E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe White House trying to display command and control with Obama’s two-day visit to the Gulf (which begins today), his Oval Office address (tomorrow), and the meeting with BP officials (Wednesday)… If Team Obama can’t convince the public that it has command and control after these next three days, then it probably never will… Obama to press for and energy bill and make four other points in his speech Tuesday… Harwood writes that the president’s poll numbers remain steady despite all the criticism he is receiving… Reid hits Angle in new TV ad, while American Crossroads punches back at Reid… Ayotte testimony in the spotlight today… And Brownback’s “Office of Repealer.”
*** Command and control: As oil continues to gush from the leak in the Gulf, the Obama White House experienced another rough weekend of media coverage. And nothing was rougher than this piece from the usually friendly confines of the New York Times editorial page. “The president cannot plug the leak or magically clean up the fouled Gulf of Mexico. But he and his administration need to do a lot more to show they are on top of this mess, and not perpetually behind the curve.” The Times’ editorial concluded, “These are matters of competence and leadership. This is a time for Mr. Obama to decisively show both.” As if on cue, President Obama plans to spend today, tomorrow, and Wednesday to demonstrate command and control of the spill. http://nyti.ms/d2fL6M
*** Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and the Oval Office: Today, Obama makes his fourth trip to the Gulf Coast region since the spill -- but his first visit outside of Louisiana. He arrives in Mississippi (a spot being hit more economically than by the oil itself) later this morning, and then receives a briefing by Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen at noon ET. Then at 2:50 pm ET, he arrives in Theodore, AL, and will make a statement to reporters at 4:40 pm ET. Tomorrow, Obama hits Florida (home of a one-ton tar ball) and returns to the White House to give his first-ever primetime address from the Oval Office. And then on Wednesday, he and his administration will meet at the White House with BP officials. If Team Obama can’t convince the public that it has command and control of the situation after these three days, then it probably never will.
*** Previewing Tuesday’s speech: On “Meet the Press” yesterday, White House adviser David Axelrod previewed tomorrow's Oval Office address. “We have some clarity now about the oil that's escaping, and about how we're going to approach it, and about what this means for those communities. And we want to talk about that, and talk about the steps that we're going to take to deal with it.” In addition, the White House tells First Read that Obama will discuss five points: 1) the reorganization at the Interior Department to ensure a regulatory structure for safe offshore oil drilling; 2) the containment strategy for capturing as much of the leaking oil as possible; 3) the BP claims process and how to make it fast, efficient, and transparent (is it time to bring in Ken Feinberg as the doler of funds?); 4) the beginning of a process to restore the Gulf to a better place than it was before the Deepwater Horizon exploded; and 5) the need to reduce the country’s dependence on oil and fossil fuels -- i.e., push for passage of an energy bill. That push for an energy bill will come with a deadline: this year. Of course, the details of this energy bill (carbon tax, climate aspects, etc.) will not be discussed.
*** Where’s the optimism? On Tuesday, be sure to listen to the president’s tone and see if it’s more optimistic than it was last week. In an interview with Politico’s Roger Simon on Friday, the normally upbeat Obama sounded pessimistic -- and even somewhat cynical -- when talking about the criticism he has received from congressional Republicans and the media. On congressional GOPers “[I]f six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending.” And on the media: “I think I get frustrated with sometimes, as do, I suspect, other members of my team, is that the media specifically is demanding things that the public aren’t demanding. What the public wants to see is us solving this problem. And that may not make for good TV.” It’s one thing to be pessimistic, frustrated, and cynical. But it’s another to display those things in an interview.
*** And where’s the hope? Perhaps the president is right in his assessment about how Congress would have responded, but let's not forget that the president’s party is in charge of the legislative branch. In the last few weeks, more so than at any point to date in his term, the president has let his frustration with the process and theatrics show in public. Americans don't respond well to "woe is us.” Nobody wants unrealistic optimism, but they also want that guy who inspired a lot of "Hope" posters.
*** Obama’s poll numbers remain steady: Obama might have a point about the media’s criticism, specifically the political comparisons of the spill to Hurricane Katrina and the Iran hostage crisis. As John Harwood writes in the New York Times, the spill hasn’t really changed Obama’s standing in the polls -- at least so far. NBC/WSJ co-pollster Bill McInturff (R) tells Harwood: “It’s hard to make the case that the BP oil spill has a substantial impact on Obama’s job approval.” Adds polling expert Charles Franklin: “I see current approval about in line with the fluctuations we’ve seen all year for each pollster.” It will be interesting to see what the polls show after Obama’s offensive this week (the Gulf visit, the Oval Office address, the sit-down with BP officials).
*** Reid hits Angle in new TV ad: Turning to the midterm contests, the next couple of weeks will be crucial in determining whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) can put himself in a position to win re-election -- given his huge financial advantage over opponent Sharron Angle (R). First, he began airing a positive TV ad late last week. And now he’s going up with a negative one against Angle that hits her for wanting to phase out Social Security and Medicare, and for the Scientology/massage legislation she sponsored. However, the GOP-leaning group American Crossroads -- which is aided by Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie -- is jumping into the fray to attack Reid over his support for the stimulus. (This is the first real test of this Rove/Gillespie group, and it will be interesting to see if they can use this gambit to bring more attention to their group and raise more money.) Meanwhile, Politico reports that Angle today will meet with prominent Wall Street conservatives in New York, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal says she’ll meet with NRSC Chairman John Cornyn on Tuesday and with Grover Norquist’s morning gathering on Wednesday.
*** Ayotte in the spotlight: In New Hampshire, GOP Senate front-runner Kelly Ayotte today testifies before state legislators why she -- when state attorney general -- didn’t file fraud charges against a New Hampshire mortgage firm like federal authorities did. Says the AP: “New Hampshire's highest profile political race is merging with its biggest business story. Campaign friends and foes of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte await her testimony Monday before legislators reviewing state oversight of the firm. Among them are investors who lost millions of dollars in a failed mortgage firm in Meredith.” The DSCC is releasing a memo today that says: “In what could be her moment of truth, Kelly Ayotte will testify today on her failure to identify and stop the largest Ponzi scheme in New Hampshire history. As a Senate candidate, Ayotte is campaigning on her record as New Hampshire’s Attorney General, saying ‘I’m a prosecutor, not a politician’ in her latest television advertisement. Today, the voters of New Hampshire have the opportunity to scrutinize that record.”
*** The Repealer: This Sunday New York Times story caught our eye: Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who is running for governor, “has proposed a new Kansas entity, the State Office of the Repealer, whose job it would be to start disposing of all the silly, needless, over-the-top regulations that state officials have dreamed up. ‘People just love this idea,’ Mr. Brownback said here the other day, smiling broadly. ‘They feel like they’re getting their brains regulated out of them.’” (Well, at least not when it comes to offshore oil drilling regulations…)
*** More midterm news: In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln is moving to the center and away from Obama, the Arkansas News reports… In California, Carly Fiorina called her critical comments about Barbara Boxer’s hair “petty and superficial,” CQ says… In Florida, Mitt Romney has endorsed Bill McCollum… And in South Carolina’s GOP gubernatorial run-off, Andre Bauer has endorsed Gresham Barrett.
Countdown to UT primary and NC and SC run-offs: 8 days
Countdown to AL run-off: 29 days
Countdown to GA primary: 36 days
Countdown to OK primary: 43 days
Countdown to KS and MO primaries: 50 days
Countdown to CO and CT primaries: 57 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 141 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
Maybe; Maybe Not:
Scanning the news I found two different, but related topics as they pertain to Iran. The first piece was that the Saudis have approved a path (air space) so Israeli jets and bombers could attack Iran. My guess is that Iran will continue ignoring economic sanctions and is proceeding to create nuclear bombs. They must be getting close; otherwise there would be no need for a corridor through Saudi air space.
So, would Israel inform the United States of their intentions, giving notice of date and time? Yes, I’m sure they would. If the United States said “No” would Israel attack Iran anyway? Yes, I think so. Netanyahu is a hawk and, like Bush 43, would do a preemptive strike. If Israel were to attack in the next year, are we heading for Armageddon? Maybe, maybe not.
Which brings me to the next piece of news: It has been one year since Ahmadinejad won in an illegitimate election. Initially there was to be an anniversary protest march, but the government smothered the protest. Mousavi, the challenger in that election, cancelled the protest in an effort to protect the marchers’ safety. What Mousavi knows is that the yearning for freedom is incredibly powerful and you need live bodies, not martyrs, if freedom is to prevail.
I don’t know the sequence of events as they may unfold. There are many scenarios, but one possibility is that an Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities will destabilize the existing government. The Iranian military may want to fight Israel, but they could end up fighting their own people in a civil war.
President Obama’s role in all this is to keep Russia and China on the sidelines. This could be the real test to see how well diplomacy works.
Hey Ron - I saw that article regarding the Saudis allowing Isreal to overfly part of it's airspace without triggering the Saudi air defenses. Shows the rift between Sunni and Shia sects of Islam at work as the Sunnis want to keep @!$%#e Iran under control.
Hey did you see the article this morning that Afghanistan has extreme mineral wealth including lithium? Now it's going to be a shame if we spend all that blood and treasure securing their country only to have the Chinese beat us to the mineral extraction punch. The Chinese bribed some Afghan official and got a major mining concession while they contributed nothing to securing the country.
Interesting thought Ron. I think folks have to keep in mind that most other Arab nations will play both sides of this issue if Israel were to bomb the Iranian facilities. While condemning such an attack they would also be breathing a sigh of relief becuase they too do not want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. I'm sure that Obama and Israel have already discussed the timing of such bombing and that Obama has communicated U.S. support when Israel is ready to make a strike. But, I think the U.S. also has to take part in such an operation. It would help to take some of the heat off Israel by the rest of the world.
command and control, the new media, WE NEED MORE OILY BIRDS ON TEEVEE
I've read reports that it isn't just Saudi Arabia which is not comfortable with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Many middle eastern countries feel threatened. Not surprising that it would allow a corridor of air space if needed. The entire region could erupt into war and I'm not sure anyone knows the consequencesof bombing Iran or not bombing. What I do feel certain about is that if Israel does a pre-emptive strike, it has to be multi-pronged because there are several facilities and there will be a large number of civilian casualties; the US will be blamed whether or not we gave the okay. A strike would likely destabilize Iraq but might also destabilize the entire region.
Jody: I recall you included Iran in your predictions for the year. Your comments were more measured than mine, and probably more accurate.
Oops sorry I muffed spelling "shiite" with two "i"'s instead of just one. That's what should be showing right before "Iran" where the filter thought I used a cussword. My bad.
He has displayed neither...Had this been Bush, the Hollywood elite and the Liberal media would have had been beating the drum from day one...Obama has done zero...but talk...No results!!!!!
Obamas presidential skills are a joke all he has done is to try to socialize America.Thank goodness we still have voting rights (If he doesn't manage to revoke them in the next 2 1/2 years )Than he will be a one term president for sure.
Good to see your a loyal Fox watcher amron. Your using their talking points.
Eric, I’ve seen this road before
While it’s true the Celtics’ backs aren’t up against the wall this morning, neither are they are up 3-0, which is what it sounds like as I listen to the sports analysts up here. I wish people wouldn’t assume, which most of them are doing. At least the Boston media was last night. Suppose Boston loses tomorrow night, then what?
It’s been a terrific series. A friend of a friend flew up from Florida yesterday, landed here in Boston at noon, went to watch the Celtics last night, and is on a plane right now heading back to Florida. He should be landing around noon.
These are the stories I love to hear when your home team is going for an NBA title, World Series or Super Bowl. The fans will go to hell and back just to watch and support them.
That’s what it’s all about.
As far as President Obama listening to the media demanding that he address the Nation on the oil spill. The only people I hear talk about that is bloggers and inside the beltway media. I have yet to talk to one single person in all these weeks who has brought up the fact that they want the President to talk to them. They are disgusted with BP and would like to see THEM address the country and tell us what they’re going to do to help the people in the Gulf. People are always still very concerned about the economy.
But sitting by, demanding that the President speak to us? No one has said a word here. Nothing. As a matter of fact, everyone is walking around kind of laughing at the pundits. We are becoming a more whinier, emotionally thin-skinned country.
I guess people are realizing he isn’t the Messiah. Not that I ever thought he was. He’s President and is no longer on the campaign trial. He’s trying to freakin’ govern now. There’s a difference. A big difference.
Why didn’t they hold GWB up to the same standards? Especially when it came to Iraq? Because he and Cheney were tough cowboys. Who were not to be questioned. Until it was too late.
Hey Pat - sounds like the Boston fans are making like Pierce and tweeting the series is over before the Fat Lady sings. After agonizing over how poorly the Lakers were shooting last night and how well Bsoton was shooting I was rather happy that they only lost by 6. Now the series heads back to LA where the Lakers won't shoot so poorly and the Celts won't shoot so well. Actually a great series as neither team has been blown out, though game was was close. Looks like it will go 7 games and the Lakers are really good at home.
Go Lakers!
Eric, I don't mind the fans getting excited and "assuming" we're going to win. Everybody today is smiling & happy. That's why to me, sports means a great deal. I don't care about the money, the trash talking, etc. As a fan, I love the anticipation part of it that's going on in both cities. It's amazing sitting there watching these athletes, putting everything right there out there on the floor, doing all they can to 'WIN IT ALL'.
It's the media that concerns me. The end result for either team is wonderful, wonderful wonderful, but it's the journey getting there that's a blast. Up, down. Up, down. LA just may win tomorrow night. And the Boston media needs to consider that.
HI Pat, you had a good weekend sportswise, good game last night. Did you enjoy the game on Sat? I thought about you as I was watching on TV. What a game, and a thrill to see Nava hit the grandslam.
I love Fenwick Park, was there last year for a game. I hadn't been there over thirty years, the previous time being, the 6th game of the World Series game against Cinncinati when Carlton Fisk, hit that shot that brought us into Game seven. What a night, it was magical. I still have all the souvenirs, including the next morning's headlines from the local papers.
The media has become the loudest "whiner". It is as if the media has lost all perspective on what is and is not relavent to any story.
Can't recall whether it was yesterday on GPS or MSNBC Friday evening but there was a clip showing all the pundits, talk show hosts and guests on every station ranting about the President's need for visible anger, blah blah blah. Seen lumped together it was quite funny; too bad it is also pathetic proof of how petty so many have become.
On CBS's Sunday Morning, there was a terrific segment about Larry Byrd and Magic Johnson, their rivalry and their close friendship. Those were the days when I really enjoyed the NBA; now the season extends from football into baseball. Although I watched David Axelrod on MTP; I immediately switched to some good, nonpartisan and non ranting, entertainment on Sunday Morning and enjoyed a warm story about basketball and two of its great players.
Gingerbread Mamma: Yes, Saturday was a really nice relaxing day over @ Fenway. It was brutal trying to find a restaurant before the game, as they were filled to capacity with everyone watching soccer. So we had to settle for Pizza. But it was a wonderful moment for Nava wasn't it? As far as the soccer game went, I got to thinking. How often do we as a country get a moment to stand together and root for the USA in sports? Hocky in the Olympics comes to mind, but not too many other sports with this much intensity.
Want to hear something funny? V. late Saturday night I went to youtube to watch Nava's grandslam. And I heard the announcer (from Fox I think) say something about the last (or first) Red Sox player to hit a grand slam in his first major league game was Eddie Pelligrini. He played with the Red Sox in 1946 as a back up short stop to Johnny Pesky.
I met Pelligrini at a luncheon many years ago and got to talking to him after he spoke at the event. He lived not too far from me and he invited me to his home to take a look at all his memorabilia. He was good friends with Ted Williams, which was evident. Anyway, I spent about 4 or 5 summer Saturday afternoons at his lovely home and just sat there going through all his photos, memories, etc. His living room was like a museum. A few times as I sat there he would be on the telephone talking to Tommy Lasorda. I asked for nothing as I felt this was all stuff that his children should have. He was something else. He would talk and talk and talk and talk about baseball. And all the girls he would meet while a professional ballplayer. He coached the BC baseball team up here for many years and became a sort of legend.
He wanted me to accompany him to some Red Sox functions, but I said no. And that was that. I heard on the radio that he had died about a year or so ago.
Pat,
My thoughts exactly. It was only the media types carrying on and on and on. They drive the narrative and then sit back pontificating and giving their biased opinions about the optics. It's too bad when you cannot get news from the media but rather their opinions on what they think he should be doing. I firmly believe they are making up for the fact that they just took as the gospel whatever the previous administration said, they got burned, and now they just take apart every single thing this president does. I'm surprised they don't complain because he goes to sleep at night. I'm beginning to believe that whatever they say, it is probably the opposite.
I happen to be a Lakers fan but I do agree with you on the other issues.No,he's not the Messiah.He is the president,with a lot more on his shoulders than people care to admit.I really don't think it's as much about the way he's handling an oil spill that occured due to others negligence but the fact that because of who he is the media and the racist are going to dog him on every aspect of his leadership of this "great melting pot".What was Bush doing during 9/11?Not a damned thing!What the hell was his response to the Louisiana hurricane crisis when the levees broke?The media did'nt care and the "good ol' boys"had nothing to say because it did not affect them or their agendas.Now,with Obama it's different.Every nut in the world is expecting him to perform miracles or not do what they want so they can have as many reasons to hate.There are a lot of good people in America but that does'nt make for good ratings with the media.He's not God but he can't be too effective either when everything and everyone that matters is bucking against him.We all need to grow up as a unified country and work together as a nation to make things better or we will continue to be a laughing stock to other countries.This country is supposed to set the pace for the rest of the world but it seems many of us are more uncivilized than others in the world.Hey to those of you with sense I love ya!To those without,........well I love ya too,PEACE!
Because there are only a few big corporation who own most of the media. They tend to be conservatives.
Besides, the big, tough media is that way now because they know Obama won't call them unpatriotic.
Everyone should read Jonathan Alter's book. Obama is NOT the typical president. The book give a great deal of insight to how Obama thinks.
And if he were to go to the Gulf and sob over a dead pelican - well, they would find something wrong with that too.
This country was in such a mess, that everyone expected magic from Obama. We need to get back to reality in this country and deal with problems.
Here's a prime example why the media is stuck on stupid: Snookie from Jersey Shore is angry at Obama for taxing tanning places, so in Snookie's very tiny brain that means Obama hates Jersey shore type people. The fact that the media needed to make this a news story is dumb. Dumber? The fact John McCain tweeted Snookie back claiming if he were president he would never tax tanning salons.
That's it - we have no media in this country. The closest anyone can get to the truth is by listening to NPR.
I can only hope that after the President speech tomorrow night – we will concentrate on what he ACTUALLY said and not whether he ‘emoted’ well enough for the MSM tastes!
Feisty,
I agree. I am afraid things are going to get worst before they get better. The repugs are not going to do anything to correct the mess they made and will blame the DEMS that nothing was done. Or if someting is done it is not enough. Hopefully America will wake up soon.
The media just keeps fanning the flame and most of them that are getting the most attention appear to be the ones that are the lease quaified to open their mouths. Nothing new there with the Rush wantabes on MSNBc early mornings.
Keep writing, you are only one of a few that I look for on this blog that makes any sense.
Man you are way off of the reservation;
Why do you have to start your entry with an insult towards Republicans? This is the reason we jump back at you Liberals nastily and hastly. You create a hostile environment when you call people Rethugs, Party of NO, Repugs, etc.... Republicans didn't blow that g-dam well up, nor did a Democrat.
This is why this country will stay divided. Then you have to get your little Rush dib in. You and you're co-horts can hate on the man all you want, but he is successful and their isn't sh!t you can do fade him. Many have tried and failed. In recent memory Air America tried to step to the big dogs and you see where it got them.
Thank you Retired! I try to do my part (as small as it may be)! LOL
And your analysis of the MSM was excellent! First person that comes to mind as a Rush wannabe is Chrissy Matthews... neither one of them have any convictions! Thank goodness for Rachel & Keith!
But especially Rachel - she represents what a REAL journalist is! Not just another talking head...
Feisty,
I watch Keith and Rachel everynight. I gave up on Mathews. If he does not like the answer he just tries to talk louder or change the subject. AN if memory serves me, Air Americagave us Rachael Madow. I loved to listen to her then and even more so now.
I guess I hit a nerve with the REPUG. The party of NO, The party of NOTHING do NOTHING. Time will tell my friend.
Yours in Service
Good to see your a loyal Fox watcher amron. Your using their talking points.
Regarding your comments about Obama's comments on the press: Rather than snark at Obama for making a statement like that, have you reflected on what he said? Is the media really doing its job when it demands that Obama act "angry" or "sympathetic" rather than evaluating his real world response to the crisis? You guys can criticize anything and everything, but the second someone suggests you may not be doing your job well (and you could be doing a much better job,) you become very dismissive. Maybe you should reflect on your own standards and behavior every once in a while.
Jason,
Your comments are on the mark!
Yesterday, I watched Fareed Zakaria's GPS on CNN and he asked the most cogent question in the past 50 + days..."Have we gone crazy?" He was not talking about us, he was talking about the media!
He seemed sincerely baffled by all of the time and energy spent on superficial stuff while the Gulf Coast is being lost by the hour.
The MSM seems to be miffed at the President because he has been critical of their coverage during this crisis and well he should be. They could have taken the time to inform the public of everything the government has done in April 22nd but they chose to spend hours talking about BS.
The MSM also has the attitude that because they were favorably inclined towards Obama during the campaign that he should now say what they want him to say and act like they want him to act. He is not some circus animal !!!!
Exactly right and so frustrating.
Exactly. And no one in the media has told what his response to the crisis has been. They are too concerned with this emotion. They should be ashamed.
I saw that bit with Fareed Zakaria. Now he gets it. Maybe he could give lessons to the know-it-alls (Chuck, Joe, Chris) about reporting facts!!!!!
Zakaria's response to the media was on the money. The media is the joke of the day and these pundits are ridiculous.
Turn to any news media, and the analysis is the same. DO they all have a daily email/meetings on how to respond to the crisis of the day. I can predict with certainity what their response would be to any question....frustrating.
"the normally upbeat Obama sounded pessimistic -- and even somewhat cynical -- when talking about the criticism he has received from congressional Republicans and the media."
Really, I don't understand that, I mean just because he has unjustly been pummeled by every member of the press in their quest for higher ratings while simultaneously having to listen to the Republicans drone on about how he should have prevented the disaster when they are in fact the root cause. Give me a break, the press needs to report the News not try to create it and the Republicans need to just shut up.
w bush:
Obama is the type of person who has been successful in life because of his ability to compartmentalize everything and to maintain a certain control and organization with those things that confront him. He also, in his past, has observed how human beings can come together to resolve problems or issues facing the same. He possesses a certain pragmitism using whatever is available to achieve results. He worries less about the appearance of the solutuion as long as the solution resolves the problem. The press, and the republicans are more concerned with appearances. How one gets things done and what face they put on in the morning rather than whether actions actually resolve a problem. So yes, it is no wonder Obama may be sounding a bit pessimistic. He is results oriented where the media and the republicans are appearance oriented. Therefore, signs of pessimisn are a result of Obama's frustration with these folks. And he has every right to be frustrated with them.
Great post CA. You are are perfect example of someone who is on the outside looking in. You see things with a perspective quite different from those inside the beltway and your perspective on the president has never changed. You have been 100% consistent for as long as I have known you.
He deserves criticism when warranted, but I have backed off because the ugliness has gotten so bad. I would have questioned his slowness in some areas, but I don't. He gets enough of it as is.
He's a different kind of president from what we've been used to. And that's a good thing. We have always liked the charms of Clinton and JFK or the cowboyness of Bush and Reagan. I really like Barack Obama.
Wish when we elected a president from a new generation, that we also brought in a whole new set of pundits from a new generation. Oh wait. We have 'em. And they stink. Male. Mid 30's-early 40's. Macho I guess. But not too bright.
Anyway, your perspective is refreshing, considering what I read all over the internets.
Well said ,CA and seconded by Pat, I, too, refrain from criticizing because I feel that mine is more a concern and how those concerns are perceived to those with a jaundiced eye. The media seem to me, to want to try to make the President into someone they seem to believe he should be. They can't seem to accept him as he is, an extremely pragmatic individual, who does not make rash decisions, seeks many others input and then makes a decision based on all that info.
If George Bush and others had a little reserve, we certainly would not be in the pickle we are today. President Obama, will not be pushed into doing anything he is not comfortable is the right way. This does not sit well with the gopers who like to shoot first and ask questions later. Much later.
Thanks for the acknowledgment Pat. Obama will continue to have a hard time with some in the public, many in the press and the far right. And the next President whether in 2012 or 2016 (liberal or conservative) will have similar if not more compounded problems, complaints and loss of confidence. And the next even more difficulties and problems. The reason is because no matter how much one loves our country, or how much or little one attempts to lead this copuntry, there is something rotten in Denmark. The U.S. is experiencing the throes of that which faced Rome during her decline, and it is the citizentry of this nation who have lost control of who it is they wish to be as a nation. They are allowing for their own demise, and we are living the beginning of the storm.
CA with all of your worshipping of Obama you failed to mention that he is but yet a POLITICIAN. He is doing no more than anyone else in his position would. Everything the man says, does is calculated and scripted. It may appear that he is just rattling things off but you know as well as everyone else he is advised on ewhat to say and when to say it. Do you honestly not believe that Republican POLITICIANS do not have advisors and say things for a reason. Do you not think whenever they say something; 90% of the time they already know what the reaction to a stement is going to be?
A POLITICIAN IS A POLITICIAN. Obama is no different, only in the sense that he is naturally laid back and he knows he governs a divided country. He knows he cannot afford to lose even 6-10% of the country because it is divided so evenly.
We get on these boards and argue Republican this, Democrat that but none of those guys in Washington really gives a ratz azz about what you say on a blog. The only people who care are the few that frequent these boards. This is why 50% of America doesn't even vote.
InTheMiddle:
Please, when I have legitimate criticisms against Obama I express them, and I have in the past. I worship no one outside God. And even then I may even give God a piece of my mind from time to time. Next To God I may exhibit a certain level of worhsip for my sons, but they too are the subject of ole Dad's cronstructive crtiicism from time to time.
Because I try and understand Obama and to look for that which drives him in most comments, and feel that it serves neither our President or this country to constantly look to criticize him or any other President is not a precursor for hero- worship. The fact is InTheMiddle there is too little understanding or attempts to understand people today and too much criticism. It would behoove you to ltry a little more understanding and a little less criticism. By the way, understanding does not equate to agreement, but it does allow one to recognize that others, no matter their positions in life, are just as human as the rest of us and possess the same human condition of being far from perfect.
CA, enjoyed your post; it is so true.
David Plouffe's book describes how candidate Obama ignored the chatter and incessant critique of the campaign and him for as long as possible and just worked hard at doing what needed doing. I think that is what he is doing now; when the noise gets out of control, he comes out to punch it down to reality. I see that as a plus. Obama and his top advisers were amused at how the press tried to make the story about being too black, not being black enough, inability to get the white vote, and so on. In reality, it was two strong candidates; one the established, conventional wisdom front runner and the other, the new guy who had to prove himself and just happened to be bi-racial.
CA,
You still didn't get the premise of my statement. A POLITICIAN IS A POLITICIAN.
I understand the man and where he is coming from. I'm not saying I agree with him but I do know why he does the things that he do, he is a POLITICIAN.
The man ran a good campaign and McCain's campaign was shot. Most Republicans don't like McCain anyway. I like Obama as a man but I just think his advisors are a group that I do not care for.
As for as worshipping. When a person can't find anything wrong or you can only find a smidget wrong in the many decisions made then that is what we call "riding the man's jock".
I think seriously people are criticizing so much because of the treatment Bush received and still receiving. This will not stop and the next Republican POTUS will receieve it also. From Clinton on it will continue to get worse mainly because of the new media.
InTheMiddle:
Well, what is it, a person who can't find anything negative about a person or a person who can't find a smidgen negative about a person is then worshipping that person. You can't have it both ways. No negatives or just a smidgen of negatives.
Of course I realize Obama is a poltiician and will do and say things and make decisions that will be beneficial to him as a politician and his political career. What do you expect from the man of from any politician for that matter? To say things and make decisions that will ruin their political career?
And along with Republicans shutting up, some on the far left need to shut up too. Try the crew at Firedoglake.
ITM:
The problem with what has transpired since the primary is that the media has decided it is the news. They have decided they will set the news, drive the news, and if there is no news, create the news. And the media has decided that you can't have news without some sort of controvery in order to stir things up. And that is basically what they do, each and every day. I think the problem really revved up - the lust for blood by the media - when Clinton was gone after in order to impeach him. Yes, he lied under oath....however, I don't care who you are, or who you are with or married to, I don't believe there are many people out there, male or female, who have not lusted, hanky-pankied, or whatever, either just flirtatious or full-blown. Clinton should have said it's none of your damn business and gone on, but no, we had to have the full-blown, taxpayer funded national TV seduction of the viewer for not only ratings, but also for the politicians to score points.
When we were attacked on 9/11, no one and I mean no one said a word about George W. It wasn't Dem America or Repub America, we were all Americans. All of us wanted blood, not of each other, but of the murderous bastards who had done that horrible thing. We watched shock & awe, we saw our children killed. We sent other children off to war. Many of them were killed as well. Then we find out that that war was based on a lie. It was the wrong war, a really stupid war that basically benefitted Halliburton, big oil, etc. Do I think George was responsible for 9/11. No. I don't really even hold him that accountable for Iraq. I don't think he was really smart enough to be President. But we chose him. I didn't particularly care for Gore. I surely didn't care for Kerry. It was like who's the worst. No real animosity about were they Dems or Repubs. George got all that he wanted - from us and from Congress.
Yes, they are politicians, President Obama is a politician. But everything is political. Everyone, in every job, is jockeying for position. Everyone, in their social life, is jockeying for position. Everyone is a politician in some way. Be you the gang leader, or the congressman, the media networks, the CEO, or the President. So I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make.
What I am saying is that we need to come together. That now seems almost impossible to do. The tenor of the right, and the far-right since this election, has been so vindictive, so hateful, so vitriolic, so disrespectful, that it is now almost unforgiveable for most of us that believe that a President should be given a chance! From the day he was sworn in to office it has been nothing but a grinding out of the most hateful, nasty, rhetoric and criticism. Things that have never been done in my lifetime, such as screaming out in the Senate Chambers, "you lie", that show absolutely no iota of respect for not only this President, but for all the people, the majority of the voters, who elected him. Everything that he has tried to accomplish, rather than the usual kicking the can down the road, has been excoriated by the right and also by the media.
Thank god he remains calm and considered, thoughtful and seems to me to be good at heart and working for our good. You can call him socialist or nazi or whatever you want (and I have read many of your threads) but when he is not even given a chance to do what we asked him to do without being mocked and cr@apped upon, that is why you get it back in full force. I, for one, am tired of it. I don't watch Chris Matthews any longer. I don't know what the hell he is talking about any longer. Just flightly fluffy garbage. Oh, yes, he hollers and cajoles, but what about really? As for Rachel and Keith and Ed, I know they are Obama supporters, but they will criticize Obama when he deserves it, not just out of hand. They are not one-sided. They may have a political ideology, but they are not above seeing and saying the truth. That is not something you find with Rush or Hannity or their ilk.
When the far right started telling us all how we should live, what we should think, and then turn around and tell us that government is bad - unless it is THEIR government, and that everyone but them was unpatriotic and unAmerican, you finally have to draw the line and start defending yourself and who you are and what you believe. I read these blogs all the time and I truly believe that there is not one Obama supporter on here that doesn't want you to have the freedom to live your own life, with your own values, etc. and want the same in return. No one here was screaming about Bush taking their freedoms away, or that he was a communist. I don't remember any lies about Bush. And as I said before, everyone came together because he was our President in our country's time of need. But you all have done away with that. It's a very sad state of affairs, indeed.
Cathy M., you are so right!I agree with you 100%.Everyone knows the W.B. administration was not the best in the world but the nation did'nt grumble or squak about his inadequacies as our leader and God only knows how bad he screwed this country.I don't care who is president as long as he is doing his job.No president can be effective when so many are against everything he does.You seem like a very intelligent person so I know you can see what the real problem is.Racism,the media,whom slyly promotes that type of behavior because it's such a popular thing.Not everyone agrees with that BS but again we are not the popular bunch.There are things Obama can do better but people are not even giving him credit for what he is doing,and until we as a nation pull together and forget the media crap nothing he does is going to be good enough!I agree,give the man a fair chance not the one some in this country has given him since day one.I don't have any hatetred for anyone, I love all people even those that hate and I pray for all to have a change of heart in this country.I teach my kids the importance of faith and love for all mankind but yet all they see is a lot of the opposite from others.Thank God they don't let it change them.Again I say ,I agree with you and yes it would seem you are quite intelligent!!!!!!
Unless President Obama was smart enough to make sure that his speech tomorrow night isn't at the same time as game 6 of the Lakers/Celtics NBA Finals he's not going to be speaking to many viewers. I'm surprised he didn't wait until after meeting the BP Oil Criminals and speak on Wednesday.
As far as the reorganization of Minerals Management Services, it will only work if all of the current corrupt conservative oil lackeys are fired and a whole new set of Liberal Environmentalists are hired to ensure that there will be no more sex and drug bribe parties between MMS employees and oil company criminals. Just moving around the organizational chart won;t work, it's the corrupt people working there that is the real problem that must be fixed with a deluge of pink slips.
As for weaning ourselves off oil I read a newstory today that shows that the USA is 4th in solar power production, behind Germany, Italy and Japan. Rather ironic that the old Axis Tri-Partite Pact is kicking the Allied behinds in solar power production. We should be absolutely ashamed and mad as heck that the USA is only 4th in solar power production, where the heck are the repugnant ones at crying for USA to be number 1? Yeah still too addicted to oil and coal to want to do the smart thing. Plus we need to ramp up our wind power production to help wean us from foreign oil.
Domestic oil drilling will never free us of foreign oil, it will only keep us slaves to foreign oil for as long as repugnant ones are too stupid to invest in clean green renewable energy. Plus we can't let China be ahead of us in solar panel production, yet again the repugnant one's outsourcing of good paying union manufacturing jobs is making our country a third world banana republic.
Or where are the republicans demanding "exceptionalism"?
Serfdom is the new word that Wailing Old Woeman Glenda Becky and the repugnant ones have learned and are now bandying about. Some worthless old book about Serfdom that Ronny Raygunz liked is making it's rounds as if it's brand new. Nope just another book of heresy by the rich and greedy to keep fools supporting their drive to amass ever more wealth while the rest of us just get poorer and more numerous.
Serfdom has it's roots in old Imperialistic Russia, though it was extensive in Europe as well during the Medieval times. Serfdom is what happens when a small class of rich and greedy control the vast majority of wealth while the rest are mere paupers, well serfs who own nothing and work cheap. This is what happens when Aristocracy rules and private industry isn't properly shared. Socialism was the cure that Russians decided upon to replace their Serfdom, now the lying dopes of nope are trying to say that Serfdom is a result of Socialism - as always fractured fairy tale history from the conservative liars.
Just who are our new Serfs? Why it's the illegal immigrants who come here to work for greedy conservative businesses who are too cheap to pay regular Americans real wages. They have no rights, no papers and no wealth, just like the Serfs of old Imperialistic Russia. Just like the slaves of the South before the Civil War.
When we think of Serfdom we think of rich kings lording over the poor Serfs in their Castles, now it's rich and greedy CEO's who lord over us in their Steel and Glass Corporate HQ buildings. Serfdom is what happens when the wealthy write all the rules, just like what the repugnant ones want to do. Keeping taxes too low on the rich and greedy is the hallmark of Serfdom.
Wailing Old Woeman Glenda Becky and the repugnant ones want to bring back Serfdom (slavery) to our country to maximize the amount of wealth the rich and greedy wield over all of us Serfs. If we let the repugnant ones have their way soon America will be like old Imperialistic Russia with a few rich and greedy wealth owners and hundreds of millions of poor Serfs. Plus one Czar to keep us all in line.
I enjoyed Meet The Press on Sunday - especially when I realized I could just mute Carly Fiorino and study her hair till another taking head came on. Speaking of Carly, what's up with the big fluffly softballs David Gregory tossed her? It's like he was setting her up to deliver pre-ordained talking points. Does David ever get notes from producers after the show? I hope someone gives him feedback about his questioning, I'm sorry, that's not journalism.
PS I love Chuck Todd. The whole panel was excellent for a change as well (no Peggy Noonan!). MTP has the best lighting geniuses in the business, even Carly looked amazing, and I should know, I studied her with the sound off for several minutes!
It is easy to understand why Carly Fiorina was fired by HP. She doesn’t know how to listen to another viewpoint. Three times she interrupted and talked over Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Yes she did Dennis, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz still kicked her a$$. Fiorina can't hold a candle to Debbie she looks like the fool she is when debating Schultz.
I think Debbie Wassermann Schultz is an amzing woman, a cancer survivor, who kept on working, never announced her health problems until many months after the treatment was completed. She is not my Congresswoman, but I believe she is the best Florida has in Congress and we will hear more of her as the years go by. She knows how to kick butt
AMY,
Right on. I stopped warching MTP as it has become more of the same old. No hard questions to those in favor, telling us what to do and what we should think. Just give us the facts (the true ones) and lets us make our choice. I have gotten to the point that I no longer know whi is telling the thruth and who is lying. This is a sad place to be.
US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired
I totally agree. The media bosses think we can't tell the difference between real journalism and collusion with the politicians, but we can tell, we can tell. That's why Jon Stewart is so popular. He's taken up the mantle of ethical reporting the media has long since dropped. (Except, as I say, Chuck Todd, who you know is a good guy.)
Jon Stewart????Stewart is a comedian. I like Lavell Crawford (he is funny as hell) but I don't depend on him for pollitical news. I guess it is okay coming from Democrats who elected Stuart Smalley to the Senate.
Wasserman kicking azz...LOL....that woman looks like an idiot everytime she comes on T.V. and attempts to debate a Republican. She thinks that people are just going to shut up and let her spew her little talking points and accept it. Everything she says; I can tune into another channel and hear the same exact words from another Democrat. It's called talking points.
No itm you tune into Fox cause they tell you what you want to hear. BTW: your ranting against Debbie Schultz because you know she kicks every republicans a$$ she debates, but that's not hard to do when all they have to say is no.
And we still put up with that garbage, too. … She forgot the ‘also’
____________________________________________________
Once upon a time… there was a millionaire…
Her kin folk said… Bible Spice you need to move away from here…
They said Washington is the place you ought to be…
So she loaded up her klan of misfits and moved to DC…
Wouldn’t surprise me one bit if she DID get a ‘boob’ job! It’s not like she panders to the party of pale – stale & male or anything… ;0)
She BETTER get a boob job, if she want's more airtime on the Cleavage Channel (Fox). After having all them kids, it looks like the suspension has gone out of her current ones.
LMAO... Drive- by... you're 'killing' me!
Good Morning All I hope everyone had a lovely restful weekend.
Most of the criticism of the WH and Pres, is coming from the media. Most reasonable people, can see that he is doing all that can be done, short of going out in a rowboat and sucking it up with a straw.
The media seem to have the notion that he has unlimited ability to correct this huge problem and do at times, try to put words into the mouths of affected people.
No longer are there qualified journalists to report, what is making news, stating the facts as they know them and let us make up our minds. I am right now listening to Savannah and Chuck, what a pair of arrogant faux news people, suggesting what way the Pres should react, how he should do things as THEY see he should.
The press is intended to inform us of what may or may not be known, to help keep us informed, they have the access and can ask the questions we the people cannot, however, more and more they are becoming the news themselves and thus less credible to the citizens who want and like to be informed.
Dealing with red state victims to add to the drama and gives some there a platform to voice there disdain and dislike for a Democrat who happens to be black. On Sat, I saw a shrimper being interviewed on MSNBC, who in addition to letting us know how bad things, was more intent on spewing his hatred for the Pres. stating, he is not my Pres. I didn't vote for him, I'm a Vietnam vet, blah blah, blah. They want help and sympathy, but not from a black President.
Spot on Gingerbread Mama!
In talking about the spill with 'every day people'... My favorites are the ones who howl but... but..but... He's GOT to do MORE!
I then calmly ask what it is they would like the President to do... which 9 times out of 10 is followed by the 'deer in the headlights look'!
If you're not part of the solution... you're part of the problem!
Hi Fiesty, thanks for the shoutout.
This disaster is changing a way of life in an area where the people see themselves as independent and self sufficient. That they are, however, now they need outside help, but they want it on their terms. No longer is there too much government for them, seems now there is not enough..Ha the irony. The hardest part of this change will be for most of them to find a new way of living, because nothing is coming back they way it was.
Enjoyed your post. I'm glad I missed that interview. So true, they want help yet show hatred and complete disrespect. Thank goodness Pres Obama will continue his efforts to help those people even when they so obviously hate him simply for being who he is.
One thing that irks me is how so many are blaming President Obama for a slow response. Can you imagine if Oil Criminals Bush and Cheney were in charge when the Deepwater oil rig blew it's stack? They would have taken BP Oil at it's word about how much oil was spilling and no doubt would have done everything to cover up the leak by keeping the media away from sensitive areas. No Oil Criminals Bush and Cheney would have reacted far slower than Obama has. Imagine if Alzhiemer stricken McCain and Mental Midget Palin were in charge. They also would have bought BP Oil's story hook, line and sinker for far too long and would have reacted much slower than Obama. Plus now we'd be hearing Crash Dummy McCain singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb the Hole".
We can blame Tricky Dick Cheney and his secretive energy task farce meetings for ensuring that this disaster was inevitable as they allowed Big Oil to write it's own rules and made sure that Minerals Management Services was chock full of corrupt conservative oil lackeys who were corrupt enough to allow oil executives to ply them with sex and drugs so they would turn a blind eye to their regulatory and oversight duties.
The federal government was never supposed to have to deal with cleaning up a massive oil spill, remember BP Oil said it could deal with any spill in it's permit application so now BP Oil has to live by it's promise. Don't blame the federal government for not being able to clean up the spill, BP Oil was supposed to have the technology to do the job and we can see that they never bothered to invest any money in updating it's clean-up or leak-plugging equipment over the past 30 years since the Ixtoc oil spill.
Ever since this oil spill disaster BP Oil has done nothing but lie about everything and Tony Baloney Hayward is as bad at gushing toxic nonsense as the well oil. BP Oil has shown us we can never trust large corporations to be honest when they have a major malfunction, just look at the big banks and how they trashed our economy with their unsafe loan and derivative garbage and how they lied about not seeing that home prices would drop because of massive foreclosures because they made too many toxic loans. We must always have a Big Government that can force Big Business to come clean when they screw up massively!
Crash Dummy McCain is Singing: Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb the Hole!
Open up your mind a little on the spill, Eric...it wouldn't hurt to actually know what you're talking about, would it?
May I recommend the new Rolling Stone article by Tim Dickinson?
It's a detailed, referenced examination of the Obama Administration and the Gulf oil spill.
Definitely "news you can use", Eric...
As to your "big govenment" philosophy: The size of government should depend on the size of the institutions in the country, the millions of people and the size of the complexity called America. I guess some would want no government, but then how do you control a corporate takeover of America, the robbing of the American people. If you are a small city, you need a small city police force. A large city needs a larger force. As huge as our country has gotten in people, business, etc. how would we be able to govern, right various wrongs, thwart anarchy, etc. without a large government. I can't imagine what a small government in this day and age would look like or accomplish. And those idiots, the Demented ones saying "government? We're incompetent" should be voted out of office. We don't need incompetent government and that is basically what he is saying he is.
Ah...
Where to begin. It's good to see First Read take up the issue of the NY Times editorial on President Obama, the BP oil spill, and the federal government's response to it.
A terrific new article highly critical of the Obama Administration's handling of the spill has appeared in Rolling Stone magazine (that well-known right-wing rag), and deserves mention as well...the lengthy article offers up the most detailed description of this story that I've seen anywhere.
I'm still disappointed that I haven't seen or heard Chuck, Mark or Dom address last weeks' NY Times article suggesting that BP and the Obama Administration have been allies in restricting the flow of news coverage of the spill, to the consternation of the media...lots of discussion elsewhere on that little nugget!
I have to disagree somewhat on the President's poll numbers...his job approval is slipping in the Gallup daily tracking poll, establishing a new, all-time low of 44% last week. Also, for more than the last two weeks, only one major poll (ABC News/Washington Post) shows President Obama above 50% job approval.
And by lots of discussion elsewhere Mixed bag, I assume you mean Fox, seeing as how that's where you get all your information. You do like to get up early so you can find a poll that you like. You can't bear to think that more than 50% approve of our President can you Bag.
Umm, actually...
No, Mo.
The most intense discussion of the NY Times story I referenced was at Jane Hamsher's Firedoglake website...one of the most liberal progressive political sites on the web. Are you familiar with it?
Anyway, try to remember, MO...YOU'RE the kneejerk ideologue in this exchange. I probably view Fox News a bit more than you do...but actually, less than either MSNBC or CNN.
So, Mo...how much do you view Fox?
Is this a question I can easily guess the answer to?
Hmmm...is Mo someone likely to have been exposed to a wide range of political opinion?
Hmmm...tough one.
I was really sickened Friday by SissyChris Matthew's sick fascination with Sinner Sarah Palin. It's rather obvious that SissyChris has the hots for Wasilla Hillbilly Palin and is not thinking with his big head. Obviously SissyChris is chomping on too much Viagra before he goes on air. His descriptions of her voice as being well modulated are so offbase as to be ludicrous in the extreme, Sinister Sarah's voice is like fingernails scratching along a chalk board and she has no idea what a complete sentence is or a coherent thought.
It's really sickening to hear the media fools give her too much credit for picking winners, get a clue she only picked winners when it was rather obvious that they would win mere days before the voters voted. Plus the media fools seem to have gone braindead remembering that she also picked some losers, remember that jerk in Idaho she backed who lost after he made some really clueless remarks?
Plus there was an article the other day from Newsweek proclaiming her the Queen of the Religious Right, the most anti-American group of Secular Democracy haters there ever was. The religious right and the Teahadist Paliban are the biggest threat to our civilization, far more so than the Taliban. They want to destroy the wise Separation of Church and State ideal promoted by our Founding Fathers in order to turn our Secular Democracy into a christian perversion of Iran - a religious tyranny ruled by christian sharia law.
If christian churches want to stick their corrupt perverted noses into our government then it's time our government stick it's hands in the church's finances by taxing the churches properly as the scam artist businesses they are. It's also time to restore the top tax brackets Ronny Raygunz eliminated, repeal Clueless George Bush's capital gains tax cuts and make sure that the estate tax is never ended again so that some corrupt texas oil multibillionaire can't evade paying his fair share of estate tax. People wonder why our federal budget deficits are so high and it's all because the rich and greedy are not paying their fair share of taxes and their tax cut welfare has not created the jobs they were supposed to.
Someone needs to give SissyChris Matthews a good swift kick in his arse so he wakes up to the danger that Mental Midget Palin is, she is nothing but a self serving spoiled diva who lies, cheats and steals her way to popularity and unearned and undeserved wealth. Real sane Americans must say No to the nefarious religious right who are nothing but the second coming of the Salem Witch Trial crowd of control freaks.
Eric-
it's great to note your increasing awareness of the fact that the best place to get wall-to-wall, non-stop, blanket coverage of Sarah Palin's every, most off-hand, inconsequential utterance is...
MSNBC!
Calm down Eric, all Matthews is trying to do is become like Glen Beck. He thinks it'll get his ratings up if he panders to the far right, he's been headed there for a long time. I've started watching Mash reruns when his show is on, I can't stand to watch his softball questions to conservatives on his show.
Will someone please tell me why some Liberals think they have to act like conservatives.
Well, First Read, I guess you guys are the last to find out-
Obama cannot take criticism. Read the books about the campaign-no less an 'adversary' than David Axelrod called him on it; he questioned whether Obama could withstand the criticism that was guaranteed in a campaign.
I guess he is just to used to being told how wonderful he is, that anyone questioning him is seen as evil-or, as some on this board put it, a 'hater'.
On Friday, I posted about the expert panel Obama had called together to give recommendations on the drilling moratorium-thanks to Candice, who filled in the details-recommendations which he ignored.
Then, Penny, seeking to condone Obama's actions, (which were political, not science based), said something to the effect that 'experts did not make the decisions-Obama, the leader did".
I had a hard time figuring out a response to that, as it is so off the wall that it makes no sense. It is as if a parent, discovering that a child has swallowed a toxic substance, calls poison control, gets advice to not induce vomiting, give milk of magnesia, and take the child to the hospital, makes a parental, (leadership) decision to ignore that advice, induce vomiting, and keep the child at home. I suppose under that scenario, dear Penny would applaud the parent's leadership skills at the child's wake.
It is an apt scenario. The experts have all said that it is dangerous to shut down the on-going drilling, and that it could actually cause more, not less, explosions and spills. Obama chose to ignore that advice because it must have seemed more politically expedient to be seen as 'doing something', however wrongheaded.
If there is a worst case scenario, it will be completely, 100% his fault.
I don't expect any of which worshippers to believe that, just as I don't expect them to wake up one morning and realize that James Cameron was called in as an expert, all right-an expert at directing Obama's response.
His poll numbers are in the mid-40's, and headed downward. The dwindling few remaining worshippers can get together and rail against fate in November-but, I believe that when THAT brand of criticism, (a Republican House, and perhaps even Senate), heads his way, he will do what he has done in the past, and get out of Dodge.
He resigned U of C, after not getting tenure, (because he didn't do the writing required to get it-after three extensions, two more than given to any other candidate); he resigned from the law firm where he met his wife-after years of being 'of counsel', not sitting for the Bar exam, he walked away rather than put up with 'the hassle'. . .
ignore it if you will, but there is a pattern here, to obvious to miss.
No joe all blow do you have any idea what your talking about. your ranting is getting so off the wall it is getting hard to read, let alone understand. I tell you what, when President Obama resigns you can come on here and gloat about how right you were. Till then please your looking like an idiot. But that's nothing new.
no joe, no bo – aka Poll Dancer
See WSJ and REDSTATE articles:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/09/experts-disavow-salazars-drilling-moratorium/
http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2010/06/09/drilling-moratorium-violates-panels-recommendation/
As for your reasons; the part about the “pressure” makes no sense to me but I’m no expert so please provide a link to backup your statement. The part about stopping and restarting makes more sense but I would still like to read what the experts say.
As for the “Jones ACT” – It was waved for both the Exxon Valdez and Hurricane Katrina. Surprised you didn’t mention Katrina. But we have accepted help from a number of nations in terms of equipment, including 3,000 meters of containment boom from Canada, and two oil skimmers from Mexico. However the skimmers are owned and operated by Americans – according to FOXNEWS.com. See article:
http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/10/jones-act-slowing-oil-spill-cleanup/
Admiral Allen said that when the waiver is needed it will be granted. Over the weekend BP said the Gulf was too crowded to add more skimmers. I find that hard to believe and some other nations have better equipment than we are using now. I agree with you about the Jones Act – give the waver.
FYI, I do not worship President Obama. I agree with about 75% of his policies and I agreed with about 40% of President George Bush’s policies. So where do your percentages fall? If you don’t agree with any of the Obama administration’s policies then you are a hater and that, as you say, is sad and dangerous.
PS: This morning George Schloegel, Mayor of Gulfport, MS, reported that President Obama has talked to him and other Mayors and Governors in the region every day for almost 8 weeks. He said he is pleased with the government response.
Your argument is flawed. There is a difference between getting information from different perspectives to address an ongoing isssue versus making an immediate life or death decision.
The oil spill is an ongoing issue because the experts cannot plug the whole. Gathering information from the experts to make an informed decision is the logical course to take. The President must look at all the facts.
When I go to the doctors, I gather all the relevant information from the different sources before making a decision that benefits me. The experts can advise me, but the ultimate decision making rests with me the individual.
Which experts--those in the oil and gas industry? Of course, they see all kinds of problems but it's all bottom line, hurt my profit problems. Everyone else sees the decision as the right one--hit the pause button until we solve this disaster before creating another one like it.
As for criticism, there has been no constructive criticism at all in the media or from the pundits. When they're discussing whether or not the president is angry enough, or some other insignificant thought, not one of them had any ideas to solve the problem. When criticism is legitimate, every book I've read written about the campaign pointed to the fact that Obama was thoughtful about honest, constructive criticism from his advisers and the press.
I saw that interview and cheers to George Schloegel for stating the truth about what the Administration has been doing. Wonder if the press can absorb the thought that Pres Obama has been on top of this disaster from Day One even though he isn't portraying anger.
I am not knocking President Obama but I do think he made an error in judgement by not taking advantage of the Dutch offer to help on day three of this entire mess. I have read several articles that they offered and were told thanks, but no thanks by both BP and the President. They offered ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and a proposal for building sand barriers to protect sensetive wetlands. These ships are capable of removing 20 tons of oil and sludge each day. We may not have been home free but in a better place than we are today if we had been more accepting of help..
The New York Times has never been as "friendly" to President Obama as the rest of the corporate media would like us to believe. There part of the same herd as all the rest. As for their plaintive plea that Obama's gotta DO SOMETHING!!!, maybe they really do think he's the Messiah, which the Republicans baselessly mocked Obama supporters for believing during the election. The president cannot command the oily black tides to stop coming in like a latter day King Canute. And there are not enough booms and skimmers to protect every inch of the hundreds of miles of coastline that are threatened by the oil spill. Major sections of economically important and environmentally sensitive coastline are going to be ruined for decades no matter what the president or anyone else does.
The voters in the Confederate States along the Gulf Coast can vote against Obama to punish him for not being able to block the inevitable consequences of the Republican-style "free" enterprise system that they've blindly voted for in the past. They'd vote against him no matter what. But if they succeed in putting the Republicans back in power, the Repubs will immediately start undoing the (inadequate) regulatory reforms introduced by Obama. Then the government regulators can go back to partying and snorting coke with oil industry lobbyists just like they were doing all through the Bush administration.
Houston-
On that note, I thought I was in an alternate universe this morning when I tuned in to Mornin' Joe to hear Ariana Huffington bash Obama about not responding to the Gulf Crisis in a timely manner and moreover that he was not proactive before the spill to prevent it from happening!
These people have lost their collective minds!!
Good to see Harry Reid get off to a good start slamming Scary Sharry Angle over her idiotic ideas about ending Social Security and Medicare and her clueless Scientology nonsense about how to treat prisoners. Talk about a bleeding heart conservative, her prisoner plan would cost taxpayers way too much and garner way too little benefit to society. No wonder the repugnant ones have called her to Washington to smarten her up to what the repugnant one's establishment want her to say instead of her tea bagging message of clownish nonsense. Just goes to show that there is no tea party, the tea baggers are nothing but the crazy lazy wing of the dopes of nope.
Figures that Klueless Karl Rove and Deadhead Ed Gillespie are heading out to Nevada to attack Harry Reid with their lies and dirty political campaign tricks. Better believe this dimwitted duo of rightwing liars is going to create a bunch of lying ads. Hey morons the stimulus is working and no matter how many lies you spew you can't change that fact. Just kills the repugnant ones to see that the stimulus is working to recover our Bushwhacked economy and they're doing everything they can to keep our economy broken so they can blame it on Obama instead of taking credit for their own handiwork.
According to Pollster.com, Harry Reid has a 40.7% approval-53.0% disapproval rating from his own Nevada constituents...arguably, the people who know him best.
While those are undeniably abysmal numbers for any incumbent running for re-election, in the toxic 2010 political environment, they're beyond horrible.
And, unlike Mark Critz in PA-12, who held that Congressional seat for Democrats in part by denouncing health care reform and cap-and-trade, Harry can hardly run screaming from the Obama agenda, and tell President Obama to stay away.
Sharron Angle, or no...
Harry's in a pickle.
Just when you thought that things could not get any worse... we have Arizona upping the ante. This weekend, I read a TIME magazine article stating that the same architects of SB 1070 are going one step further by drafting legislation to BAN 'Anchor Babies' (babies of immigrants born on American Soil, which makes them American Citizens)). While on its face this legislation may SEEM like it's a good idea, I submit that it is not. This legislation would DENY the right of children born to immigrants in the United States of being American Citizens, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment which is VERY CLEAR in its language considering citizenship.
With this legislation, we would be breaking up families. WHO will take care of these children - who ARE American Citizens - when their parents are being deported? What will happen to MILLIONS of children who may NOT have a family 'social net' to fall back upon? From what I have been able to glean from my own research, this legislation would be struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the 14th Amendment prima facie. It is with MUCH curiousity as to WHY this legislation is going forward in the first place.
I submit to all that are reading this post that this is a test to see if they - the powers that be - can start stripping away the rights of American citizens. I have written extensively about how I felt that SB 1070 is a violation of our 4th Amendment rights (as well as the 8th), but the law as written is nuanced in that case. In this case, the 14th Amendment is being outright challenged. Will the AZ legislature be successful? Probably not, but the mere fact that someone is actually writing legislation to challenge the 14th Amendment should make everyone pause.
So, let's just say that the Supreme Court agrees with the AZ legislature on this issue. That would mean that American Citizens would have their citizenship stripped based on the fact of who their parents are. This would open the door to other challenges to our Bill of Rights and, I believe, America will cease to survive. Although I do NOT think that this legislation will survive, the caveat is that there are people out there who are trying to strip you of your rights as American Citizens. You need to be a lot more vigilant about PROTECTING your rights as American Citizens. If the AZ legislature is successful in stripping these 'Anchor Babies' of their citizenship, then YOUR citizenship and rights will be targeted next. Think I am wrong? I made reference to this VERY ISSUE in a lot of my posts about SB 1070. This open the door for other legislation that SPECIFICALLY designed to strip you of your rights.
Well, that door is NOW opened.
Let's see how spoiled and petulant Americans really are. Will they do anything to PROTECT the rights that have been afforded them by the Founding Fathers and affirmed by our Armed Forces throughtheir blood and sacrifice? Will Americans 'throw away' their rights for political expediency or a partisan advantage?
I hope it doesn't come to that, but Americans today are the most ill-informed and fickle people in ANY country. Let's hope that Americans will THINK - for once - and realise what is going on. Too many are ENJOYING this 'us v. them' mentality.
A divided house does not stand, so let's get our house in order.
Before it is too late.
"This legislation would DENY the right of children born to immigrants in the United States of being American Citizens, in direct violation of the 14th Amendment which is VERY CLEAR in its language considering citizenship."
The legislation would deny the right of children born to "illegal" immigrants, people who take it upon themselves to ignore the law and commit a crime in order to sneak into the country in no way deserve the rights allowed the people who play by the rules, sorry. There are plenty of pitiful stories we could talk about involving legal American citizens so I don't think the plight of illegals cuts much hay with most, the children of the illegals should be sent home with mom and dad that way no families are broken up, problem solved. To somehow say that because that a nonexistent right not be given to an illegal will somehow effect the rights of American Citizens is a real stretch that I don't see anyone buying into, the fact is the illegals should go home, take their kids with them and apply for legal citizenship, or just stay out.
W bush, the gist of my post was that if we allow people to take away citizenship from people who are protected under the 14th Amendment (and the 14th Amendment does NOT CARE if their parents are 'illegal' or not), then YOUR rights as an American citizen are in jeopardy. Why? Because any 2-bit dictator would have precedence to strip EVERYONE of their rights!
I am a little surprised that people like yourself cannot recognise that.
I am LESS suprised that people like yourself take the argument made by the AZ legislature at face value, not looking at anything else other than the mantra of 'illegal is ILLEGAL'. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face, and when you look up, you will have NO RIGHTS to do ANYTHING.
As I have posted before, you may be OK with 'throwing away' your rights, but I am not.
W,
The 14th Amendment doesn't state anything about legal or illegal immigrants, it says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdictin the equal protection of the laws."
I expect that you could make the case that "subject to the jurisdiction" might not apply to children of illegal immigrants, but I think that question has already been resolved (not in support of your argument), but I can't cite any specific case that supports my statement either. I actually agree with you in that I think the children should go with the parents, but I don't think the amendment supports either you or I.
Pietro, you said they're "drafting" legislation but then go on to talk like it's already in place. Saw a piece on TV this morning about a hotel in NYC for "illegal" mothers who want a place to stay so their children can be born in the US. How can it be legal for that hotel to advertise "come here to circumvent the law"?
"Citizens without a country" These children would then not be Americans and depending on the laws of their parents, they would not be citizens of that country.
Are you going to recommend sending them off the planet since they have no legal status anywhere?
Is anyone concern about the long-term impact this would have on the country and the Constitution. What about your rights as a citizen? Are people so delusional to think evil men cannot use this type of mentality to strip away their rights as citizens?
History has shown that what you want for others can easily come back and bite you in the ass. Germany any one?
Can't help wondering if this bill also plays to the birthers who insist Pres Obama is illegal because his father was Kenyan.
One can only hope that the far right implodes on itself before the harm is irreparable. Earlier there were comments about Chris Matthews. His program, either Tues or Wed, will be an indepth look at the rise of the far right. Should be interesting provided he lets the guests talk. Although, I'm making no comparison of republicans to the Rise of the Third Reich, there are parallels in discontent, racial prejudice, white supremacy, to name a few that makes the Tea Party right-wing extremists dangerous.
Unfortunately I have to disagree with the original post. The fact of the matter is folks need to be held personally responsible for breaking the law. We have to look at this just like we do anything else. You should not be able to break the law and then call upon the law for your benefit. While you are breaking the law you are out side of the justice and freedom the laws provides. I have been to many different countries in my military time and I know a lot of them are bad off. We as Americans have got to do what the law commands in order to preserve this country so that it can remain a place of refuge in the world. We can not allow everyone drowning to jump in the life boat all at once or the whole thing will flip over and we all drowned. Sorry for the over simplification but some folks need pictures. I am a compassionate person, my lady says I am "too nice" but on this I must say abide by the laws of the land.
Obama needs to stop pointing fingers and work with B.P. to correct the problem and deal with the people. He can not order people the way he is and think they will react. All he is doing is making a circus out of this. They whole world is laughing at us.
Look, We have let BP take the lead in cleaning up this mess, and each attempt has been met with COMPLETE, TOTAL, AND ABJECT FAILURE, one after ther other. President Obama NEEDS to take command of this situation, and he needs to do it NOW!!!
Harold it is not President Obama that is making a laughing stock of the United States, it's the media trying to sensationalize everything for ratings. The media needs to start reporting the news instead of telling us how we should think, we can make up our own minds without the medias so called experts.
I am 65 years old and I do think you two have a very good point. It is hard for me to see our country going the way it is. Yes I may be wrong but it seems we as the leader of nations are losing to the world the pride and glory of our country. I do not see people taking a moment to respect our flag, our country and etc. All I see is what is in it for me and is it free.
Harold you are old enough to clearly remember the 60’s with all the protesting, flag burning and student shootings (Ohio).
Clearly the unrest and anger is high but many are not sure where to point their anger. We got through that and we will get through the many problems our nation faces now.
This president has talked to all the Gulf Coast Mayors and Governors every day on a conference call at 3 pm (incl. Sat & Sun) for over 7 weeks so I’m not sure what you mean by “deal with the people”.
Want to see command and control? ...just watch Bammy in front of a platter of chicken wings!...:p
Nothing like a little racism to start the week...
Wish it were only a little Fiesty. I find it so sickening now many of the critics hardly even manage to mask their racists thoughts or words
Sterotyping is useless, your comment about wings is pathetic. You should see me with a plate of wings, hot sauce, and a cold beer. I'm probably just as in control as you infer the President to be.
No doubt God reads these comments and keeps a file titled intolerance and prejudice; you just lost points.
Try watching the Food Network (Diners, Driveins, and Dives) and see "true Americans" chowing down on wings, pigs, watermelon, etc. Yum, Yum
I love America's diversity, including the racist idiots...
Fareed Zacharia opened yesterday's show with a critique of the Media. He said what many of us on FR have written more or less. The media has trivialized the political discussion about the oil disaster by focusing not on what matters but on what doesn't--the President's anger or rather the media's perception of the President's calmness as negative.
The story became was the president "feeling the pain", emoting adequately, why was he in good clothes during his Gulf visits (shorts and flip flops were in order)--nonsensical and silly topics which have absolutely nothing to do with solving this crisis or with what the President and his team have actually done. How may times did the media report that it was President Obama who immediately demanded BP drill TWO relief wells, not one? The only place I have heard that was from WH officials. That's good, thoughtful leadership but the it was more fun to discuss the President's lack of outward anger.
Matt Lauer's question about the chatter of "not angry enough" and kicking butt was unnecessary. (Lauer could have asked a direct question regarding what has been done since the first day, and what is planned next instead of falling into the media-created storyline.) Pres Obama answered by pointing out the truth--the experts aren't for show, they're to help him decide whose a*** to kick.
That line became "the story" for a couple days--President Shows Anger but is it too late? What happened next? Great Britain came unglued seeing the comment as further proof the US is anti-Britain. The President then had to call the Prime Minister to calm Britain's fears. In my view, this is further proof that every president must carefully maneuver through every crisis with calm, thoughtfulness rather than shoot from the hip anger.
The lesson to our hyperventilating media should be this: The President can and must remain calm and measured in his remarks always--asking any president questions to stoke controversy requires that president to address it in some manner or add further fuel to the media-created non story.
There have been terrific journalist reports from the Gulf telling the real story of this disaster, emphasizing how little the government can really do to stop the leak, the human toll, the damage to wildlife and the environment, etc. I'd suggest that the journalists doing the excellent on-the-scene reporting be the ones who sit down and conduct interviews with the President and members of the Administration. They'll ask the relevant questions because they've been there. Otherwise, we're stuck with whether or not the President has shown enough anger or feels the pain.
The media helps drive the American perception of any event and that includes our perception of any President and the Government's response. We know this is true because the mayors, governors, local officials are complaining that the media's reports have resulted in a huge impact on tourism--tourists have cancelled vacations because they think every beach is covered in oil.
The best part of the comments Fareed Zakaria has made recently about Obama's handling of the oil spill was the response of someone who actually lives on the the Gulf Coast: Partisan Democrat and Louisiana native James Carville.
Particularly Carville's reply to Zakaria's "offensive linebacker" remark.
He said he felt like hitting Zakaria with a "football bat"...a not so subtle way of telling Zakaria he didn't know what he was talking about.
Not about American football...and certainly not about the Obama Administration's response to the Gulf oil catastrophe.
James Carville behaved like a fool as have many other screaming people who do nothing to help solve the problem except blow steam from between their ears. Carville may be from Louisiana but he spends most of his time in Washington.
FR--Command and control:"The president cannot plug the leak or magically clean up the fouled Gulf of Mexico. But he and his administration need to do a lot more to show they are on top of this mess, and not perpetually behind the curve." The Times' editorial concluded, "These are matters of competence and leadership. This is a time for Mr. Obama to decisively show both.
It's quite evident by this article who's attempting to set the stage for and control the message to the public about this president's leadership abilities. The New York Times and MSM are working overtime in attempts to "knock" this president down a few pegs. The saddest part about it is the fact that they are so blatant about their intention's and are FAILING miserably.
Libs, Independents...pay close attention because these are the people that are responsible; and want to control the message to the public with lie after lie. Theses are the people that think that what they report we should believe and we should be blind sheep and continue to follow them over the cliff because of their lies. They are also responsible for many of this Nations woes. Had they reported FACTUAL news during the last administration...we wouldn't be in this mess today.
FR--Where's the optimism? On Tuesday, be sure to listen to the president's tone and see if it's more optimistic than it was last week. In an interview with Politico's Roger Simon on Friday, the normally upbeat Obama sounded pessimistic -- and even somewhat cynical -- when talking about the criticism he has received from congressional Republicans and the media.
Personally...this article was a waste of time. Optimism? You people are a joke since you've been trying SO hard to force President Obama to crack by bowing to your childish games with all of the negative press and media attention. How soon do we forget? You all should be ashamed of yourselves because the moment he (President Obama) shows any hint of ANGER-- you'll be calling him and angry Black Man and paint his as a scary unhinged person. You asked for emotion-- now you criticize it; it doesn't matter what he does...it'll NEVER be to enough entertainment for you all.
FR--Obama's poll numbers remain steady:Obama might have a point about the media's criticism, specifically the political comparisons of the spill to Hurricane Katrina and the Iran hostage crisis. As John Harwood writes in the New York Times, the spill hasn't really changed Obama's standing in the polls -- at least so far.
I guess these have been cleaned up somewhat since the majority of us are on to the fact that they are a farce. Many of us have been echoing the fact that "POLLS" are political tools for the media and media is corporate driven. So what do you do? You start attacking a President that doesn't side with the BIG Corporation's when you don't get your way. Especially when you don't see anything in it for yourselves.
How would you ALL feel if the majority of us decided to turn off our sets for JUST 24 hours in protest for all of the garbage, lies and negative crisis management you've been inspiring? What about the media coverage that has affected those coastal states??? Like it or not...the public isn't listening to you all-- we are well aware of who the enemy is and it isn't this Administration-- it's the media, because you're attempting to paint doom, gloom and falsehood. Good luck with that...
Good post Anita, it's the media that is trying to bring this country down, with all their sensationalism, and they aren't smart enough to realize it.
Mo and Anita, does your distain for the press sensationalizing things apply on both sides of the political aisle? If it doesn't, are you just mad that somebody is questioning Obama?
dirt-303814. Can't answer for the others but YES, my disgust for the press sensationalizing things applies to both sides of the political aisle. I always thought the press's response to the photo of Pres Bush flying over the Gulf region after Katrina was sensationalizing; realistically, Bush could not go there without adding to the chaos of the moment--that was unfair to Pres Bush. I want the media to report the facts, the real story, and not trivialize it into their opinion about how to solve the problem or what they think should be done, whether the Pres gets angry or what clothes he wears to the Gulf. The truth is that considering the magnitude of this crisis, the ability of the Govt to fix it is limited--that's what the press should be reporting along with what is being done, was done, will be done.
MO:
Thanks for the reply, sorry I'm just getting back to you but I've had a very busy morning and I've been in and out. Thankfully I had an appointment rescheduled.
At any rate Mo; I think that the media knows what they're trying to accomplish but are failing miserably because they're choosing to attack President Obama without any "REAL" reason and that's what's really angering people and drawing negative attention to them.
They are attempting to compare this Administration by using the same political climate as past Administrations, when in fact that isn't the case. Our Nation has suffered a Depression and they aren't experiencing what John and Jane Q public is experiencing. They have lost contact with REAL public perception of their actual experiences; We're no longer a media driven society...we have the Internet.
dirt-303814:
Visual perception is a mutha and it's not just one side of the aisle that I'm complaining about. I see supposed Democrats joining the singing of the magpies. Those that are singing are in danger and KNOW that President Obama can't help them.
What do they have to lose other than attempts at drawing support from some disdain Republican? I vehemently disagree with James Carville; because what he did was embarrassing to the Party in my personal opinion and I'm still getting e-mails begging for cash donations from the DSSC.
There is NO way in hell that I'll donate to them--actually...I would donate to someone that would be wiling to REPLACE every Senator in Louisiana...If President Obama was doing a lousy job...I wouldn't support that; but what media is doing in my opinion is damaging to this Nation's morale (consumer confidence). If we don't spend money they don't have advertisers...it's just that simple.
Jody:
I read your posting and those of many others and we all have the same perception of the media. What they are attempting to accomplish is back firing on them. The beaches in my area and tourist industry is being destroyed because of the negative press. There is oil on beaches now; but there wasn't a month ago. They are attacking President Obama without cause or reason and it's actually pushing more support behind him.
No dirt, it applies both ways, I just want the media to report the news truthfully and let the listeners make up their minds about what it means. Not get on TV and tell us how we should feel and think and add their own comentary to the story to make it sound better.
MO:
Spot ON!!
Chris Matthews is a blowhard who blows with the prevailing wind. After Bush had his "Mission Accomplished" moment after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 and Iraq looked like an easy victory, Matthews made the idiotic statement that "We are all neocons now." Then he gradually sounded more liberal as the Bush disasters mounted. Now he's piling on President Obama for not being able to fix the inevitable consequences of the Gulf oil blowout. His gushing over Palin for endorsing a few politicians whom she knew were likely to win according to the polls with or without her support is just part of his behavior pattern. Matthews always tries to be on the winning side.
Agreed Houston!
Chris is soooo (what's the word I'm looking for?) Oh yeah... Yesterday! lol
Matthews LOVES to play both sides against the middle - too bad he's not very good at it!
I agree Feisty and Huston. But in my opion Chris is just trying to be like Fox, hoping it'll help his failing ratings.
Hey Mo!
Hard to imagine Chris's behavior is bumping up his ratings... when people are tuning OUT in droves!
Let him enjoy his tingle/thrill all by himself... LOL
Geez the deadbeat media is confused that President Obama is somewhat cynical about how repugnant ones would have responded before the oil spill about cleaning up the corrupt conservative oil lackeys at MMS and how the worthless media has been whining for stuff the public doesn't want. Unfortunately the media has tried to become the news rather than report it and their collective reporting of the Gulf oil spill disaster has been disgusting in the extreme. Only Rachel Maddow went down to the Gulf and did some excellent investigative reporting.
The prefect example of how the media buffoons are trying to demand something the public doesn't want regards how CNN's Dirty Rick Sanchez is going on and on with his idiotic constant whining for the nuclear option. Dirty Sanchez keeps saying that the Russians nuked an oil well shut but it was onshore gas wells they plugged, not a deepwater offshore oil well. I'd much rather listen to a real physicist like Michio Kaku who has repeatedly shown how trying a nuke to stop the Gulf oil well leak would not work and would most likely make the problem far worse than now. Time for CNN to plug it's own damn hole by muzzling Dirty Sanchez on this nonsensical idea. Next thing we know Dirty Sanchez will have Crash Dummy McCain on so they can sing as a duet "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb the Hole".
Another really idiotic idea comes from Sir Lie-a-Lot UpChuck Grassley who thinks we can just pour a bunch of beer ingredients into the Gulf and have the microbes turn the oil into methane. Sir Lie-a-Lot UpChuck should have checked with some real scientists before making such an absurd proclamation, not a bunch of conservative hacks trying to pass themselves off as real scientists.
So yeah Media Morons President Obama has every right to be cynical about how the media has handled the Gulf oil disaster and how the dopes of nope would have responded before the Gulf oil spill about cleaning up the corrupt MMS. The media needs to stop sensationalizing the Guld oil spill merely for pumping up their own ratings and the repugnant ones need to belly up to the bar and encourage cleaning up the corrupt conservative oil lackeys at MMS so they never sell us out to Big Oil again.
Looks like another repugnant one candidate has her problems with honesty as Smelly Kelly Ayotte was certainly bribed by the mortgage firm she failed to prosecute when she was Attorney General for New Hampshire. I'm sure the repugnant ones in that state Senate are going to do everything they can to protect her since she's their worthless candidate for the US Senate. It's going to be her Waterloo come this November as the Democrats need to pound on her for protecting big banking criminals in her state instead of the people she is supposed to represent.
GOP = Gross Old PonziSchemers!
Where's the optimism? The President's remarks summed up the reality of what Washington partisan politics and rigid ideology has done to our country. It is why we are synical. It is discouraging to me when I hear and read the constant negativism (from the right at this time), the unwillingness to help, the petty bickering and name calling. If we as a country are to survive and move forward, Washington politicians need to get off the dime, stop putting their heads in ideological sand and compromise. That is how Congress used to do the work of the people but for 30 years, it has been easier to play political games and fight for power--Obama's Waterloo, doing everything to stop the President from succeeding on anything, filibuster everything and every nominee--never mind that such thinking could be what sinks the USA.