Buyers’ Remorse ? - Page 8 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 09-22-2009, 03:20 PM

Obama’s climate change speech: Choosing fear over hope
Posted by: Sister Toldjah on September 22, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Via Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...phe-addressed/

Quote:

President Obama promised the United Nations Tuesday that his administration is “determined” to do more to address the nation’s climate change obligations.

But left out of the speech to the General Assembly special session on climate change was the political reality the president faces in trying to keep that promise.

While the House passed a sweeping climate change bill this year, it has stalled in the Senate as health care reform dominates the domestic agenda.

Yet Obama asserted Tuesday that, while the United States was slow to respond to the global warming threat, his administration is doing more to combat climate change than any in history.

He touted progress that has been made during his term, including new standards for fuel efficiency in automobiles and the House version of the so-called cap-and-trade bill — which he called the most important part of U.S. efforts.

“We understand the gravity of the climate threat. We are determined to act. And we will meet our responsibility to future generations,” he said.

Obama warned that a failure to address the problem could create an “irreversible catastrophe.” Obama said time is “running out” to fix the problem but that, “we can reverse it.”

What was that you said last year about “choosing hope over fear,” Mr. President? http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...ot-getting-it/

And does he even have a clue about how arrogant it is to state that human beings have the power to completely “reverse” climate change?

And speaking of climate change arrogance, I wonder if Prince Charles will be giving up his Audis and Jags? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...transport.html

Quote:

The Prince, who has two Jaguars, two Audis, a Range Rover and still drives an Aston Martin given to him by the Queen on his 21st birthday, said developers had a duty to put public transport and the pedestrian at the heart of their housing schemes.

Speaking about the “domination of the car over the pedestrian”, the future King said: “We must surely be able to organise ourselves… in ways in which we are not dependent on it to such a great extent for our daily needs.”

The Prince said the principle of “elevating the pedestrian above the car” was one of the guiding factors of Poundbury – his model development in Dorset. The importance of “pedestrian friendly public space” is central to the Poundbury ethos.

This kind of public transport-oriented development is fundamental to achieving the ultimate goal of a low carbon community, and it is very likely that such communities, far from being austere, will actually become the sought-after places where people will choose to live and spend their time.”

We anxiously wait for the Prince to lead by setting an example instead of continuing to be another one http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ivate-jet.html in a long line of climate change hypocrites http://www.seattlepi.com/national/342281_bali05.html (more here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...-friendly.html).

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...ear-over-hope/

Jolie Rouge · 10-02-2009, 02:39 PM

Check out the latest Rasmussen numbers measuring the American public’s mood:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ance_of_issues

Quote:

For nearly two years, economic issues have held the top spot in terms of importance among voters.

But the latest national telephone survey shows that 83% now view government ethics and corruption as very important, placing it just ahead of the economy on a list of 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. Eighty-two percent (82%) of voters see the economy as very important.

This is the first time since October 2007 that voters have rated ethics and corruption as more important than the economy. Voters viewed the two issues evenly in November and December 2007 before placing a higher priority on the economy starting in January 2008.

Last month, 86% of voters said economic issues were very important while 80% saw government ethics that way.

The new findings come at a time when 43% of voters say the president is doing a poor job addressing government ethics and reducing corruption, up five points from early September and the highest level measured since he took office.

The Obama-induced stupor is over. Better late than never. Nine months of thug tactics, cronyism, left-wing racketeering, and Chicago-on-the-Potomac have taken their toll.

On a related note: Culture of Corruption remains on the New York Times best-seller list for the 9th week in a row (#9) and in the Amazon.com Top 100 for 68 days straight (currently #11). Thank you for continuing to spread the word.

It’s working!

Quote:

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
September 26-29, 2009

Issue Very Important

Gov't Ethics/Corruption 83%
Economy 82%
Health Care 73%
Nat'l Security/War on Terror 67%
Social Security 65%
Taxes 62%
Education 59%
War In Iraq 49%
Immigration 49%
Abortion 41%

Support for Health Care Plan Hits New Low http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

43% View Obama’s Olympic Trip As Bad Idea, 36% Disagree http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ea_36_disagree

83% Say Congress Should Post Bills Online For All To Read Before Voting On Them http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...voting_on_them

Government Ethics Edges Out Economy As Top Issue Among Voters http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ance_of_issues

33% Say Country Heading in Right Direction http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...or_wrong_track

59% Say Americans Angrier Now Than Under Bush http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...han_under_bush

Obama Approval Index Month-by-Month http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...month_by_month

***

Here’s a relevant lament from a disappointed Chicagoan responding to the news of the city’s Olympics loss: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...ley-plaza.html

“Maybe the ‘machine’ isn’t working.”

77/1,863

Jolie Rouge · 10-13-2009, 12:19 AM

A Wicked and Ignorant Award
How Barack Obama could help redeem the Norwegian Nobel Committee's grievous mistake.
Peggy Noonan

It is absurd and it is embarrassing. It would even be infuriating if it were not such a declaration of emptiness. The Norwegian Nobel Committee has embarrassed itself and cheapened a great award that had real meaning.

It was a good thing, the Nobel Peace Prize. Every year the giving of it was a matter of note throughout the world, almost a matter of state. It was serious. It mattered that it was given to a woman like Mother Teresa in 1979. She had lived for 30 years with the poorest of the poor; she and her Missionaries of Charity dressed their wounds, healed their illnesses, and literally carried them from the streets to mats and beds in a home where they would at least have in death the thing they had not had in life, someone to care for them. She didn't just care for them, she did the hard thing: She loved them. Her life was heroic, epic, and when she was given the Nobel Peace Prize, it was as if the world were saying, "You are the best we have. You are living a life that should be emulated."

Nelson Mandela was unjustly imprisoned for 27 years, and he came out without bitterness. There's a hero for you. He preserved his faith and that of his countrymen that together they could make their nation better, more decent and humane. He lived a life of moral and political struggle, broke the old chains that had bound South Africa. At the end he was a literal inspiration to the world.

Some Peace Prizes have been more roughly political, or had a political edge, and were of course debatable. Woodrow Wilson, self-infatuated after World War I, had little patience with those who foresaw that the Peace of Versailles would lead to more war, and did not understand or know the political realities and deeper nature of his own countrymen. And so his League of Nations flopped in America, the one place where it absolutely had to succeed. But--well, he helped end "the war to end all wars," issued his Fourteen Points, did try to make the world better. Ferocious Teddy Roosevelt, that progressive and bloody-minded man, worked hard to forge a truce and a peace between the czar's Russia and Japan.

More deeply into the political life of the 20th century, there were Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, and their Peace Prizes were what they were. But each man had a body of work; each had devoted considerable time and effort to a great issue. It was always absurd that Ronald Reagan, whose political project led to the end of the gulag and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and who gambled his personal standing in the world for a system that would protect the common man from annihilation in a nuclear missile attack, could not win it. But nobody wept over it, and for one reason: because everyone, every sentient adult who cared to know about such things, knew that the Nobel Peace Prize is, when awarded to a political figure, a great and prestigious award given by liberals to liberals. NCNA--no conservatives need apply. This is the way of the world, and so what? Life isn't for prizes.

Yet even within that context, the giving of the peace prize to President Obama is absurd. He doesn't have a body of work; he's a young man; he's been president less than nine months. He hopes to accomplish much, and so far--nine months!--has accomplished little. Is this a life of heroic self-denial, of the sacrifice of self for something greater, of huge and historic consequence, of sustained vision? No it's not. Is this a life marked by a vivid and calculable contribution to the peace of the world? No, it's not.

This is an award for not being George W. Bush. This is an award for not making the world nervous. This is an award for sharing the basic political sentiments and assumptions of the members of the committee. It is for what Barack Obama may do, not what he has done. He hasn't done anything.

In one mindless stroke, the committee has rendered the Nobel Peace Prize a laughingstock, perhaps for as long as a generation. And that is an act of true destruction, because it was actually good that the world had a prestigious award for peacemaking.

The members of the committee have also put the young American president in a terrible place. They make it look like all the talk of "The One," the heartthrob of the European elite, the darling of the international left, is true. They make him look prefabricated and inauthentic, an empty structure held up by essentially silly people. Which puts him at a disadvantage in his own country, because Americans don't really like it when flaky European politicians tell them how they ought to see him or the world.

And you have to wonder how the truly self-sacrificing professionals who are attempting to create a sound American policy on Afghanistan are going to experience this. Hmm, can a president who just won the left's great peace prize decide to increase American troop strength and presence in a foreign war? What impact will this have on larger geopolitical considerations?

Assuming the White House did nothing to encourage or lobby for the award, it is not Barack Obama's fault that he has been embarrassed by this honor. And it may possibly hold for him an unanticipated benefit. It may give him pause: Look what idiots my biggest international supporters are. I may have to rethink a few things.

How to redeem this? That is a hard question, but here is one idea. The president will deliver a big speech in Oslo Dec. 10: white tie and tails, a formal, bound statement. The world, as they say, will be watching. He should deflect the limelight. (Can he?) He should make his subject bigger than himself. (Is there a subject bigger than himself?) He has been accused of traveling through the world on an extended apology tour. That isn't fair, but the tag is there. How about an unapologetic address, a speech, with the world's elites leaning forward and listening, about the meaning of America? A speech that shows a grounded and sophisticated love for his country and its great traditions and history. Not a nationalistic speech, not a prideful one, but a loving one.

For instance: The Peace Prize judges won't see it this way, but America has gone to Europe twice in the past century to fight for peace. This is an old concept, and has to do with killing killers so they can't kill anymore. It cost America a lot to do this, and we kept no territory, as they say, beyond the graves where our soldiers lie. America then taxed itself and gave its wealth not only to its allies but to its former adversaries, to help them rebuild. We didn't actually have to do this. We did it to make the world better. We did it to foster peace. (They should give us a prize.)

America hasn't just helped the world, it literally lit the world with its inventions, which are the product of its freedoms. The lights under which the Peace Prize judges read, and rejected, the worthy nominations? Why, those lights were invented by an American. The emails the committee members sent to each other, sharing their banal insights on leadership? They came through the Internet. Who invented the Internet? It was a Norwegian bureaucrat with a long face and hair on his nose and little plastic geometric eyeglasses? Oh wait, it was Americans. The members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee are healthy because they have been inoculated against diseases such as polio. Who invented the polio vaccine, an enfeebled old leftist academic in Oslo? Nah, it was a man named Jonas Salk. He was an American.

Europe's elites experience Mr. Obama as a historical accident that needs and deserves their encouragement. Actually he was elected with 69.5 million votes, and you know, they were cast by Americans. Go figure.

Mr. Obama should get the spotlight off himself and put it on the great thing that yielded him up and made him possible. America is misunderstood these days, and he could perform a public service by helping people understand it better.

Love, after all, never harms the world, and as an added practical bonus such a speech would obscurely embarrass the committee, which won't be able to criticize the thoughts of its hero. That would be pleasurable for Americans, and therefore helpful to Mr. Obama.

This might to some degree redeem this wicked and ignorant award, this mischievous honor.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...239280914.html

Jolie Rouge · 10-13-2009, 12:21 AM

October 12, 2009
More On Obama's Nobel

Ross Douthat argues that Obama missed a chance to show some guts by turning down the Peace Prize. What, and emulate Le Doc Tho of North Vietnam? Unless Obama can be forever paired with Che his fanboys (and girls!) won't be interested.

However, Mr. Douthat does close with a puzzle: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/op...er=rss&emc=rss

Quote:

But by accepting the prize, he’s made failure, if and when it comes, that much more embarrassing and difficult to bear. What’s more, he’s etched in stone the phrase with which critics will dismiss his presidency.

Slick Willie. Tricky Dick. Jimmy “Malaise” Carter. Dubya the Incompetent.

And now Barack Obama, Nobel laureate.

I don't believe I have ever before heard "Dubya the Incompetent" and I am skeptical that I will hear it again. I would have guessed that the tag line for 43 would be George "Mission Accomplished" Bush. The Douthat title, "Heckuva Job, Barack", alludes to the other obvious tagline. Other suggestions?

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...mas-nobel.htmlI could have sworn I remembered the phrase "total failure" from somewhere, but that's gotta be a mistake. Nobody during 2001-08 stooped to such a ghastly, venomous assault on the President and, by extension, America itself.

The interesting thing about Bush is that his presidency was so very complex, yet most people seem to have a very simplified and ossified view of the man and his two terms. And even though there are a number of very simplified and ossified views of Bush's presidency, many people claim theirs to be authoritatively singular in importance.

So what the heck, let's throw this one out there as at least possible by the time Obama is finished:

"George "Miss Me Yet" Bush"

Chavez says Obama did "nothing" to deserve Nobel
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...59A1MU20091011

That's gotta hurt....

w:

[b]What should Obama do with the Nobel prize money?
By Michelle Malkin • October 9, 2009 12:28 PM

The president will receive $1.4 million from the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for not achieving anything concrete.

He will receive $1.4 million for an award he himself says he doesn’t deserve.

What should he do with the cash?

The field is all yours.

***

One reader e-mails: “Remember the neglected school in Kenya named after Obama?”

Yes, good suggestion!

Commenter Gabe: “To cover a young person ’suffering’ without medical insurance would cost about $50 a month at most. I suggest our Dear Leader cover 2,300 young people with insurance for next year if he really cares about people without medical insurance.”

Another reader e-mails: Let the pay czar decide.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/09...l-prize-money/

DNC humor czar condemns Nobel Prize jokes
By Michelle Malkin • October 9, 2009 01:16 PM

The Twitter hashtag of the day is #nobelol (started by Andy Levy) — for Twitter users from the left, right, and center laughing out loud at Barack Obama’s receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize he himself says he doesn’t deserve.
http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23Nobelol
There’s already a bumper sticker via College Politico:

The worldwide derision has a Democratic National Committee flack comparing jokesters to…terrorists: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...errorists.html

Quote:

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize – an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party.

Er.

Ed Morrissey notes the many decidedly un-Republican public figures joining the snort-fest.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/0...th-terrorists/

DNC, meet Emily Litella:

Best Rush Limbaugh quip: “I don’t believe this! He’s not only the first post-racial president, he’s also the first post-accomplishment.”

***

Obama’s lesson to children: Success is 99 percent aspiration and 1 percent perspiration.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/09...l-prize-jokes/

Jolie Rouge · 10-14-2009, 02:28 PM

Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Top Quotes From This Year's Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Obama on his political opponents:

Quote:

"They Bring a Knife...We Bring a Gun"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/0...e-bring-a-gun/

Obama to his supporters:

Quote:

"Get in Their Faces!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMDur9CDZ4

Obama on ACORN mobs:

Quote:

"I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I'm angry!"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/us...memo.html?_r=2

Obama to his mercenary army:

Quote:

"Hit Back Twice As Hard"

http://patdollard.com/2009/08/obama-...twice-as-hard/

Obama on the killer Iranian regime murdering their own people in the street:

Quote:

"The Iranians are having a robust debate."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0081604AAt84Wv
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...ran-video.html

Obama on defending genocide (2007):

Quote:

"The United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...nterview_N.htm

Obama justifying killing babies who survive an abortion:

Quote:

"Essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision."

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...-abortion.html

Truly, this is a man of peace.

Posted by Gateway Pundit at 10/14/2009 04:19:00 AM
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...bel-peace.html

Comments (75) | Trackback

Excellent post! Keep exposing the impostor in the white house!
dacoelec | 10.14.09 - 6:34 am | #

-----------

Obama on the killer Iranian regime murdering their own people in the street.
The Iranians are having a robust debate .
Terry Gain | 10.14.09 - 6:45 am | #

----------

Obama is the quintessential liberal.
You may take notice that the quotes shown all refer to situations where character,integrity and moral fortitude to do what is right rather what is easy and Obama runs away every time.

He simply cannot commit himself to anything he can't walk away from at the drop of the hat. The only thing he seems to have any interest in fighting for are massive taxpayer funded boondoggles where he can pay off all his cronies and be at the top.

He is like Mayor Quimby from the Simpsons
NeoKong | 10.14.09 - 6:48 am | #

----------

the first few quotes dont surprise me after learning of the types of political people he said it too, and he surrounds himself with.

The last quote is truely disturbing. What kind of a person would say something like that?
yuck. The lack of humanity stuns.
Uriel | 10.14.09 - 7:06 am | #

---------

But. . . but. . . he said, Hope and. . . and, Change!

Doesn't that count for anything?

.
Joan of Argghh! | Homepage | 10.14.09 - 7:10 am | #

--------------

OT from radiovice. really liked the description of Nelson [comments] - smiling like a crocodile at a nursing home.....
http://radioviceonline.com/baucu...ion-livesfirst/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...in5382699.shtml
squeaky | 10.14.09 - 7:33 am | #

Jolie Rouge · 11-02-2009, 01:35 PM

One year on, Obamamania cools to luke warm support
by Edouard Guihaire
Mon Nov 2, 5:03 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A year on from a historic election, the spirit of popular goodwill that yielded America's first black president has retreated to tepid support for Barack Obama as he presses his change agenda.

Since the November 4 poll, Obama's visage has been everywhere, conspicuously on the streets of the nation's capital where millions of foreign and domestic tourists have visited over the past year, many of them snatching up poignant souvenirs.

A quick look around downtown Washington confirms that Obama trinkets are still on sale, but several street hawkers have found little point in displaying the t-shirts, posters, and "Yes We Can" buttons bearing the new president's image.

"They stay in the truck," grumbled a vendor who identified himself as Dick, as he pointed to a rusty vehicle behind him. "They don't sell any more."

Indeed, Obama's honeymoon with the American people lasted less than six months.

In the aftermath of his inauguration in January, Obama's approval rating soared to 70 percent.

Early on, he tested Americans' faith by diving headlong into controversial programs to rescue the economy, including bailing out sinking US auto manufacturers and unleashing a 787-billion-dollar stimulus plan.

In late April, at the end of the first 100 days in office, Obama still enjoyed more positive reviews than his predecessors in the previous 20 years.

But the fall was soon to come as questions started simmering about the president's ability to pull the US economy out of a nosedive.

In July, his popularity dipped even below that of predecessor George W. Bush in the same period of his presidency.

Since mid-October, it has hovered just above 50 percent, a "significant drop" from his earlier numbers, according to Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll.

"In general, this puts Obama's current ratings slightly below average for all US presidents since World War II," Newport told AFP, noting that the ongoing economic problems are contributing to the curb in enthusiasm.

On Sunday, even as data released by the Commerce Department last week showed the United States had emerged from the worst recession in decades, a monthly approval index by Rasmussen Reports showed 29 percent of those polled strongly approve of Obama's performance, compared to 39 percent who strongly disapprove.

That left him with an approval index of -10, two points worse than in September, Rasmussen reported.

"Overall, Americans are not highly satisfied with the way things are going in the US," said Newport.

And as a consequence, the popularity of Obama merchandise at the souvenir shops that abound in Washington appears to be taking a hit.

"Sellings have really slowed down since Obama took office," said vendor Vin Ngo.

This is not for want of supply: from a life-size cardboard cutout, to gold jewelry, to a bottle of special vintage champagne bearing the president's name, the list of Obama souvenirs, from cheap trinkets to high-end memorabilia, is long.

Whatever people think back home, Barack Obama's popularity abroad is irrefutable, argues Professor Clyde Wilcox of Georgetown University in Washington.

He is "the first African-American president, a young man who has won many honors and done great things. He is a cultural phenomenon in the US and around the world," Wilcox said.

As such, the conditions remain ripe for more sales, according to Lian Nelson, another street vendor in Washington, who hangs Obama t-shirts alongside those featuring another prominent African-American hero: Michael Jackson.

Who is outselling whom? According to Nelson, the "King of Pop" is well ahead.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091102...9sbG9uZXllYXJv

Jolie Rouge · 11-04-2009, 06:34 PM

President Obama: One Year After Winning it All
Rasmussenreports.com
Wed Nov 4, 10:02 am ET

One year ago today, Senator Barack Obama became President-elect Obama. He and his team had run nearly a flawless campaign and were about to embark on what turned out to be a nearly flawless transition effort. By Inauguration Day, the man who had won 53% of the vote saw his overall job approval rating soar to 65%.

As expected, once the campaigning was over and the governing began, those numbers began to slip.

As president, Obama lost the support of Republicans in February during the debate over the stimulus package. Over the summer, economic concerns and the health care debate cost the president support among unaffiliated voters. By October, a month-by-month review showed that Obama's overall job approval had slipped to 48% among Likely Voters.

This morning, on the anniversary of his election, the president's Approval Index rating is at -13, just one point above the lowest level yet recorded and down 41 points since the Inauguration.

Economic conditions have played a role in dimming Obama's support. For much of the past year, voters continued to blame George W. Bush for the economy, but the blame is more evenly divided now between Bush and Obama.

The core promise made down the stretch to voters by candidate Obama was a pledge to cut taxes for 95% of all Americans. Now, more than 40% expect a tax hike and hardly anybody expects their taxes to go down. Not surprisingly, 74% of voters now view the president as politically liberal.

Just 33% believe the stimulus package has helped, and most opposed other economic initiatives including the takeover of General Motors and the cash-for-clunkers program. Among the priorities established by the president, voters consistently see deficit reduction as the most important but least likely to be achieved.

The health care plan proposed by the president is struggling and is supported by just 42% of voters nationwide. Confidence in the War on Terror spiked during the first weeks of the Obama administration but has now fallen to the lowest level in nearly three years. On a related topic, one of the president's earliest initiatives, his promise to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, initially received mixed reviews but is now opposed by most Americans.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters now expect politics in Washington to become more partisan over the coming year. That's up 25 points since Inauguration Day when a plurality believed politics might become more cooperative.

Despite the struggles and challenges, however, Obama's overall ratings remain mixed. He retains very strong support from Democrats and endures very strong opposition from Republicans. Among those not affiliated with either major party, there is some dissatisfaction, but it can clearly be turned around if the economy improves.

The president himself remains more popular than his policies. That gives him some good will to draw upon. However, as was shown in yesterday's election results, the president's ability to help other Democratic politicians may be limited.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information

http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/ob...ersary20091104

Jolie Rouge · 11-07-2009, 01:27 AM

Friday, November 6, 2009
Obama as World War II Analogy

It is not good for any President when bloody World War II analogies are all that supportive columnists and bloggers can muster in defense of your inability to get things done:

Paul Krugman: Obama as Anzio. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/op...n.html?_r=3&hp

Quote:

"Allied forces landed far behind enemy lines, catching their opponents by surprise. Instead of following up on this advantage, however, the American commander hunkered down in his beachhead — and soon found himself penned in by German forces on the surrounding hills, suffering heavy casualties."

So does that mean WE are the enemy, Obama snuck in behind our lines, and we should want him to attack us harder? Now I get it.

Jonathan Chait: http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/ob...or-ben-nelsons

Quote:

Krugman's column employs a pretty good World War II analogy. Let me use another: imagine a scathing column about the 1938 Munich accord that devotes most of its energy to castigating Czechoslovakian President Edvard Benes for his ineffectual efforts to gain the support of Britain and France, rather than putting Britain and France at the center of the story.

Suggesting an alternative to Krugman's Anzio analogy in favor of Obama as impotent 1938 Czechoslovakia being carved up in the 1938 Munich Accords, to which OpenLeft responds http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/6/115653/774

Quote:

Obama as 1938 Czechoslovakia? That's the defense? Wow. I know that the Village wonks (Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Jon Cohn, etc.) have been arguing that Obama is powerless on health care reform, but Chait is the winner, of sorts, in the "defending Obama as impotent" competition. I'll give them this though - they do not use the annoying "Don't Worry, He's Got It" photo of Obama that was rampant in the Obama fan blogs before.

Maybe the comparisons of Obama to FDR are coming true, although not in the way Obama supporters expected a year ago.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...i-analogy.html

Recomend going to Chait's site and reading the comments posted ... some of them make their point better then the article to which they responded...

Jolie Rouge · 11-09-2009, 12:46 AM

Obama's best, and worst, moves
By: Eamon Javers
November 4, 2009 05:05 PM EST

Across Washington, political pros are quietly putting together their report cards on the first year of the Obama presidency. On some issues – like Obama’s diplomatic overtures to Iran – it’s too early to tell whether they’re political wins or losses. On others – like Obama’s failure to break up the big banks – the judgment is hopelessly clouded by ideology. Where you stand, as in so much of life, depends on where you sit.

But on much of Obama’s presidency, there is a surprising bipartisan consensus on what has worked well and what has not. POLITICO spoke to a dozen political insiders and pulled together this list of Obama's ten best, and ten worst, moves of the year.

Ten Best

1. Letting Congress take the lead on health care.

Funny how times change. For most of the year, this strategic decision looked destined for the “Worst” list. Town hall screamers. Democratic infighting. Obama criticized for no plan of his own. But with health care almost certain to pass, letting Congress take the lead, as messy and painful as it was, is looking like a political winner for the president.

2. Picking Hillary Clinton for secretary of state – and not vice president.

Clinton’s had a couple of stumbles on her current overseas trip, but overall, this remains one of Obama’s savviest moves. It serves a double purpose: it keeps her from serving as an independent power center within the Democratic Party as a New York senator, and it keeps a certain former president from wandering the West Wing. But Bill Clinton’s stature from wandering the world as a global do-gooder can’t hurt.

“The same things that made Senator Clinton a complicated choice for vice president made her an obvious and inspired choice for Secretary of State,” said Democratic strategist Steve McMahon. “Namely, the fact that President Clinton already has such established relations with world leaders.”

3. Passing the stimulus bill and continuing bank bailouts

Controversial, to be sure. But leading economists broadly agree that these two mega-doses of taxpayer cash into the economy are pretty much all that’s holding the economy together right now.

“On the domestic front, the one two punch of financial stabilization and stimulus saved the economy from a worsening recession,” said former Bill Clinton Press Secretary Joe Lockhart. “Neither was popular, but together they worked.”

The downside is that this gusher of cash has galvanized Obama’s opponents like almost nothing else he’s done – as witnessed by Tuesday’s election results. Still, for now at least, stimulus and TARP look like a win.

4. Nominating Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court

In Sotomayor, Obama picked an eminently qualified jurist and disciplined nominee who thrilled the liberal base and confounded his conservative opposition. He also helped solidify the growing Hispanic vote for his party.

At the height of the nomination fight, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took to his Twitter feed to denounce Sotomayor as a racist. Gingrich backed down, but Republicans will likely hear the echo of little outburst in 2010 and 2012.

5. Taking out those pirates

OK, technically, credit should go to the U.S. Navy sharpshooters whose amazing precision shots killed three of the pirates holding an American cargo ship captain hostage, but Obama as commander in chief looked decisive for signing off on the mission. Plus, imagine if it gone wrong – think Jimmy Carter and crashed helicopters in the desert.

6. Sending Republican Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to China.

The Mandarin-speaking governor was a perfect fit for the U.S. ambassador’s post. But more than that, picking Huntsman sidelined a potentially formidable 2012 rival for the presidency, who hasn’t been heard from in Washington since he decamped for Beijing – exactly what the White House wanted.

7. Firing GM CEO Rick Waggoner

To satisfy the pitchfork brigade, Obama needed to show that there are consequences for accepting taxpayer bailouts, and Waggoner was the perfect candidate to shoulder the blame. Obama probably wishes he had forced a few more CEOs to walk the plank, to counter a public perception that failed bankers got off scot-free.

8. The Cairo speech

Even for a president who mastered the art of the mega-event on the campaign trail, the sweep of his address to the world’s one billion Muslims was ambitious. “America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam,” he said. “The speech in Cairo was a high moment,” said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. “It signaled a shift.”

Plus, the Egypt trip gave us the priceless images of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s personal aide Reggie Love riding camels at the pyramids.

9. Wooing the media

Obama’s been on the cover of nearly every magazine in America, including such non-political pubs as GQ, People, and Vibe. And he’s impossible to miss on TV: Here’s Obama joking about being black with David Letterman. There’s he’s talking Middle East policy on Al Arabiya. Now he’s killing a fly with his bare hands on CNBC.

Obama’s flood-the-zone strategy paid off as the media largely treated the president with kid gloves all year. “I’m Barack Obama,” he said at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. “Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.”

10. Beating up on FOX News

There is nothing – nothing – so delicious to Obama’s liberal Democratic base than beating up on the network that’s home to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. The Obama team’s decision to call out Fox News as “a wing of the Republican Party” was a brush-back pitch of sorts, warning the rest of the media to stay away from Fox’s more negative coverage.

Jolie Rouge · 11-09-2009, 12:46 AM

Ten Worst:

1. Obama saying the Cambridge cops acted "stupidly" in arresting Henry Louis Gates.

As Obama took the side of an old friend against a police officer before he even knew the details, he threw gasoline on simmering racial tensions left over from his election. The White House’s hastily cobbled together attempt at a solution – the famous “beer summit” – is probably not what won him the Nobel Peace Prize.

2. Eight percent unemployment? No.

If the stimulus was a good idea, touting the stimulus too much was definitely not.

Obama’s advisers confidently predicted that unemployment would top out at 8 percent if Congress went along with his push for a $787 billion stimulus package. But unemployment hit 9.8 percent last month and 10 percent isn’t far behind.

The White House said that the economy was actually much worse than the advisers would have known at the time. Still, they broke a cardinal rule of politics – under-promise and over-deliver.

3. The Olympics bid

Copenhagen was not so wonderful to Barack Obama. More like the agony of defeat. The trip gave fodder to the White House’s critics to argue that the president remains too close to his Windy City political base, and all the big city machine seediness that implies. Not only that, Chicago’s bid was bounced on a first ballot – so much for the power of the global Brand Obama.

4. He’s everywhere, all the time

The downside of the flood the zone media strategy, Obama runs the risk of wearing thin on the American voter. “For awhile it looked like he would be on everything from the Home and Garden Channel to Golf Digest,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean. “It dilutes the impact of his message and will begin to create voter fatigue from seeing him too much.”

But the White House pushes back hard on this theme – saying the constant stream of invites from Leno and Letterman and the rest shows the public is still interested.

5. McChrystal outguns Obama

These guys don’t get to be four-star generals without having a finely honed political sensibility, but you’d think the president would be an even better pol than a general.

First Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s go-big troop request was leaked to Bob Woodward – leaker unknown. Then McChrystal used a speech to a London think tank to “pre-but” the case for a smaller force in Afghanistan. By going public with his point of view, McChrystal handed Obama the untenable choice of defying his political base or defying his top general in the field.

6. No earmarks? Well, maybe just a few . . .billion

Obama campaigned hard against earmarks, but in March, he signed a $410 billion spending measure that was laden with more than $7 billion worth of the targeted spending provisions anyway. The president called the bill “imperfect” but didn’t veto the measure, and sent an early signal that he would bend – even on a core campaign priority.

“He had an opportunity to really be different,” said former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. “He could have dominated and controlled Washington. But instead, he went along with it. Washington has not changed.”

7. No vetting the vetters

From Tom Daschle’s Town Cars, to Tim Geithner’s Turbo Tax to Bill Richardson’s federal grand jury troubles, Obama aides early in the year seemed incapable of turning up major problems before they hit the papers.

8. Gitmo, Year Two

Candidate Obama campaigned on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, so it seemed to make sense when he set a deadline of January of 2010 to have the facility shuttered. By all accounts, it’s not going to happen. Obama and his team failed to take into account the extreme difficulty of deciding what do with the prisoners there – Congress won’t let them come to prisons here, U.S. allies don’t want them either.

9. Snubbing the Dalai Lama

The White House was at pains to say Obama didn’t snub the Dalai Lama in October when the Tibetan religious leader was in Washington – but it sure looked like he did. Obama’s decision not to meet with him in Washington – even though the White House promised another meeting at a date to be named later – gave ammunition to his critics that Obama was downplaying human rights to appease the Chinese.

10. Beating up on FOX News.

Obama ran as a post-partisan candidate who rejected the old ways of Washington. But attacking the conservative network is just the sort of base building, red vs. blue move Obama seemed to denounce during the campaign. Even some Democrats were scratching their heads, saying it seemed beneath Obama to single out one network – a far cry from the inspirational, bridge-building figure the nation elected one year ago.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29149.html

I do not agree with all of these ... some of what is considered his best I don't find as shining moments ... and their picks of worst is only a little better ...

Jolie Rouge · 11-18-2009, 12:48 AM

Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Obama Web site claims stimulus jobs in non-existent places
By James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The federal Web site that tracks spending from the Obama administration's $787 billion economic stimulus program reports that the program has created thousands of jobs in congressional districts that don't exist.

According to http://www.recovery.gov, California has seven congressional districts more than the 53 it actually has, including a 99th. In South Carolina, the site reported Tuesday evening, $40.7 million in economic stimulus funds have gone to seven spurious congressional districts, including 00 and 25. South Carolina has six U.S. House districts.

"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous," said Rep. David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the House Appropriations Committee. "The administration owes itself, the Congress and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."

Republican lawmakers were more scathing Tuesday, with some accusing the administration of a cover-up. No House Republicans and only three GOP senators voted for the stimulus bill, which President Barack Obama signed into law on Feb. 17.

"The government Web site charged with reporting waste, fraud and abuse is its very own worst offender," said Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. "I know we have been asking this administration to show us the jobs, but this isn't what we had in mind."

"The attempts to cover up the dismal failure of the president's trillion-dollar stimulus have gone from comical to embarrassing," said South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint.

The White House didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.

Ed Pound, a spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, told ABC News that human error caused the mistakes.

"We report what the recipients submit to us," he said, according to ABC. "Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number."

Computer experts questioned that explanation, however, noting that many of the Web site's state links included a District 00, suggesting that there was a technical glitch in how the data was received.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/politics/story/79058.html