Thread: Buyers’ Remorse ?

Justice Stevens, ObamaCare, and the Constitution. Is federal power now unlimited?
By Roger Pilon Mon Apr 12, 10:41 am ET

Washington – With stormy midterm elections just ahead, and much of President Obama’s agenda still undone, the last thing congressional Democrats needed is the distraction of a difficult and protracted Supreme Court confirmation battle.

Yet that’s likely what’s in store after Friday’s announcement that Justice John Paul Stevens, the court’s liberal lion, is stepping down in late June. The party’s base, already disappointed with Mr. Obama, will doubtless press the president for a liberal replacement. But with the growing “tea party” movement raising long-ignored constitutional issues, even a moderate nominee will face questions congressional Democrats would rather leave buried.

Chief among those is that most basic question, brought to the fore by “ObamaCare”: Are there any longer any constitutional limits on federal power?

If Congress can reorder one-sixth of the nation’s economy, command states to establish insurance exchanges, and require individuals to buy insurance from private companies or face a tax, it would seem not. Yet the 19 states presently challenging such sweeping power will find little comfort in the decisions of Justice Stevens.

Coming of age during the New Deal, Stevens’s jurisprudence more often than not has reflected the dominant themes of that era: judicial deference to broad assertions of government power, especially over the economy, coupled with seemingly inconsistent assertions of judicial power to ignore the law in deference to “evolving social values,” all of which has given us modern “constitutional law” – not to be confused with the Constitution.

The Founders gave us a Constitution aimed at securing individual liberty through limited government, with most power resting in the states or, even more, in the private sector.

It wasn’t perfect, to be sure: In fact, it took a civil war to end slavery, and the Civil War Amendments to make the Bill of Rights good against the states. And there never was a “Golden Age,” as Jim Crow, Prohibition, and much else attest.

But from the start, the main idea was clear: Whatever the nation’s faults in practice, the point of life was to live it, freely, not dependent on government. Indeed, answering anti-Federalists’ fears that the new national government would be too powerful, Federalists detailed exquisitely the Constitution’s limits on federal power. Neither camp could have imagined anything like ObamaCare.

Well, all that changed when the social engineers of the Progressive Era, steeped in visions of the “public good,” came finally to power under Franklin Roosevelt.

When the “nine old men” on the court balked, saying the Constitution prohibited FDR’s schemes, the president threatened to pack the court with six new members. The plan failed, but the court got the message.

It turned the Constitution on its head, and the modern welfare state was born. A watershed moment came in 1942, when the court interpreted the Commerce Clause as giving Congress virtually unlimited authority over economic activity.

The result today is unfunded liabilities no one knows how to meet, debt as far as the eye can see, and taxes in the offing that will cripple individuals and businesses alike – quite apart from the restraints on liberty that dependency on government entails.

In 1995, the Supreme Court took a tiny step toward braking this juggernaut when it ruled that the Gun-Free Zones Act of 1990 exceeded Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The power to address that issue belongs to states, the court held, not to Congress. Stevens dissented, calling the decision “radical.”

Five years later, facing similar issues, he dissented again. But in 2005, facing a challenge to Congress’s prohibition on home-grown medical marijuana administered under state law, Stevens wrote at last for the majority, upholding Congress’s ability, under the Commerce Clause, to ban the drug and override state law, and effectively reversing the Rehnquist Court’s meager efforts to put a brake on Congress’s all but unbounded regulatory power.

That decision sets the stage, unfortunately, for the 19 states challenging ObamaCare today.

But Stevens hasn’t always favored federal power over states and individuals.

A year ago, for example, in a case pitting the Food and Drug Administration’s power to regulate prescription drug warning labels against state court awards to injured plaintiffs, he ignored the clause of the Constitution that makes federal law supreme and ruled for the plaintiff.

And in 2007 he entertained Al Gore-like claims about rising sea levels over the next century, thus ignoring rules about standing meant to keep mere speculative claims out of court. That enabled Massachusetts to get into court, where Stevens relied on still more dubious claims to rule against the Environmental Protection Agency’s earlier finding that it had no authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Turning from limiting power to protecting rights, Stevens’s record is mixed, to be sure, but on several hot-button issues it could cause difficulties for Democrats in the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.

Take guns and the Second Amendment: In a blockbuster decision two years ago, the court held, for the first time, that individuals had a right to own handguns for self-defense in the home. Stevens wrote the dissent.

Or take property rights: In the infamous Kelo decision of 2005, Stevens wrote for the court’s majority, holding that the city of New London, Conn., could transfer the title to Suzette Kelo’s home to a private developer who promised upscale building on the land, thereby generating more taxes for the city. Here again Stevens ignored the plain language of the Constitution to reach a result he thought socially desirable. That decision produced such a backlash that over 40 states subsequently tightened their eminent domain laws.

In other areas, too – abortion, campaign finance, affirmative action, the death penalty – Stevens has written or joined opinions that are likely, in the current climate, to pose difficulties for congressional Democrats seeking reelection. By and large, they reflect a bias toward government. And that is inconsistent not only with the times but with the Constitution. Yet that’s what Democrats may find themselves defending as the confirmation process unfolds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100412...N0aWNlc3RldmU-

Obama backers show signs of disappointment
By Ed Stoddard And Peter Henderson - Analysis Wed Apr 21, 6:10 pm ET

DALLAS/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Gay rights activists heckled President Barack Obama this week at a Democratic event that exposed signs of disenchantment threatening the party in November's congressional elections.

Five million first-time voters turned out in 2008, many drawn by Obama's promise of hope and overwhelmingly voting for Democrats. Now disappointed, or at least apathetic, they may not go to the polls this year.

Obama's support has dropped below 50 percent from nearly 70 percent after 15 months in office, Gallup opinion polls show.

Gay rights supporters, abortion rights activists, environmentalists and backers of immigration reform all have seen their agendas stalled, with watered-down healthcare the main accomplishment of Obama's once-ambitious agenda.

At Monday's rally in Los Angeles, protesters shouted at Obama to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" military policy that allows gays to serve if they keep quiet about their sexual orientation. Gays believe that makes them second-class citizens, and Obama has vowed to repeal the policy.

"Hey hold on a second. We are going to do that," he said. "I don't know why you're hollering," he added.

Supporters shouted "Yes we can," his slogan from the 2008 election, and "Be quiet," but the discontent lingers.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan insisted that opinion polls showed more than 80 percent of liberals approved of Obama. By comparison, Republicans right and center are locked in a "bloody civil war," he said.

Obama himself acknowledged during the day that "some folks are impatient and some folks just didn't realize how long this was going to take, how hard each battle was going to be. And so people get kind of worn down."

Many on the left who want more are fighting the president and one another. Others are abandoning politics. Both trends bode poorly for Democrats, who have controlled both houses of Congress in addition to the White House since January 2009.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for grabs along with a third of the 100 seats in the Senate.

APATHY SAPS SUPPORT

Many gay activists would not show up to heckle Obama. They have stopped paying attention altogether.

"Obama was a vessel that everybody poured their hopes into. The gay community was no different," said John Henning, director of the Los Angeles-based grass-roots group Love Honor Cherish, before the president's California visit.

"What is really happening in the gay community is we are going into a hibernation phase," Henning added.

The sentiment is widespread.

"Even in the best of conditions, the Democrats would have a slight retrenchment of voters," said Stanford University professor Gary Segura, who is also a researcher at pollster Latino Decisions.

"But we're not in the best of conditions. We have a lot of disappointed Democrats and so I would expect more significant retrenchment, a lot of disappearing voters."

Blacks, Latinos and young people made up the bulk of the new voters who secured comfortable congressional majorities for the Democrats in 2008. Each could be a problem this year.

Obama is the first black U.S. president and more than 90 percent of black voters still approve of his record, Gallup says. But African-American members of Congress say job creation is critical and unemployment is roughly twice the national average among black males over the age of 20.

San Francisco videographer Joe Razo, a 24-year-old black man, backs Obama but needs to be convinced that congressional races matter. "I kind of just do the presidential elections," he said.

For many Latinos, including nearly 11 million illegal immigrants, the lack of an immigration bill and heavy use of deportation are a double slap in the face.

"A lot of people are not going to vote," said Salvador Reza, operator of a day-laborer center in Arizona. "(Obama) would have to actually come through with ... a serious immigration reform effort, or people are going to abandon him," he said.

Keeping Latinos happy should be a no-brainer for the Democrats, the party of choice for the fastest growing minority largely because of a pro-immigrant stance that contrasts with the anti-immigrant rhetoric of many Republicans.

Obama campaigned on making immigration reform a priority, but the way forward for illegal immigrants and the employers who say they need them is no more clear than it was before Obama took office.

FIGHTS WITHIN THE LEFT

The "everyone's in it together" feeling of the 2008 election has been replaced with "me first" on many fronts.

Obama's biggest accomplishment, the healthcare overhaul, opened old wounds. A fight over whether federal funds could be used to pay for abortion tied up the bill and split the party, which has been a strong supporter of abortion rights but now has a significant wing opposed to abortion.

Michigan anti-abortion rights congressman Bart Stupak, who voted for the healthcare bill after getting a pledge from Obama not to use federal funds for abortion, became the number one target for abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Stupak has dropped out in the face of what was expected to be a bitter primary race against an opponent backed by NARAL and other abortion rights groups. This could open the district for Republicans in November as Democratic success in such rural heartland areas has been based on the party fielding candidates with conservative views on issues such as abortion.

Similar fights will be played out elsewhere.

"Pro-life Democrats generally win in the more conservative states in the Midwest, if you think of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. A pro-choice candidate would have a more difficult time," said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Other issues are causing rifts in the ranks -- among them climate change legislation, now stuck in Congress.

Former Vice President Al Gore's environmental group is trying to push aside rival left-wing groups vying to be the next issue in line for congressional attention. "Tell our Senators: We got next!" Gore's Repower America, urged on March 26.

POTENTIAL LOSSES

Politicians are counting the races at risk.

Four of the 10 Senate races where Democrats may lose, including Majority Leader Harry Reid's re-election bid in Nevada, are in states that had above-average increases in turnout between 2006 and 2008, Professor Tom Schaller of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, calculated on political blog fivethirtyeight.com.

Battles for governor that could be affected by the new 2008 voters include California, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Georgia and Illinois, he calculated, noting that new governors will oversee redrawing federal voting districts after the 2010 census.

The voters could affect the outcome of the majority of 23 highly contested House of Representatives races. Democrats' key to winning is not persuading moderates but mobilizing the newer voters, Schaller said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_obama_...5hbHlzaXNvYmFt

Obama takes direct aim at anti-government rhetoric
By Pete Yost And Mark S. Smith, Associated Press Writers 2 hrs 14 mins ago

ANN ARBOR, Mich. – In a blunt caution to political friend and foe, President Barack Obama said Saturday that partisan rants and name-calling under the guise of legitimate discourse pose a serious danger to America's democracy, and may incite "extreme elements" to violence.

The comments, in a graduation speech at the University of Michigan's huge football stadium, were Obama's most direct take about the angry politics that have engulfed his young presidency after long clashes over health care, taxes and the role of government.

Not 50 miles from where Obama spoke, the GOP's 2008 vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, denounced his policies as "big government" strategies being imposed on average Americans. "The fundamental transformation of America is not what we all bargained for," she told 2,000 activists at a forum in Clarkston, sponsored by the anti-tax Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

Obama drew repeated cheers in Michigan Stadium from a friendly crowd that aides called the biggest audience of his presidency since the inauguration. The venue has a capacity of 106,201, and university officials distributed 80,000 tickets — before they ran out.

In his 31-minute speech, Obama didn't mention either Palin or the tea party movement that's captured headlines with its fierce attacks on his policies. But he took direct aim at the anti-government language so prevalent today. "What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

Government, he said, is the roads we drive on and the speed limits that keep us safe. It's the men and women in the military, the inspectors in our mines, the pioneering researchers in public universities.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, "when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy."

But Obama was direct in urging both sides in the political debate to tone it down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style takeover,' 'fascists' and 'right-wing nut' — that may grab headlines," he said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation," he said. "At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

Passionate rhetoric isn't new, he acknowledged. Politics in America, he said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."

Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out opposing views.

His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal. "It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he said.

The speech was part of a busy weekend for the president: the White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday evening near the White House and visit the Gulf Coast on Sunday morning for a firsthand update on the massive oil spill.

Obama's helicopter landed on a grass practice football field next to the stadium on a damp, overcast day. Students and their families had been streaming in since early morning, many toting rain gear.

The president's appearance in Michigan — a battleground in the 2008 White House race that's likely to play a big role in the fall congressional campaign — comes as the state struggles with the nation's highest unemployment rate, 14.1 percent. It's also has an unhappy electorate to match.

In the Republican's weekly radio and Internet address, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich, said Obama's visit was a chance "to show the president, firsthand, the painful plight of the people of Michigan."

Many of the graduates Obama addresses will soon learn how tough it is to find a job in this economy, Hoekstra said, adding that the share of young Americans out of work is the highest it's been in more than 50 years.

Speaking before Obama was Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who's known to be on his short list of possible Supreme Court nominees. She said Michigan residents owe him thanks for "delivering on health care reform" and "for supporting our auto industry. General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, they all have bright futures now, where a year ago, much darker clouds than these loomed overhead."

Obama's speech was the first of four he is giving this commencement season.

On May 9, he'll speak at Hampton University, a historically black college in Hampton, Va., founded in 1868 on the grounds of a former plantation.

He's also addressing Army cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., on May 22, continuing a tradition of presidents addressing graduates at the service academies. He announced his Afghanistan troop surge at West Post last December.

Also this year, for the first time, Obama plans a high school commencement. It's part of his "Race to the Top" education initiative, with its goal of boosting the United States' lagging graduation rate to the world's best by 2020.

High schools across the country have competed for the honor, submitting essays and videos. A vote on the White House website yielded three finalists, and Obama will choose among them next week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100502/...FtYXRha2VzZGk-

Obama hoped the graduates hearing his words can avoid cynicism and brush off the overheated noise of politics. In fact, he said, they should seek out opposing views.

His advice: If you're a regular Glenn Beck listener, then check out the Huffington Post sometimes. If you read The New York Times editorial page the morning, then glance every now and then at The Wall Street Journal. "It may make your blood boil. Your mind may not be changed. But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship," he said.

Hmm....so much different that just over a year ago.....

As the president, he had told Kyl after the Arizonan raised objections to the notion of a tax credit for people who don't pay income taxes, Obama told Cantor this morning that "on some of these issues we're just going to have ideological differences."

The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...president.html from Jan 2009

Here’s what he said 06-15-08: http://thepage.time.com/obama-pool-r...ia-fundraiser/

Quote: He warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’” he said.

A donor yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”

“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said. “Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”


( do what I say, not what I do .....)

A ecological disaster enfolding in the Gulf, impacting several states, millions of lives and billions of dollars; a natural disaster in the states of TN, MS, & KY, a terrorist bombing attempt barely averted in the middle of Times Square NYC ... and where is the POTUS ? Laughing it up with Leno? If this were a GOP, the MSM would have a hissyfit : ... but it is their Favorite Son .... so nothing to see here... move along, move along ...

Why is Obama taking shots at people in his jokes?
May 3, 2010 by Allahpundit http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/0...-in-his-jokes/

I’m torn. On the one hand, this is the sort of straining-to-find-fault piece I would have expected of the press if Bush was still president. So kudos, I guess, for even-handedness.

On the other hand, being roastmaster-in-chief is now somehow beneath the office?

Really? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...203125_pf.html

Obama’s derisive tone surprises and dismays some of the people who’ve written jokes for presidents past. “With these dinners you want the audience to like you more when you sit down than when you stood up,” says Landon Parvin, an author and speechwriter for politicians in both parties, and a gag writer for three Republican presidents (Reagan and Bushes I and II). “Something in [Obama's] humor didn’t do that,” he said Sunday.

Parvin advises his political clients to practice a little partisan self-deprecation when they make lighthearted remarks: “If you’re a Democrat, you make fun of Democrats and go easy on the Republicans; if you’re a Republican, you do the opposite,” he says…
Former Clinton speechwriter Mark Katz calls Obama’s humor “a work in progress.”

Katz recalls that before Clinton made his first White House Correspondents dinner speech, he asked his speechwriters why there weren’t more jokes about his political enemies. Clinton’s speech drew criticism after he inserted his own somewhat hostile jokes.
“He took aim at people he should not have aimed at,” says Katz. “He learned his lesson and took greater aim at himself. He learned that the right joke about yourself can be as Machiavellian as anything Machiavelli dreamed up.”

That’s fine, but it’s missing the point. An audience as media-heavy as Saturday night’s was likely to be packed with “Daily Show” groupies, and The One knew it — so much so that he got “Daily Show” staff writers to help out on his speech. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...trounces-leno# If you know you’re facing a crowd that loves Stewart’s use of derisive humor in the service of (mostly left-wing) political attacks, naturally you’ll want to borrow it. Which is what Obama did, even relying on “Daily Show”-esque mock graphics as sight gags when goofing on Politico. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/0...s-whcd-speech/ The TDS style is a good fit for The One personally too, since (a) his comic timing is sharp enough to carry it off, (b) the contrast with Leno, whose material was even more stale than first thought, http://www.politico.com/click/storie..._recycled.html made him seem even funnier by comparison, and (c) the Obama White House is, of course, famously thin-skinned and controlling, http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/2...d-controlling/ in which case why would they pass up a free chance to take shots at people? You didn’t really think Politico would be spared after dropping this piece last week, did you? http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.c...4A2D8F74C77116

As for his suddenly infamous joke about using a predator drone on the Jonas brothers, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/featu...Hilarious-1171 it’s fun watching “impartial” reporters tacitly express their disapproval by doing round-ups of quotes from people who aren’t quite as impartial. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...aws-fire-.html http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...l?hpid=artslot

President Obama's Joke About Predator Drones Draws Fire
May 03, 2010 8:45 PM

A famous British actor once observed that "dying is easy, comedy is hard."

A corollary might be that comedy can be especially hard when it comes from commanders-in-chief joking about the deaths they’re responsible for at times of war.

At the White House Correspondents' Dinner Saturday night, President Obama noted that in the audience were the Jonas brothers. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans," he said, "but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming.”

The audience laughed approvingly but in the following days the joke has been met with a rising chorus of criticism -- mainly from the Left. After all, unmanned predator drone strikes have killed innocent civilians in Pakistan.

How many civilians? Unclear. Since the CIA's predator drone program is top secret, little is known about it. But writing in Foreign Policy, Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann have estimated that their data shows that from 2008 until December 2009, drone strikes have killed between 384 and 578 individuals, with most of them militants but between 35 and 40 percent of them innocent civilians. Senior administration officials contend that the number of civilian casualties is far fewer than that.

As the New Yorker reported last year, "the embrace of the Predator program has occurred with remarkably little public discussion, given that it represents a radically new and geographically unbounded use of state-sanctioned lethal force. And, because of the C.I.A. program’s secrecy, there is no visible system of accountability in place, despite the fact that the agency has killed many civilians inside a politically fragile, nuclear-armed country with which the U.S. is not at war."

So given all that, should President Obama have made a joke about this program? "Let's be honest, fellow progressives," the Philadelphia Daily News' Will Bunch tweeted, "we'd be all over Bush if he made the same 'predator drone' joke Obama told last night."

President George W. Bush did, of course, make a joke about war at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Dinner. In 2004, infamously, he joked about his inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, showing slides of himself searching for WMD under Oval Office furniture. "It's inappropriate to the thousands of people obviously who have been wounded over there," Terry McAuliffe, then the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told Good Morning America. "This is a very serious issue. We've lost hundreds of troops, as you know, over there. Let's not be laughing about not being able to find weapons of mass destruction. ... We certainly should not be making light of the situation." Then-RNC chair Ed Gillespie responded that "the people in the room obviously saw the humor in it at that moment. And to play it back now in a different context is unfair, frankly, I have to say."

So far the criticism against President Obama seems to have been confined to the internet.

Wrote Salon's Alex Pareene: "It's funny because predator drone strikes in Pakistan have killed literally hundreds of completely innocent civilians, and now the president is evincing a casual disregard for those lives he is responsible for ending by making a lighthearted joke about killing famous young celebrities for the crime of attempting to sleep with his young daughters."

The American Prospect's Adam Serwer, noted that the "Obama administration has spent a great deal of time on outreach to Muslims worldwide, and on dialing down the volume and rhetoric of the prior administration in order to defuse al-Qaeda's narrative of a clash of civilizations between Muslims and non-Muslims. So you have to wonder why in the world the president's speech writers would think it was a good idea to throw a joke about predator drones into the president's speech during the White House Correspondent's Dinner, given that an estimated one-third of drone casualties, or between 289 and 378, have been civilians. It evinces a callous disregard for human life that is really inappropriate for a world leader, especially a president who is waging war against an enemy that deliberately targets civilians. It also helps undermine that outreach by making it look insincere."

Serwer assessed that the relative lack of outrage, compared to the response to Bush's joke, might have "to do with whose lives were the butt of the joke -- we recognize the names and faces of the American service members who died because of Bush's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction as friends, relatives, and family members. The people who die in drone strikes are anonymous -- they have no faces or names -- except for the suspected terrorist targets the administration celebrates as being neutralized."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...aws-fire-.html

Obama Drone joke : was it offensive ?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...l?hpid=artslot

Was President Obama's joke about killing the Jonas Brothers with predator drones offensive?

Why Did Obama Feel the Need to Upstage Jay Leno?
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcb...d_obama_f.html

Bored this morning? If you've nothing better to do, check out the morphing titles on this WaPo article about the President's performance at the WHCA dinner. When I opened my morning paper, the article was entitled:

Obama, leaving the "self" out of self-deprecation.

By the time I got to page C-3, it was:

Obama's edgy humor aims barbs at everyone but himself

.
That must have been too close to the truth for comfort. Now it's:

For Obama, a changed tone in Presidential Humor

Changed tone, indeed. As the first two headlines imply, past Presidents have respected the longstanding tradition of largely avoiding nasty, partisan humor; preferring to poke a little good natured fun at themselves. But then Barack Obama did promise to bring change to Washington:

Barack Obama, the Insult Comic President, was up to his old shtick Saturday night.

Breaking with presidential punch line tradition for the second consecutive year, Obama dropped zinger after zinger on his opponents and allies alike at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner. Obama went all Don Rickles on a broad range of topics and individuals: Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, presidential advisers David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, the news media, Jay Leno, and Republicans Michael Steele, Scott Brown, John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Except for a mild joke pegged to his falling approval ratings, Obama mostly spared Obama during his 14-minute stand-up routine. Palin, he said, calls Twitter and Facebook "the socialized media." He dubbed Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican Party, "the Notorious G.O.P." The newly enacted health-care law, the president joked, has "hundreds" of secret provisions, such as one covering people in Massachusetts who've suffered "short-term memory loss" about the state's own efforts to reform health care. "So good news, Mitt!" Obama said of Republican critic and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. "Your condition is covered!"

The president elicited a few shocked "oooohs" from the audience of 2,600 when he told this joke about Charlie Crist, the Florida governor who is defecting from the Republican Party to run for the Senate: "Odds are that the Salahis are here," he said, referring to the gate-crashing Virginia couple. "There haven't been people who were more unwelcome at a party since Charlie Crist."

But the really interesting part of the article is here:

The outer-directed tone of the material, which was credited to Axelrod, White House speechwriter Jon Favreau and ex-Hillary Clinton speechwriter Jon Lovett, was in keeping with Obama's inaugural voyage as presidential joker last year. Making the rounds of the traditional spring dinners, the president cracked wise on just about everyone but himself.

It turns out that Obama's staff were NOT responsible for penning Obama's laugh lines after all:

Well this explains it. Turns out President Obama went outside the usual circle of speechwriters for his comedic address at this weekend’s WHCD. Instead he enlisted some Daily Show writers to assist in the penning of the one zingers that stole the show Saturday night (right out from under Jay Leno’s feet).

By comparison with past presidents, the current leader of the free world seems remarkably thin skinned and insecure. It's not just that he prefers "edgy" partisan jabs to the traditional self deprecatory fare - it's that he feels the need to upstage a professional comedian.

The last occupant of the Oval Office wasn't afraid to laugh at himself - or to invite others to join in the fun : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZKO...layer_embedded


Nor was he afraid to share the stage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmtSx...layer_embedded

Obama advisor & friend Valerie Jarrett:

"He knows exactly how smart he is…He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do."

Evidently, she thinks this reflects *positively* on him....

Obama advisor & friend Valerie Jarrett:


Quote:
"He knows exactly how smart he is…He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do."

still being served

unreal :