. That’s happening.

And, also, when — when people are looking at these complex situations about the economy, and the economists come out and they say, well, something had to be done, people go, wait a second. In my own personal life, if — if I have a failed business or if I make bad decisions, there are repercussions for that. Why aren’t these guys having repercussions? And when it comes to dismissing a CEO, that’s the job of a company board, not the president of the United States.

COOPER: Steven, is there a double standard here?

STEPHEN LEEB, ECONOMIST: Not really, I don’t think.

I mean, basically, I don’t think the government had much choice. I mean, it’s really AIG fallout, Anderson.

The public, I think, would be furious if we were giving ever more money to a company, and sort of rewarding, in a way, the CEO who at the helm when the company basically went under and required all this money. I mean, it has to be publicly acceptable.

And in answer to letting the company fail, that’s just not an alternative. I mean, how many more home foreclosures would you have if you have a million people out of work? That’s just not doable.

COOPER: I know David wants to disagree with you here, but I — but I have just got to take a short break.

Read all.

This past week, Bill O’Reilly took a shot at long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas. As you all know, Ms. Thomas has been in the gaggle since Jack Kennedy. She’s been treated with respect most of that time. Yes, in the later years of George Bush, she was overlooked from time to time, but even then she was part of a great skit played at the National Correspondence Dinner which showed her stalking the president to get her answers.

But did O’Reilly address her question or her view? No, he said she reminded him of the “Wicked Which of the East”…who by the way,…we never see in the Wizard of Oz outside her feet under Dorothy’s house. Margaret Hamilton played the Wicked Witch of the West.

When he came under fire for this comment by women’s groups and Media Matters he tried to deflect it as, “I said she sounded like, as in her voice…not her appearance” (paraphased). Truth is, Helen Thomas didn’t sound anything like Margaret Hamilton, this was just typical Bill O’Reilly running from his record.

Additionally he ignores that he calls her that “old woman”, then proceeds to mock the idea that he’s an ageist or sexist.

So as usual he invites someone to help him defend himself only to attack the guest in the end. This time it was author Courtney Martin. After trying to run the whole interview, she maintained her ground and in the next segment, this time populated by two other men he says, “I’m right, aren’t I”?

But…enough of the reality of things…I had to get some cathartic release out about Bill O’Reilly’s penchant for bloviation and put it into artistic terms…Here’s the “Bill O’Reilly’s Attack on Helen Thomas – The Easy Teenage Dance Mix vol. 2″
Enjoy

It cheapens the game, is horrible on the bodies of these athletes, and sets a BAD example for our youth. I hope he is telling the truth that his use was limited to those two years, and that his apology is sincere.

I bring this up because this issue was raised to Obama the other night at the big White House press conference. His response:

The president’s strongest answer was in response to the evening’s fluffiest question, about Alex Rodriguez’s confession that he had taken steroids.

After an honest baseball fan’s lament (”it tarnishes an entire era”), Obama jumped to a larger point that transcends sports–the lesson in A-Rod’s downfall for the young: “There are no shortcuts; that when you try to take shortcuts you may end up tarnishing your whole career.” (Emphasis mine.)

I about fell out of my chair laughing. Obama claims there are “no shortcuts”??? His ENTIRE political career has been one of “shortcuts”! He gets everyone else thrown off the ballot so he can run unopposed for the IL Senate. While in the IL Senate, the primary legislation that passed with HIS name on it was thrown on there by “kingmaker,” Emil Jones. Obama did little, if any, of the work for the legislation passed in his name. His handlers exposed SEALED information on his Republican opponent in his run for US Senate, thus ending up with Alan Keyes thrown on the ballot at the last minute. And, he did not even complete his first term as US Senator! (All of the above information, and more, can be found HERE.) Could Obama BE any more duplicitous?

Well, it turns out the answer is yes! It seems that Obama is claiming there is NO pork in this humongous stimulus package he is traipsing around the country trying to sell. Perhaps he is unclear on the definition of “pork.” Given how much pork Obama tried to get for IL while a US Senator, $740 MILLION, you would think he would know what it was. And he’s supposed to be so smart and everything. But he claims that there is NO pork in this stimulus package. None. That’s what he said. And right after he said that while in IN, he gave examples of some pork that would benefit IN! I’m not kidding:

OBAMA: “Not a single pet project,” he told the news conference. “Not a single earmark.”

THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill.*, $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added, “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

* Remember, that coal plant was shut down for being “inefficient,” and they want to throw $2 BILLION at it.

There are numerous examples of the pork stuffed into this stimulus package, and I have detailed some in previous posts. But you can click HERE for a reminder. But there most definitely IS pork in this package, despite Obama’s nonsensical claims to the contrary.

And speaking of pork, how about this little payback for ACORN? Ah, yes. ACORN – the organization under federal investigation for voter fraud. But hey – they did their job, and accomplished their goal, so no doubt, Obama has to “show them the money” (and this isn’t the first time ACORN has found its way into one of these bills spending OUR money):

Bear in mind, your taxpaying dollars have already been shelled out to ACORN, despite the numerous investigations into its wrong doing over voter fraud/voter registration fraud. Yes, just as a reminder, back in April, ACORN and La Raza were the beneficiaries of $100 MILLION of your dollars in another Housing bailout. I’m sure ACORN and La Raza thank you. I’m CERTAIN Obama thanks you, since he most definitely benefited from the work of ACORN this past year. I’m going to bet Obama wouldn’t consider this pork, either…

I realize I should have offered this warning earlier, but if you have high blood pressure, you may want to skip the following video of Senator Chuck Schumer, a senator I USED to like, but how can you respect someone who says this:

You know what is surprising about this? That Senator Schumer seemed to have no qualms about insulting American citizens who actually do care how our taxpaying dollars are being squandered on pet projects and paybacks. His arrogance is staggering, referring to us as “the chattering class” simply because we do not want to have our great-grandchildren paying for some 36 hole Frisbee golf course, or billions to an organization under federal investigation, or inefficient power plants, or any other of the numerous pet projects tucked into what is SUPPOSED to be a JOB stimulus package. “Chattering class” indeed.

Feel free to contact Senator Schumer and tell him how you, one of the “chattering class,” feel about his contention that we do not care about the pork in this bill HERE. We, the “chattering class,” actually care about the course our nation is on, and the path down which it is currently being steered. It’s about damn time our representatives act like they care, too, especially when they are spending OUR money. We the “chattering class” care, all right – a lot. And we care when a US Senator dismisses our concerns about a tremendously flawed bill as if we should have nothing to say about it. That is not just hubris, that is condescension and arrogance toward the very people who gave this man a job. Senator Schumer has sure shown HIS true colors, and they are not pretty…Let him hear about it.