Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush - absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already - THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

“Barack Obama Sees Worst Poll Rating Drop In 50 Years”

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November’s election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

“Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

Unfortunately for Obama, the People had something to say about the legislation that would so impact each and every one of us. I bet those legislators just HATE when their constituents throw a wrench into their grand plans, don’t you?

Things aren’t just bad for Obama, though:

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama’s prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: “I’m here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what’s right and who do what’s hard will be rewarded and not rejected.”

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama’s 2008 victory.

Let’s just pause for a second and soak that in - Gov. Corzine is a former Goldman Sachs exec who made a gazillion buckaroos, and Obama is stumping for him. Perhaps this is one of those moments when Obama’s minions might just get sobered up just a tad from the Kool Aide and realize that they bought a bill of goods.

It gets worse:

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Holy crapoli - Cheney? The man to whom we affectionately (cough) referred to as Darth Vader?? Whooey - this should be interesting:

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.”

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Yikes. Nothing like being called on the carpet by the president, I mean, VICE president, from the past 8 years. Ahem. I reckon Obama and his Chicago pals thought all of their blaming of the Bush Administration would silence that Administration. Apparently, they were not paying attention to how Cheney rolls over the last 8 years, either. I’m sure Obama/Emmanuel/Axelrove will come up with SOME dismissive statement about Cheney’s remarks, and still not do anything about Afghanistan, because that’s how THEY roll.

Just in case you are keeping score (or want to), the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll at Rasmussen Reports has Obama’s approval ratings at 49% as of Friday, Oct. 23rd.

But hey, these are just numbers. What are the people who formerly approved of Obama but are now sobering up saying? My good friend, Nunly, of Bad Habit fame, braved the Obamablogs, and found some mighty interesting comments by the Obama faithful. She was kind enough to leave this at my blog, and the comments in italics are her’s (she’s funny):

I went to look at AmericaBlog last night (I love to see what the Obots are up to) and thought you would LOVE to see what they think of Obama now. I’ve never seen so much whining, crying, gnashing of teeth since I told my kids they had to pay for their own car insurance.

…Aravosis has been covering the health care bill negotiations and I swear, the comments about Obama had me rolling on the floor laughing.

Here are a few of my favorite from that post. You could read the rest if you want, but they are all about the same.

Here goes..get your tissues out because you’re gonna laugh until you cry:

Mike_in_the_Tundra said:
I really don’t remember voting for Olympia Snow during the presidential campaign.

Montiel said:
Obama campaigned on a strong public option.

When push came to shove he ran the other way.

What does it matter now what he says - we already know who he is.

(Mary Ellen’s note: Then the following guy is trying to put the kool-aid stains on somebody else’s upper lip and throws in a little Christian bashing to finish it off.)

JohnnyG [Moderator] 10 hours ago 2 people liked this.
Even if this is proven true, the kool-aid drinkers will still ignore it. All they care about is his “historical presidency.” They’ll be more than happy to let his dirty dealings be swept under the rug. Much like how Christians view God, anything good is credited to Jesus (Barack) and anything bad is credited to the devil (Rahm, anyone else handy.)

PresPlatitudes said:
why isn’t obama pushing for the PO, instead of parading around on letterman like a vain opportunist?

(Below is my favorite comment!)

Judas Peckerwood
If Obama’s ultra-secret overarching goal for his presidency is to make the PUMAs look sane in retrospect, then all I can say is “Well played sir, well played indeed.”

(ROTFLMAO! They hate it that the PUMA’s were right!)

Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood) said:
Obviously, he was lying about wanting the public option. No money in that, after all it takes a billion to become president.

godwillsortyouout said:
For what it’s worth, in the 2008 Presidential campaign, McCain raised $8 million from people who worked for healthcare companies, including lots of executives.

Obama raised ** $19 million **. You do the math.

(They just figured that out? And HOW many times did we try to tell them that before and how did they reply? “Racist!” )

vkobaya said:
if President Obama isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise

No, no, of course, he isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise. No, like any card carrying Republican, he is trying to scuttle America, drag it down the tubes, destroy our nation, which he hates and despises.

I’m sick of the man. Revolted, bitter, and angry that I and so many others were played for suckers into voting for him. Would we have been worse off under McCain and Sarah Palin? Beginning to wonder. Probably would have been no different.

(More laughing…I thought “we” were the “bitter and angry” ones? Look who’s bitter now!)…

Oh, how low they have gone, just like Obama’s poll numbers. I would be more sympathetic if they hadn’t treated all of us like Pure-T crap, or demeaned and belittled Hillary Clinton at every turn, demonizing her, downplaying her vast accomplishments, the warmth, the compassion, the intellect, the experience…So, yeah, I hate it for them, but they have no one to blame but themselves for how they’re feeling now. See? Vetting the candidate really DOES matter! Wowie zowie, just like we said!! Sigh.

Well, all I can say is stay tuned - it’s bound to be interesting at any rate, right? Can’t wait to see what the coming week brings…

Well, and if that didn’t just beat all, dangit - I switched the channel to NOT have to watch him go on and on - and there he was on a COMMERCIAL. I thought I was safe going over to ESPN. Apparently not. Blech.

I swear, though, if I see that damn “Cha, Cha, Cha, Cha Chia” Obama commercial one more time, well, I’m not sure my tv is safe. And when they claim it’s a “great opportunity” to get one? Well, yes SOMEONE is being opportunistic, but I don’t think it is the buyer. Ahem.

Then there are the Sunday morning news shows. Because Obama hasn’t gotten his face on tv ENOUGH this week, or gone on and on about this faulty plan enough, he has to ruin our Sunday morning, too. On every channel except for Fox and Telemundo, as I understand it. Huh. Wassup with that? Ahahahahaha…

Oh - and about the SC representative who shouted out “You lie” Wednesday night, Joe Wilson? I admit, I had never heard of him before. The only Joe Wilson with whom I was familiar was the Ambassador, husband to Valerie Plame Wilson. But one thing’s for sure - he spoke the truth. Every day brings a new way in which that comes out.

And it isn’t like it hasn’t happened before, for heaven’s sake. Yes, a breach of decorum, but Democrats are hardly blameless as this post from Mere Rhetoric highlights. It’s happened. And it happened during The One’s Big 263rd Speech. It wasn’t right, but it wasn’t racism, either.

Hypocrisy is hardly the purview of one party, and the Democrats have made that ABUNDANTLY clear, especially with their little resolution denouncing Rep. Wilson, or whatever the heck it was they did to him. This is getting mighty tiresome, and it hasn’t even been a year yet. Oh, dang.

All I can say is: Thank heavens for Yankees baseball, and the incredible achievement of Derek Jeter. The night of the “big” speech, it allowed me to avoid the breathless adoration of the Obamaphants. Yes, my beloved Derek Jeter, the Captain of the Yankees, tied the Iron Horse’s record of 2,721 hits, which he has now surpassed. Unbelievable. And all the while he has been amassing these hits, with every milestone, his response has been the same - it is all about the team. Anyway, here is the big moment:

Pretty cool, right? Now that I could watch all day. Obama? Not so much.

How about you - are you as sick of seeing him spewing the same hollow crapola day in and day out? What else is on your mind?

And I have another number for you: 400. Yes, Saturday marks an inauspicious milestone. 400 is the number of Service Members who have been discharged under DADT during Obama’s Administration. 400 men and women whose lives were changed simply because of whom they love. 400 men and women who were willing to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way for us, for the U.S.A, and they have now been fired.

And here’s another number for you: $56,400. That is the average, approximate cost to train a service member for their first duty station by one estimate. $56,400 each for enlisted personnel, not officers, including when they first visit a Recruiter (these are 2006 figures, so it might be more now).

The average cost to train an officer? That number is: 120,772. If that officer happens to be a fighter pilot, you can go ahead and round that number up to: $1,450,000. Remember, these are just averages. The cost to train Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was $25,000,000. Fehrenbach, a decorated war hero, was fired from the Air Force under DADT.

And one last number for you: 9/11. Many people in this country were moved to do some kind of service to and for their country as a result of the attacks on 9/11, GLBT people included. Obama has been pushing this huge call to Service, including on 9/11/09. Secretary Clinton gave a speech on the Commemoration of the First Annual National Day of Service And Remembrance on 9/11. Presumably, the ability to serve one’s country should be open to ALL of its citizens.

Yet today, that ability is not. As of today, 400 Americans have been told their willingness to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way on her behalf, is neither desired nor accepted. 400 Americans have been told that the National Day of Service does not apply to them. 400.

How about those numbers?

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?

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh - how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time - HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes - that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) would like to amend that little joke he made earlier this week about Sarah Palin when he said he wished it had been the Alaska governor who had gone missing instead of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

“Too bad, if a governor had to go missing, it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin,” Kerry told a group of civic and business leaders on Tuesday, according to the Boston Herald. That, of course, was before he and the rest of us learned Sanford had lost himself in Argentina with his secret mistress.

Conservative women rushed to Palin’s defense after the Kerry joke. Ethel Fenig at American Thinker wrote, “Tee hee! Letterman, Kerry — all afraid of strong, independent women! Kerry should find a job with David Letterman — who would miss him?”

Heaven knows, they DO have a point - who even knew he was speaking to a group? Ahem.

But then, the Kerry people decided to comment further on the “joke”:

Kerry’s spokeswoman now tells The Sleuth the senator really didn’t mean what he said, though his clarification would hardly qualify as an apology.

“We stand corrected, the truth is every Democrat hopes Governor Palin is in the public eye for a long, long time, especially on the 2012 presidential ballot,” Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth says. “Lately it’s been Vice President Cheney that everyone hopes would lose the cameras and go for a long leisurely hike on the Appalachian Trail. And good grief, if anyone thinks John Kerry is afraid of strong, smart women, they sure haven’t met his brilliant wife and two independent daughters. It sounds like getting crushed these last two election cycles cost some of these Republicans their sense of humor.”

We’ll see how funny Palin finds this.

I see. So, apparently, they are planning to recycle all of the vicious rumors they trotted out this past time around, like how Sarah Palin banned a whole bunch of books while Mayor of Wasilla - which was quite prescient of her since some of them hadn’t even been WRITTEN yet. Or how about this one - and this was a GOOD one - it got all the anti-feminist feminists (you know the ones - the only liberated women can be liberals) in a tizzy: that she tried to charge rape victims the cost of the rape kits. According to Palin Rumors: Explorations, that us untrue:

No, she didn’t try to charge rape victims personally for rape kits. This is one of those complicated ones with a tiny hint of truth behind it. First, the Chief of Police in Wasilla (not Palin) did apparently have a policy of asking a victim’s health insurance to pay for the rape kit as part of the ER visit. This, it turns out, is policy in a number of states, including Missouri and North Carolina. Second, the way this became an issue was after the then-governor of Alaska signed a bill forbidding it; this law was signed before Palin was Governor and no one tried to reverse it while she was Governor. Third, what the CoP in Wasilla wanted to do was charge the perpetrator as part of restitution.

Or this one, that Palin believes dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve:

No, Sarah Palin doesn’t think that dinosaurs walked the earth with Adam and Eve 4000 years ago, In fact, this was a purposeful satire that comes from a post actually entitled Fake Governor Palin Quotes. This has, however, kept neither Matt Damon nor Maureen Dowd from propagating them as fact.

There are EIGHTY-FOUR such rumors about Sarah Palin at the Palin Rumors site, some true, but many false. Yet it seems to be the FALSE ones that get all the press, even when the press knows they are a bunch of hooey. Because that’s just how they roll these days.

And that is what makes me think that, hell yes, Sen. John Kerry is afraid of her, whether he has strong women around him or not. Because if he wasn’t, why start on her now? Yeah. He’s scared. And he’s also galvinizing people FOR her with such stupid comments. That just serves him right, if you ask me.

By the way, speaking of REAL comedians, if you ever get a chance to see Kathleen Madigcan’s special, “In Other Words,” she has a bit on John Kerry that is freakin’ hilarious (she, like many of us who voted for him, was a bit put out by the way he conducted himself while running against Bush. Speaking for myself, his blatant lie of counting every vote was a biggie - made me regret the money I sent him, and the vote I gave him since he couldn’t uphold even THAT promise. Sheesh.). Anyway, it is hysterical. She really captures his essence.

Oh, and Senator Kerry? Leave the jokes to the professionals, would ya??

WASHINGTON — As tens of thousands of Iranian protesters take to the streets in defiance of the government in Tehran, officials in Washington are debating whether President Obama’s response to Iran’s disputed election has been too muted. Mr. Obama is coming under increased pressure from Republicans and other conservatives who say he should take a more visible stance in support of the protesters.

Even while supporting the president’s approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

Other White House officials have counseled a more cautious approach, saying harsh criticism of the government or endorsement of the protests could have the paradoxical effect of discrediting the protesters and making them seem as if they were led by Americans. So far, Mr. Obama has largely followed that script, criticizing violence against the protesters, but saying that he does not want to be seen as meddling in Iranian domestic politics.

Even so, the Iranian government on Wednesday accused American officials of “interventionist” statements.

But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.

Clearly, if the President is taking a weak stand on this issue and the Iranian government is still criticizing us, President Obama’s laissez faire posture is not buying us much. I am curious why the objections of the VP and SoS would be voiced in this article? Political cover for the president should he say something and if it doesn’t go his way, he has someone to blame. Or do Clinton and Biden want to get their opposition on the record somehow…

Last night, Bret Baier’s FOX news panel, Juan Williams, Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes weighed in with a most interesting discussion. Certainly, President Obama’s comments at the top of this video sound tepid to the point of being clueless. Update to FOX’s discussion: Moussavi has not asked the protest to disband but has called for another day of protests with participants dressing in black to declare a day of mourning for those killed:

More from the Times:

The administration’s concern over how to calibrate the response to the protests in Iran reflects the competing goals Mr. Obama is trying to balance: keeping faith with democracy advocates in Iran while not staking out a position that is so tough that it kills any chance of engagement with the Iranian government on America’s national security interests, including the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s support for militant Islamist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Some criticism of the Obama administration’s cautious posture may be politically opportunistic, coming from rivals who are eager to draw distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, to portray the administration as generally weak when it comes to international confrontation.

But Mr. Obama also drew criticism from politically neutral observers when he said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC that from an American national security perspective, there was not much difference between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi, his closest competitor in the election.
(snip)
Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama’s measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.

Obviously, Iranian protesters don’t agree, otherwise they would not have taken to the streets.

“For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep,” said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. “It’s right for the administration to be cautious, but it’s extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we’re looking at what’s happening just through the lens of the nuclear program.”

Mr. Obama’s comments deflated Mr. Moussavi, who is rapidly becoming a political icon in Iran, even supporters of Mr. Obama’s Iran policy say.

“Up until now, the president had very thoughtfully calibrated his remarks on Iran, but this was an uncharacteristic and egregious error,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “People are risking their lives and being slaughtered in the streets because they want fundamental change in the way Iran is governed. Our message to them shouldn’t be that it doesn’t make much difference to the United States.”

Certainly we do have to exercise caution when remarking about the electoral process of other countries. It just strikes me that if we are proclaiming to be the beacon of democracy and tout free and fair elections, at the very least, it would be a good idea to speak out against slaughter.

What say you?

And that is this: Political payback. That’s right, targeting all those people through the takeover of the corporation, and screwing them to the wall. In this case, the title says it all: Furor Grows Over Partisan Car Dealer Closings. From the get-go, this doesn’t sound good. Here’s what’s happening:

Evidence appears to be mounting that the Obama administration has systematically targeted for closing Chrysler dealers who contributed to Repubicans. What started earlier this week as mainly a rumbling on the Right side of the Blogosphere has gathered some steam today with revelations that among the dealers being shut down are a GOP congressman and closing of competitors to a dealership chain partly owned by former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty.

The basic issue raised here is this: How do we account for the fact millions of dollars were contributed to GOP candidates by Chrysler who are being closed by the government, but only one has been found so far that is being closed that contributed to the Obama campaign in 2008?

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan learned from a House colleague that his Venice, Florida, dealership is on the hit list. Buchanan also has a Nissan franchise paired with the Chrysler facility in Venice.

“It’s an outrage. It’s not about me. I’m going to be fine,” said Buchanan, the dealership’s majority owner. “You’re talking over 100,000 jobs. We’re supposed to be in the business of creating jobs, not killing jobs,” Buchanan told News 10, a local Florida television station.

Buchanan, who succeeded former Rep. Katharine Harris in 2006, reportedly learned of his dealership’s termination from Rep.Candace Miller, R-MI. Buchanan owns a total of 23 dealerships in Florida and North Carolina.

Well, gee - what could POSSIBLY be wrong about government taking over corporations? So much for that bi-partisanship of which Obama spoke. Uh huh. Oh, but wait - it gets better:

Also fueling the controversy is the fact the RLJ-McCarty-Landers chain of Arkansas and Missouri dealerships aren’t being closed, but many of their local competitors are being eliminated. Go here for a detailed look at this situation. McClarty is the former Clinton senior aide. The “J” is Robert Johnson, founder of the Black Entertainment Television, a heavy Democratic contributor.

A lawyer representing a group of Chrysler dealers who are on the hit list deposed senior Chrysler executives and later told Reuters that he believes the closings have been forced on the company by the White House.

“It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers. It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force,” said attorney Leonard Bellavia.

RedState.com’s Josh Painter has a useful roundup of what has been found so far by a growing number of bloggers digging into what could be a very big story indeed. Also, see my column on this issue and how it fits into the larger context dubbed by the Examiner’s Michael Barone as “gangster government.”

As part of Chrysler’s bankruptcy agreement with the White House, the company plans to close roughly a quarter of its 3,200 dealerships. Lists of the dealerships being cut and those retaining their Chrysler franchises can be found here in pdf format. Many dealers contend the criteria being used to determine which dealerships survive is not clear and that many of those that are being closed in fact are profitable businesses, despite the current recession.

Mark Tapscott, author of the above article, does have an update available at the link above, but basically stands by his point here.

Tapscott’s point is a mighty frightening one. Remember when we thought BUSH was the most vindictive president we had ever seen? Obama is making him look like freakin’ Mother Theresa by comparison. THIS is exactly the problem with the White House taking over private companies, with OUR money, I might add. That mean-spirited, childish, churlish, arrogant vindictiveness toward anyone who didn’t support HIM. This isn’t a president, this is a dictator.

And THAT is un-Constitutional. Just add it to the list…

Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.

I refer to Americans United, Karl Rove and MoveOn as idiots, as all of them are hopelessly misinformed.

Rove believes the coordinated effort of the White House to pressure moderate Democrats through various advocacy groups will backfire. He is partially correct, but his reasoning is flawed. I quote Rove:

Every White House is faced with finding ways to nudge Congress without antagonizing it. But this overt campaign could infuriate members who won’t appreciate being targeted by a president of their own party. They could react by becoming recalcitrant. Should that happen, team Obama will have to recalculate its efforts, especially as the public sours on big spending plans.

Members of Congress will not simply become “recalcitrant” as a result of their personal disdain for Obama’s tactics; they will become recalcitrant as a result of all the Republican support they will receive from their constituents. Hence why I believe MoveOn and Americans United are idiots: attempting to incite certain Democrats to pressure certain Democratic moderates, their efforts will simply alert Republicans who probably never supported these Democrats that their Senator or House Representative is indeed a moderate. And not only will this engender Republican support for the moderate Democrats in question; it will also compel the Republicans and Democrats who voted against Obama in certain states to oppose Obama’s budget in a more active and vigorous manner. Moderate Democrats in Congress will then have electoral justifications to oppose Obama, and Republicans, Independents and Democrats who oppose Obama will have a new political signifier around which they can mobilize.

Consider Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, two Senate Democrats who represent southern states. Mary Landrieu beat her Republican opponent John N. Kennedy by 6 points last cycle, warding off a Republican surge that delivered a 59-40 victory to John McCain. The reaction against Obama in Louisiana almost derailed her reelection efforts, but she managed to win by citing her centrism and independence. Not only has that centrism and independence been confirmed by the ads Democratic organizations are launching against her; the Republicans who opposed her will now support her out of sympathy. As a result, she will receive supportive telephone calls from Louisiana Republicans who will urge her to oppose Obama’s budget. Moreover, her approval ratings will increase, complicating liberal advocacy groups’ efforts to render her unelectable. And yes, many Democratic groups would be satisfied if Mary Landrieu lost a reelection. Some Democrats, in fact, believe she deserves no respect. But to the chagrin of these Democratic activists, their botched efforts to make her political life difficult will only garner her more support from the Republicans who would otherwise oppose her.

Blanche Lincoln will run for reelection in 2010, and the results of the 2008 Presidential election in Arkansas are certainly not in her favor. In fact, McCain clobbered Barack Obama by a margin of 20 points in Arkansas, a margin that would make any Democratic incumbent nervous. Republicans are targeting her for her potential support of Card Check, while some Democrats derisively characterize her as the Democrat of Wal-Mart. This is certainly a stressful position for a Democrat who hopes to cobble together the coalition required to win in 2010 in a state that rejects the current Democratic President to whom she will be tied. But now that liberal advocacy groups are airing advertisements and complaining about Lincoln on the telephone lines of Arkansans, Republicans will rally behind her, and they may even cast votes for her in 2010. Americans United and MoveOn think they are blackmailing Lincoln with the threat of political death, but they are in fact increasing her popularity in her state, thereby handing her justification to oppose Obama’s budget and agenda. Some actions have inadvertent consequences.

Rove is incorrect when he claims moderate Democrats will react personally to Obama’s efforts to manufacture grassroots opposition to their centrism, and MoveOn and Americans United are incorrect when they believe their Washington, DC, advocacy will yield results in Louisiana and Arkansas. All of them are idiots, as all of them are misinformed, and all their efforts are misguided. But at least Democrats who struggle to win south of the Mason-Dixon line will remain in office as a result of the idiocy of some groups’ version of advocacy. For similar to Bill and Hillary Clinton, these Democrats understand the predicaments and the paradoxes that sustain the Democratic Party in the South. Republicans and the operatives surrounding Obama, on the other hand, do not. Obama, after all, admires Reagan, and Reagan, to be sure, is anything but an expert on Democratic politics.

You silly fools who praised the speech and writings of Rep. Paul Ryan! Honestly! What’s WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??? Here’s what TPM’s Josh Marshall has to say about Rep. Ryan and the idiots (that’d be you too) who applauded the fiscally cautious budget:

I realize that it doesn’t afford me a lot of opportunities for personal or spiritual growth. But I’m nonetheless comforted by the fact that the Republicans running things in the House GOP caucus are still as clinically insane as in years past.

There are plenty of others including the Washington Monthly’s sage Steve Benen,

Besides, what is WRONG with a debt of a few trillion dollars? Huh? Well, about nine years ago, the left-swinging writers for the drama, The West Wing, thought the cost required for equitable slave reparations was so huge that we’d have to sell “Texas and the U.S. Navy”!

In this scene, “Josh (Bradley Whitford) is assigned to talk with the administration’s controversial nominee (Carl Lumbly) for assistant attorney general for civil rights who advocates that African-Americans receive financial reparations for slavery.”

The nominee tells Josh how much slave reparations will cost, which is … well, you watch the video … and you’ll KEEL OVER at the total amount:

But that was nine years ago. Today, a trillion here, a trillion there … come on, people. Times change! Those West Wing writers must be MORTIFIED that they wrote that line that Josh utters.

Oh, you want to know what those other leftie writers said about you and yours today? Steve Benen titled his post, “A BUDGET PERFECT FOR APRIL FOOLS’ DAY….” Ouchie. And what an ORIGINAL LINE! WOW! What a writer Benen is!

Rumor has it that Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, is one of the House GOP Caucus’ sharper members. He has a reputation for knowing what he’s talking about, and doing his homework. So, when I saw that he’d written an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal about the GOP’s budget alternative, I was anxious to see what he’d come up with.

To be sure, the roll-out for the alternative budget has been a rather humiliating fiasco, as evidenced by the Republican decision to unveil a budget with no numbers in it. And we won’t really be able to scrutinize the proposal until the caucus decides to release some, you know, data.

[...]

the “borrow-and-spend philosophy” did not create the crisis, so Ryan’s prescription is automatically based on a misdiagnosis. But even if we put that aside, the alternative budget reflects a political party that embraced a breathtakingly radical worldview.

[...]

It’s almost as if Ryan and his Republican colleagues are trying to destroy the economy. As Pat Garofalo recently explained, “The economic stimulus package’s main purpose is to close the GDP gap and jumpstart the economy by spurring spending by households, government and the private sector. A spending freeze would act as an ‘anti-stimulus,’ cutting spending precisely when it’s too low and the economy is moving too slowly.”

[...]

And if Paul Ryan is what passes today as a sane partisan, the Republican Party has a long way to go before it can sit at the big kids’ table.

See? With you people acting like a trillion here, a trillion there is a big deal, we’re never gonna get out of this recession.

What, you say? Recessions are cyclical and go away on their own? But, but … we have an opportunity here! Carpe diem, people! Spend, spend, spend! China loves us, and wants to give us lots of money. (I wonder why they love doing that so much. Huh.)

Let me pile on some more Josh Marshall, in case you need it:

We see today from their House GOP ‘budget’ that their new-found allegiance to fiscal discipline has them lowering the top marginal tax rate to 25% (it’s currently 35%, with the Bush tax cuts), which for anyone who knows anything about the federal budget would pretty much inevitably lead to gargantuan federal deficits and the Treasury exploding probably some time early in the next decade. They manage to still have the deficits coming down by bunch of nonsense hokum about oil rigs and other foolery.

Treasury is going to explode?!?!?! Wow.

This part I just don’t understand. Do you?

As you can see, predicting ideological stances over as yet unborn Democratic members of Congress, the GOP scoring appears to have us on track for the government owning about 90% of the economy in the early-mid-22nd century, which if I remember is about the time period of the invention of the warp drive. So I don’t know if they’ve figured that in too.

Then Marshall added an update, which I also don’t understand because, well, I am not a Trekkie. So? What’s it to ya?!?!?!?

(ed.note: Alas, I’m not the Star Trek aficionado I once was or flattered myself to be, I guess. Turns out warp drive is invented in 2063, almost two decades before the current House GOP budget projections.)

I think I’m supposed to laugh.

But mostly at you.

Hahahahahahahahaha. Ha!!!

Part 1
In this clip, Geithner wears both the political and policy hats. While promoting the Obama agenda initially (housing, education, healthcare, energy), he then turns toward the specifics of unlocking the consumer credit securitization markets via the TALF (Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility). This facility attempts to restart the securitization market and model which I wrote was broken back on November 12th (The Wall Street Model Is Broken…and Won’t Soon be Fixed). That market provides approximately 40% of the financing to a wide array of consumer finance markets. Geithner attempts to portray a measure of confidence and aggressiveness. The market has currently responded with a vote of no confidence.

Part 2
Geithner addresses further specifics about the TALF and the public/private partnership that would be connected to the effort. The specifics of this public/private partnership are not addressed but, in essence, the government would provide financing (loans) for private entities to purchase asset-backed securities currently clogging bank balance sheets. Geithner does not provide specifics on the terms of the loans and MORE IMPORTANTLY does not address the fact that the government will likely share in the losses on these securities going forward. I believe many private investors are salivating at the potential for this program. Our Economic All Star John Mauldin commented that this partnership is the equivalent of government money coming in the front door and going to hedge funds out the back door. Mauldin proposes a suspension of the “mark to market” accounting rule that forces banks to mark these securities to depressed levels in the presence of no buyers.

Geithner defends his aborted initial delivery on his grand plan as “mismanaged expectations.” He also inaccurately describes mortgage rates as being close to 5%. The “mortgage mirage,” in which many people can not get a mortgage, has 30 year conventional mortgage rates closer to 5.5% and Jumbo rates in the 7% range, but virtually inaccessible.

Part 3
Geithner is forceful in this clip in stating that the government will stand behind the 20 largest banking institutions. These banks represent approximately 70% of the banking industry and - without using the phrase - Geithner is saying they’re “too big to fail.” He defends the capital injected as ultimately being in the best interests of the economy and taxpayers. He rails on the mismanagement and gross compensation practices at many of these institutions. He appreciates the anger and outrage of responsible people who are sufferring from the damage caused by those who have been irresponsible. All good.

When addressing the need for global regulatory changes as well as domestic regulatory changes, I suggest Secretary Geithner listen to former Australian Prime Minister and Treasurer Paul Keating who undressed him this past weekend. Keating opines that the IMF and World Bank will see a massive shift in power to the surplus economies of the East from the debtor economies of the West. Here at home, when Geithner talks about focused accountability, let’s see if he and the Obama administration effect the necessary changes in the corrosive influence of lobbyists as well as addressing the incompetence displayed at the SEC and FINRA.

Part 4
Geithner attempts to make the case that investors, both foreign and domestic, will continue to invest in our country and our U.S. government debt if they have confidence. The administration has the obligation to maintain that confidence. The first step in maintaining the confidence is displayed in the budget proposed by President Obama. Geithner puts his political hat back on in promoting the Obama agenda as being economically sound, laced with fiscal discipline, and promoting their moral obligation.

Investors are less sure about Geithner’s feelings and have voiced their indecision by exiting the markets since this budget was proposed.

Geithner further addresses the necessity for individuals, corporations, and governments to live within their means. Investors have roundly responded that they believe this administration and Congress are doing anything but living within their means given the undisciplined spending in the Stimulus plan, the budget, and the Omnibus Bill.

Geithner uses the lessons of the ’90s as justification for raising taxes going forward. He prefaces his remarks that taxes will only be raised “when the economy recovers.” Charlie Rose appropriately challeneges him on the overly optimistic economic assumptions utilized in the budget. I would ask why the base case GDP in the Bank Stress Test of 2% growth in 2010 is not the same level of GDP used in Obama’s budget. The budget assumes 3.2% !!

Part 5
In this clip, Geithner is largely wearing his political hat. He defends the Administration’s vetting process as he staffs Treasury. He further pushes the Obama agenda. In regards to criticism he has experienced, he responds that it is purely part of the job.

On the auto front, he dodges the question of bankruptcy.

Charlie Rose then questions him on what he has learned so far in his role as Treasury Secretary. Geithner responds that many may not know that he spent a large part of his career at Treasury serving under Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He holds them in very high regard and seems to promote that respect for them is universal. He does not address that Rubin was at the core of the lack of regulatory oversight that we have had for the last decade, as well as being the prime architect of the massive systemic risk that Citibank has developed.

When asked if he could see the problems developing that now envelop our economy, Geithner ducks in stating that most people missed it.

Part 6
Geithner remarks that both capitalism and our financial system have already changed and will continue to change as the necessary regulatory systems are put in place.

Geithner further adds that he is confident America will respond to this crisis because it is not a question of ability but a question of will. He believes this Administration possesses the will to make every necessary move to restore our economy.

In my personal opinion, it is also most definitely about ability as well. Do we have the measure of integrity and quality in our elected officials? Chuck Hagel, Leon Panetta and others have railed on the corrupt system of lobbying, campaign contributions, and persistent fundraising that has polluted our country and the process of government. While the Obama Administration has spoken about addressing parts of these issues, their actions and policy proposals to date indicate otherwise.

I found the Geithner interview to be interesting, while not exactly enlightening.

He is both politician and policy maven. To this point, the markets have graded him as decidedly mediocre. Although, to be fair, Washington as a whole is graded no better.

LD

Video provided by CheneyWatch.org for NoQuarterUsa.net YouTube channel

I was struck a month ago by the incriminating statements put forth by Senator Chuck Hagel and CIA head Leon Panetta, which I highlighted on February 16th in Legalized Bribery. Those statements bluntly indict our massive system of lobbying, political fundraising, and the quality of those running for elected office! In light of that article, I am more and more convinced that our elected officials have turned their offices into massive for profit machines at the expense of our public well being.

I commend the authors of this report, Roger Weissman and James Donahue, for taking the time and making the extensive effort to expose the truth. The full report, 231 pages in length, spares no detail. In studying it, I found the information and analysis riveting. Let me try to summarize it for you.

The report chronicles in real detail how Wall Street showered Washington with $1.7 billion in campaign contributions and $3.4 billion upon lobbyists over the last ten years. That money went from the lowest members of Congress to the President of the United States. 55% of the contributions went to Republicans and 45% went to Democrats. Yes, a truly bipartisan effort.

The authors are beyond thorough in laying out how the . . .

financial sector showered campaign contributions on politicians from both parties, invested heavily in a legion of lobbyists, paid academics and think tanks to justify their preferred policy positions, and cultivated a pliant media — especially a cheerleading business media complex.

The report highlights the electricity crisis in California in 2000 and the Enron debacle as precursors of our current situation.

They quote FDR in his statement, “our enemies of today are the forces of privilege and greed within our own borders.” The same clearly holds true today.

Where were our leaders with the vision and foresight to protect the public? Feeding at the Wall Street trough!! Let’s review what the $5.1 billion bought Wall Street and who in Washington facilitated the process. Later I will highlight a number of politicians who collected substantial amounts of these dollars.

Part I : What Did the Money Buy?

1. the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated commercial and investment banking activities. This act came out of the Great Depression. Former Fed chair Paul Volker supported Glass-Steagall in the late 90’s and still does today. The expected repeal of this Act allowed for the merger of Citibank and Travelers Insurance even before the formal repeal. President Clinton, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Congressman Phil Gramm, and Fed Chair Alan Greenspan were the primary supporters of this repeal.

2. the allowance of off-balance sheet accounting which promoted the increased leverage in banks.

3. the executive branch rejects financial derivative regulation. The CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Corp), led by Brooksley Born’s effort, sought to exert regulatory control over derivatives. The CFTC was squashed by Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan. Then Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers told Congress that CFTC proposals would cast regulatory uncertainty over a thriving market. Aside from Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers, Senator Richard Lugar and SEC Chair Arthur Levitt also supported the Clinton administration’s lack of regulatory oversight.

4. Congress also blocked financial derivative regulation through legislation engineered by Senator Phil Gramm.

5. in 2004, the SEC succumbed to massive lobbying by Wall Street allowing for voluntary regulation. This acquiescence is the grossest example of the inmates running the asylum. In 1975, the SEC ruled that debt to net capital ratios had to be less than 12 to 1. This “voluntary regulation” led by Goldman Sachs and then CEO Henry Paulson allowed investment banks to develop their own net capital requirements. Merrill Lynch went to a 40:1 ratio. Then SEC chair Chris Cox acknowledged this voluntary regulation was a complete failure!

6. the bank self-regulation goes global.

7. the total failure to police the mortgage banking industry and its predatory lending. People may never have heard of outfits such as Aames Financial, Delta Funding, Ameriquest, Long Beach, and many more. These firms propagated massive frauds in lending to unqualified borrowers. They need to be brought to justice.

8. the federal government preempted a number of state consumer protection laws which would have mitigated a lot of the predatory lending.

9. the government allowed for purchasers of loans to escape accountability. Only the original mortgage lender would be liable for the predatory and illegal features embedded in the mortgages. This immunization of the investment banks eliminated their legal exposures and facilitated the continuation of fraudulent lending practices.

10. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expand their footprints into the non-prime mortgage market. Many politicians fed from the Freddie and Fannie troughs, but nobody more than Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

11. the merger mania in the banking industry has led to institutions now deemed “too big to fail.” This report believes these institutions should now be treated like highly regulated public utilities.

12. the debacle that played out with the rating agencies only further facilitated this mess. These agencies were and still are massively conflicted.

Part II: Who Paid What and Who Collected How Much 1998-2008?

– Commercial Banks spent $154 million in campaign contributions and $383 million on lobbyists.

— Accounting Firms spent $81 million in campaign contributions and $122 million on lobbyists.

— Insurance Companies spent $220 million in campaign contributions and $1.1 billion on lobbyists!!

— Investment Banks spent $512 million in campaign contributions and $600 million on lobbyists.

A very large percentage of the lobbyists were former government officials!!

While the report makes a number of recommendations, a few strike me as self-evident and vitally necessary:

1. derivatives must be regulated.
2. limited leverage within financial institutions
3. revise the compensation system for financial institutions so timing of reward is linked to elimination of risk
4. consumer advocacy groups

The list of politicians receiving the largesse runs approximately 80 pages and covers the Presidency to seemingly every member of Congress. I was also struck by the consistency of contributions received during each election cycle by Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Dodd (D-CT). Schumer represents the Wall Street territory while Dodd has been a longtime senior ranking official on the Senate Banking committee.

As I perused the financial data specifically for 2008, I paused and reflected on the fact that these institutions were, and to a large extent still are in dire financial straits. While in the process of receiving government support, they had made or were making campaign contributions. As the government has haphazardly reviewed expenditures at these organizations, let’s shed the floodlight right back on these campaigns. It is not difficult to track campaign contributions to politicians back to taxpayer funds injected into these firms. In light of that, I know it will never happen but I believe the political campaigns should return those dollars to the public. Who received how much money in 2008? While not totally comprehensive, my back of the envelope analysis shows the following:

Barack Obama: $3.9 million
John McCain: $2.1 million
Hillary Clinton: $2.5 million
Rudolph Giuliani: $1.1 million
Chris Dodd: $650k
Mitt Romney: $1.060 million
Rham Emanuel: 160k

President Obama, Madame Secretary and gentlemen, please make those checks payable to “American Taxpayer” and let’s begin to return some integrity to our political process.

Where’s the media to shed light on this travesty? Oh yes, they are compliant and cheerleading.

Robert Rubin, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Greenspan can,
Alan Greenspan, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Paulson can,
Henry Paulson, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Dodd can,
Chris Dodd, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Gramm can,
Phil Gramm, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, Obama can…

Uh, oh!! We got real problems!!

LD

**Cross-posted from my blog, Sense on Cents. Come by and visit!

Personally, I love listening to what Zo has to say, and he offers perspectives on issues that I have never considered. This video tackles the attacks on Rush, from the left. Take a listen, and then share your comments below. I’d love to know your thoughts.

And just for fun, this video from Red Eye, that calls Garafalo and Olbermann out for their attacks on Limbaugh.

It was the kinds of attitudes expressed by Olbermann and Garafalo that Hillary supporters endured during the primary, and what led to my exudus from the party.

Let’s review my specific projections from the January 2009 Recap:

For those who track the markets, there is a 75-80% correlation in the annual moves in equity markets with the performance in January. Without parsing words, this performance in January portends a very challenging year for our equity markets. All eyes and ears remain focused on Washington for a comprehensive financial rescue package (Bank Transition, insurance for other assets, aid to stem foreclosures, et al). Trade the range for now with a very wide band. Buy the S&P as it approaches 750 and sell it as it moves above 900. Otherwise….be patient!!

In the bond space, I did believe and continue to believe that despite the Fed and Treasury promoting the concept of quantitative easing (using the Fed’s balance sheet to buy Treasury, agency, and mortgage related assets), these rates will work their way higher simply due to the MASSIVE financing needs of our government and global governments.

The corporate bond space, led by high yield bonds, had very solid returns this month. As we mentioned, we thought these sectors had already priced in the economic turmoil to a much greater extent than the stock markets. High yield bonds were up almost 10% on the month. I would not add to that sector after that performance.

The dollar inched lower versus the Japanese yen. I believe the dollar will continue to weaken versus the yen, as well as the Canadian dollar. The U.S. dollar dramatically outperformed the Euro and the British pound. The economic situation in Europe is just as bad, if not worse, than in U.S. In fact, a number of European countries are being seriosuly challenged to raise funds. Sovereign credit risks (the risk that a government defaults) have risen considerably.

In the world of commodities, gold outperformed due to the global government credit risk, the threat of longer term inflation, and weakness in currencies. Oil remains very volatile but ended the month down 2.5%. Metals remain weak with anemic demand.

Add it all up and what is one to do? In my estimation, an investor is being paid to WAIT before making any major capital commitments. For those who are significantly underweighted stocks, a dollar cost averaging (add a fixed dollar amount on a regular basis versus one lump sum at one point in time) approach is always recommended. I am not going out on a limb to say that we will retest the lows (down another 7-9%) seen on November 20th.

Well, we have retested those November 20th lows and on the last two days of the month took them out by 2-3%. We are now down anywhere from 12-19% across the board for most stock indices on a year to date basis.

In a normal market environment, if stocks gave ground by 2-4%, one would expect government bonds to rally in a “flight to quality” move. The fact that equities are down 11% for the month and government rates have moved HIGHER is a clear indication that the overwhelming supply of government bonds to finance our deficit will continue to be a major issue going forward. The market absorbed well more than $150 billion in government supply (bills to 30 year bonds) this month. In the face of that, it is no surprise that rates moved higher. The question for investors is where does one go.

The enormous government supply along with the weakness in stocks did put a dent in the credit sensitive sectors of the bond market this month. The “crowding out” effect (government financing needs crowd out the availability of capital to flow to private enterprise) will continue to be a major problem.

In very volatile trading, the U.S. dollar did improve primarily versus the Japanese yen while only marginally versus the Euro (although it is significantly stronger vs the Euro on a year to date basis). As I mentioned to a reader, the yen seems to have weakned as many hedge funds have finished unwinding trades in which they had borrowed the yen. I missed this call and thus I was clearly wrong that the dollar would still weaken vs the yen.

Gold is up solidly on the year but actually had gotten higher than $1,000/oz during the month. I do not invest in gold simply due to a highly speculative contingent that plays in this commodity. I think many funds and managers have purchased this commodity as a safe haven move but are willing to sell those positions out for short term profits.

The BIG question is where do we go from here. Should I buy stocks here? Should I sell? Should I hold? Obviously, those are questions that can only be answered based on one’s personal situation. All I can offer is my assessment of the markets, the economy, Washington, Wall Street and hope it helps you navigate your own financial and economic landscape.

While the markets have retraced back to those November 20th lows and even moved lower by 2-3%, I still can not make a case for buying the market. Why? Very simply because overall market valuations do NOT clearly and distinctly display themselves as cheap. You may ask how is it that markets that are now down 50+% are not cheap. Remember that stock prices are a measure of forward earnings and the multiple paid for those earnings. A fair multiple is typically between 12-18% but in bear markets that multiple can get decidedly cheaper than 12. Let’s take a multiple of 15 times. At yesterday’s close of 735, that equates to an earnings projection on the S&P 500 of $49/share. That is overly optimistic and hopeful and thus the risk remains too high relative to the reward.

I always traded and invested based on the premise that “hope is a lousy hedge” meaning that one needs to fully review the risks prior to investing and not “close your eyes, buy in because it is down a lot, and HOPE it works.” I do think we are approaching a stage where the market may still move lower but then start more of a sideways price action. Why? Very simply because the volumes are declining on a lot of exchanges which indicate the selling pressure is abating. That said, I think investors are in NO rush to buy.

I actually have somewhat greater concerns about bonds than stocks. Why? I think a lot of investors have rushed into the bond market, that supply of bonds will increase not only in the government space but also the municipal space as towns, cities and states deal with their budgetary problems. Corporate bonds were very cheap relative to stocks coming into the year but have dramatically outperformed in the first two months. Given that a lot of investors in the corporate bond space are newer investors (looking for a place to park money), I think bonds across all sectors may start to weaken from here.

The U.S. dollar is benefitting from a flight to quality move given the major political and social issues elsewhere in the world. Additionally, as the U.S. government has shown it will not allow major banks to fail (although the banks’ shareholders can and will be diluted), a lot of money has flowed into the dollar. I think the Canadian dollar and Australian currency are fundamentally stronger than the U.S. dollar at this point.

In regard to Washington and its impact on the economy and markets, it strikes me that the Obama administration is hellbent on implementing as much of its social program and liberal agenda as quickly as possible. The markets are sending a very clear signal that his agenda is not pro-growth, investor friendly, or fiscally sound. He’s the President and the electorate sent the Republicans home, so we need to let our democratic process work. That said, the markets do not and will not stand idly by “HOPING” things work out.

I do firmly believe we will work our way through these economic challenges, but it will be a longer and harder road than most market analysts and political pundits would promote. Maintaining hope is a critically important part of our country and our moral fiber. I am ALWAYS hopeful, but I am not blindly hopeful. That would be called willful neglect.

Check out the piece, Buy and Hope Investing, written by John Mauldin, one of our Economic All-Stars (see left sidebar at Sense on Cents).

One thing I truly hope is that you find Sense on Cents helps you to navigate the economic landscape and that you will share the site with your friends.

LD

UPDATE: 7:08 p.m. PT — Batchelor’s show is on now! WIth very dramatic music! I love his pacing, his guests, his mood, his music! Talking about Geithner and the bank executives. Larry will join them at 7:35.

Original: Don’t miss Larry Johnson, a Sunday night regular expert guest on the great national AM radio show hosted by John Batchelor, one of the sharpest analysts in all of radio (or television). John hosts a provocative, fascinating show that also makes you think (a rare double offering on AM radio). Listen live here via Los Angeles AM station KFI 640, starting at 7:00 p.m. PT. (Drop by early if you haven’t listened before since you may need to download a small, easy-to-install piece of software to listen.)

Tonight’s focus: ““Tim Geithner Problem” Special. Here’s the 7:35 p.m. PT roundtable group and its topics:

735P: Professional Roundtable with Jodi Schneider , CQ , Larry Johnson, No Quarter and State (ret), Ken Silverstein, Harper’s, re the Obama presser, the Geithner speech, the stimulus package in conference, the Gregg nomination blows up, the stimulus bill withouth the GOP.

Check out the full slate of guests and topics, all starting at 7:05 p.m. PT.

BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: Rasmussen poll shows only 37% in favor of the bill, and 43% now opposed. (Details at end of article.)

Susan will smack me up side the head for not doing a piece today on A. Q. Kahn, but I’ll do that later. For now I want to focus on the disinformation and ignorance being spread by Barack Obama, many in the media, and many other politicians on both sides of the political spectrum. We are in this economic disaster because George W. Bush, with the help of first a Republican Congress and later a Democratic Congress, ran up unprecedented budget deficits. Here are the numbers. When George W. Bush took office our pubic debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64. When George Bush walked out the door the debt had ballooned to $10,628,881,485,510.20. Do you understand? The debt grew by $5 trillion in eight years. Heck of a job Bushie.

And so what is the economic answer offered by the Obama team–BORROW MORE GODDAMN MONEY WE DON’T HAVE.

Let’s start with some fundamental principles. There are three basic types of people–people who earn income by selling products or services to non-governmental entities, people who earn or receive income from governmental entities, and people who are dependent on one of the first two classes of people. We no longer live in a society in which most of the people earn money that is not provided–either directly or indirectly–by the Federal Government. In the real world there are very few people or businesses who do not earn income in one form or fashion by selling products or services to the government. If you own a Starbucks in downtown Washington the odds are you will sell the bulk of your hot joe to folks who work for the U.S. Government. You may feel like a proud entrepreneur but face it–you too are sucking off the tit of Uncle Sam.

We may like to kid ourselves that someone who is in the Army, the Marines, the CIA or the FBI is in a different category than a welfare mom who gets a monthly check from the Feds but truth be told, no one who works for the Federal (or state or local governments for that matter) are producing wealth. I am not saying their work has no value, but if you are looking for someone who will be an independent source of money for the Federal Government the people and companies who get a check from the U.S. Treasury ain’t them.

So how does the Federal Government get money to pay these government workers and do all sorts of “wonderful” things?

Only two ways–collect taxes from people and companies or borrow money. Cash and Treasury checks do not grow on trees. If the Government increases the taxes that people or companies that are generally independent of the government must pay then that has a negative effect on growth. Do you understand why? If you have $1000 dollars you can either buy goods or services or put the money in savings. If you are buying burgers, cars, or toilette paper you are putting your money back into the economy. That helps put money in the pockets of other people. If you put it in savings you create a pot of money that someone like, oh, let’s say Uncle Sam, can borrow.

So what happens if you have to give $200 of the $1000 to Uncle Sugar? You have less money to spend.

The current economic crisis was not caused because the all-seeing, all knowing Federal Government gave you too much of your money back. Yet, Barack “I Don’t Know Shit About Economics” Obama insists that the tax cuts somehow created the current disaster. He conveniently ignores the deficit that a Republican President with the cooperation of both a Republican and Democratic Congress ran up in the last eight years.

Go check out what happened to the public debt during the Clinton Administration compared to the Bush W. Administration. It is jaw dropping:

Public debt increased by $1,539,684,631,121.04 under Bill Clinton. That is almost 1.6 trillion dollars in eight years.

But George W. Bush robbed us—the public debt grew by an addition $4,901,104,747,205.56. Got it? Ninety-nine million shy of 5 trillion dollars.

What happens when you borrow more money in eight years than you can repay? That’s right–can you say, “global depression?”

So what does Barack Obama and the compliant Congress want to do? Add more than a trillion dollars to our already astronomical debt. They are ignoring the first rule of crisis management–when in a hole, stop digging.

Here’s some more news to consider:

Here’s what the GAO reported about the first year of the Bush Administration:

As of September 30, 2002 and 2001, federal debt managed by BPD totaled about $6,213 billion and $5,792 billion, respectively. For the first time since fiscal year 1993, as a result of the current weak economy coupled with various tax and spending decisions, debt held by the public as a percentage of the annual size of the U.S. economy increased. Further, certain trust funds continue to run cash surpluses, resulting in increased intragovernmental debt holdings. These debt holdings represent a priority call on future budgetary resources. During fiscal year 2002, two debt issuance suspension periods were invoked to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit. On June 28, 2002, legislation was enacted to raise the debt limit by $450 billion to $6.4 trillion. Current projections are that this new limit will be reached in fiscal year 2003.

By the last year of the Bush Administration the budget was out of control:

As of September 30, 2008 and 2007, federal debt managed by BPD totaled about $10,011 billion and $8,993 billion, respectively. As shown in figure 1 below, total federal debt increased over each of the last 4 fiscal years. During the last 4 fiscal years, managing the federal debt has continued to be a challenge as evidenced by the growth of total federal debt by $2,632 billion, or 36 percent, from $7,379 billion as of September 30, 2004, to $10,011 billion as of September 30, 2008. In fiscal year 2008 alone, total federal debt increased by $1,018 billion, the single largest annual increase in history. Of this amount, about $760 billion was from the increase in debt held by the public, which included $300 billion in cash management bills issued in September 2008 under the Supplementary Financing Program initiated by Treasury. The remaining increase in federal debt of about $258 billion was from intragovernmental debt holdings. On July 30, 2008, legislation was enacted to raise the statutory debt limit from $9,815 billion to $10,615 billion. In addition, in response to the nation’s growing financial crisis, on October 3, 2008, the President signed into law legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion in troubled assets from financial institutions. This legislation increased the statutory debt limit by $700 billion to $11,315 billion. These increases in the statutory debt limit were the fourth and fifth such occurrences since fiscal year 2004.

And it is not the fault of the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts (thru 2008) cost us $1.447 trillion dollars. Bush and the Democrats spent an additional $3.6 trillion above and beyond the money “taken” from the Feds by the tax cuts. Where in the hell did that money go?

If Barack Obama is allowed to get away with bamboozling the American public that the economic crisis was caused by tax cuts then the future of our economy is doomed. I do not say that as a Republican or a Democrat. I say that as an American.

BREAKING NEWS on Rasmussen Reports Poll:

Support for the economic recovery plan working its way through Congress has fallen again this week. For the first time, a plurality of voters nationwide oppose the $800-billion-plus plan.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Related survey data shows that half the nation’s voters say the plan that finally emerges from Congress may end up doing more harm than good.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? Sign up now. If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls).

Despite the declining support, 78% say it is at least somewhat likely that the economic recovery package proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats will become law during Obama’s first 100 days in office. That figure includes 36% who say passage is Very Likely. That latter figure is down significantly from a week ago when 52% said passage of the legislation was Very Likely.

A stimulus plan that includes only tax cuts is now more popular than the economic recovery plan being considered in Congress. Forty-five percent (45%) favor a tax-cut only plan while 34% are opposed. Those figures reflect a modest increase in support over the past week. Candidate Obama campaigned heavily on a promise to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans, and voters strongly believe that tax cuts are good for the economy. Most Americans believe that a dollar of tax cuts is better for the economy than a dollar of government spending.

A stimulus plan with tax cuts only is supported by 64% of Republicans, 31% of Democrats and 46% of unaffiliated voters. It is opposed by 17% of Republicans, 46% of Democrats and 35% of unaffiliated voters. Obama initially proposed $350 billion for tax cuts in the recovery plan, but the congressional Democratic leadership lowered this to $275 billion to make way for more spending.

Going to the other extreme, 72% of voters oppose a stimulus plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts.

Forty-six percent (46%) of voters remain concerned that the government will do too much in reacting to the nation’s economic problems. Forty-one percent (41%) are concerned that the government will do too little.

… Read all.