BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 15 Feb 10 - 04:41 PM

AP 2/15/2010

....The departure of Evan Bayh, who was on President Barack Obama's short list of vice presidential candidate prospects in 2008, continues a recent exodus from Congress among both Democrats and Republicans, including veteran Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island.

The announcements have sprung up in rapid-fire fashion amid polls showing a rising anti-incumbent fervor and voter anger over Washington partisanship, high unemployment, federal deficits and lucrative banking industry bonuses....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:14 AM

HARRISBURG - Nearly two-thirds of Americans, or 64 percent, consider the economy and personal finances their most pressing problem while fewer than half approve of the way President Barack Obama is dealing with the nation's economic problems, a poll released Friday shows.

The Franklin & Marshall College poll, co-sponsored by Times-Shamrock Newspapers and other media outlets, finds that just 11 percent of Americans consider health-related issues their most important problem. It underlies a reason for mounting frustration with Obama and the challenge facing his administration as midterm elections loom in November, said G. Terry Madonna, Ph.D., poll director.

"Americans are focused like a laser on the economy," he said. "Reforming health care is important to them, but it doesn't trump the economy. People want the economy taken care of."

While Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have spent the past year trying to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation without success so far, four of five Americans (78 percent) say the current health care system meets their needs either very well or pretty well.

About one in five adults (21 percent) said they skipped a recommended medical test or treatment because of the costs, while approximately the same number (19 percent) said they were without health insurance coverage at some point during the previous year.

The F&M poll surveyed 920 U.S. adults, of whom 767 are registered to vote. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points for questions posed to all adults and plus or minus 3.5 percentage points for adults who are registered to vote. The poll was conducted between Feb. 2 and Feb. 8.

The poll data underscores how Obama's low approval rating on economic issues is affecting the political climate.

Overall, 45 percent of adults approve of Obama's handling of the economy, but the numbers range widely based on party affiliation. Seventy percent of registered Democrats give the president positive ratings on the economy question, but that drops to 43 percent when independents respond and to 23 percent when Republicans respond.

The disaffection among independents over the economy is shaping the political climate. Independents played a key role in helping GOP candidates win gubernatorial elections in November in New Jersey and Virginia and the election of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., to succeed the late Edward M. Kennedy in a special election last month.

The future impact of this political shift by independent voters is seen in the poll data that more Americans - 35 percent to 39 percent - would vote for the generic Republican candidate than the generic Democratic candidate if the midterm elections for U.S. House seats were held today.

As recently as September, Democrats led the Republicans, 43 percent to 30 percent, on this generic congressional vote question.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 09:12 AM

Ahmadinejad not taking Clinton comments "seriously"
Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:29am

TEHRAN, Feb 16 (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed on Tuesday U.S. accusations that Iran was moving toward a military dictatorship, saying the U.S. military budget was 80 times larger than that of the Islamic Republic.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that the United States believed Iran's Revolutionary Guards were driving the country towards military dictatorship and should be targeted in any new U.N. sanctions.

"We don't take her comments seriously," Ahmadinejad told a televised news conference, adding that the entire Iranian population of more than 70 million were protecting Iran's independence and its Islamic revolution.

He said the United States had some 300,000 troops stationed in the Middle East and was involved in wars in the region.

"These comments she (Clinton) is making are not wise," Ahmadinejad added.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 12:36 PM

Cost cutting?



Audit finds US census preparations wasted millions

Census preparations wasted millions as temps collected checks for excessive travel, training

      
Hope Yen, Associated Press Writer, On Tuesday February 16, 2010, 9:17 am EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Census Bureau wasted millions of dollars in preparation for its 2010 population count, including thousands of temporary employees who picked up $300 checks without performing work and others who overbilled for travel costs.

Federal investigators caution the excessive charges could multiply once the $15 billion headcount begins in earnest next month unless the agency imposes tighter spending controls, according to excerpts of a forthcoming audit obtained by The Associated Press.

On a positive note, investigators backed the Census Bureau's decision to spend $133 million on its advertising campaign, saying it was appropriate to boost public awareness. The spending included a $2.5 million Super Bowl spot that some Republicans had criticized as wasteful.

The findings by Todd Zinser, the Commerce Department's inspector general, highlight the difficult balancing act for the Census Bureau as it takes on the Herculean task of manually counting the nation's 300 million residents amid a backdrop of record levels of government debt.

Because the population count, done every 10 years, is used to distribute U.S. House seats and billions in federal aid, many states are pushing for all-out government efforts in outreach since there is little margin for error -- particularly for Democratic-leaning minorities and the poor, who tend to be undercounted. At the same time, the national headcount will employ 1 million temporary workers and is the most expensive ever, making it a visible sign of rising government spending.

The federal hiring has been widely touted by the government as providing a lift to the nation's sagging employment rate -- but investigators found it also had waste.

The audit, scheduled to be released next week, examined the Census Bureau's address-canvassing operation last fall, in which 140,000 temporary workers walked block by block to update the government's mailing lists and maps.

While the project finished ahead of schedule, Census director Robert Groves in October acknowledged the costs had ballooned $88 million higher than the original estimate of $356 million, an overrun of 25 percent. He cited faulty assumptions in the bureau's cost estimates.

Among the waste found by investigators:

--More than 10,000 census employees were paid over $300 apiece to attend training for the massive address-canvassing effort, but they quit or were otherwise let go before they could perform any work. Cost: $3 million.

--Another 5,000 employees collected $300 for the same training, and then worked a single day or less. Cost $1.5 million.

--Twenty-three temporary census employees were paid for car mileage costs at 55 cents a mile, even though the number of miles they reported driving per hour exceeded the total number of hours they actually worked.

--Another 581 employees who spent the majority of their time driving instead of conducting field work also received full mileage reimbursements, which investigators called questionable.

Census regional offices that had mileage costs exceeding their planned budgets included Atlanta; Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Dallas; Denver; Detroit; Kansas City and Seattle.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:31 PM

Washington Post

Bayh to Obama: take this job and shove it

Millions of Americans long to tell their bosses "take this job and shove it." Hardly any have the power and money to do so, especially in these recessionary times. Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, however, is the exception. His stunning retirement from the Senate is essentially a loud and emphatic "screw you" to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda -- one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw.

I don't doubt that Bayh could have won re-election -- though he probably did not relish the prospect of a very nasty campaign revolving around GOP attacks on his wife's business activities. Let it never be forgotten that Bayh is a perennial Democratic golden boy, the keynote speaker at the party's 1996 convention, scion of a political dynasty, proven vote-getter in a red state and, in his own mind, prime presidential timber. For him, then, the question was: even if I win, who needs six more years of dealing with these people, after which I might be 60 years old and trying to pick up the pieces of a damaged political party brand?

And don't get him started on the Republicans! I think we have to take Bayh at his word when he quite justifiably expressed disgust not only with the jobs bill fiasco, but also when he lashed out at the Senate Republicans who opportunistically voted down a bipartisan budget-balancing commission they had previously endorsed.

Quitting the Senate was a no-lose move for the presidentially ambitious Bayh, since he can now crawl away from the political wreckage for a couple of years, plausibly alleging that he tried to steer the party in a different direction -- and then be perfectly positioned to mount a centrist primary challenge to Obama in 2012, depending on circumstances.


There will be those Democrats who bid good riddance to Bayh and his coal-burning-state apostasy about cap and trade, etc. If so, they won't need a very big tent to contain the celebration. On a more pragmatic view, Bayh's dramatic vote of no-confidence in his own party's leadership looks like another Massachusetts-sized political earthquake for the Democrats. Not only does it imperil the president's short-term hopes of passing health care and other major legislation this year. It also makes it much more likely that the Republicans can pick up Bayh's Senate seat in normally red Indiana and, with it, control of the Senate itself. If present trends continue, November could turn into a Republican rout.

By Charles Lane | February 15, 2010; 2:49 PM ET

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:32 PM

Washington Post

Listen to Bayh's reason for retiring

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's decision not to seek reelection will be analyzed ad nauseam for its political implications. Will the Democrats be able to hold the seat? Might they even lose the Senate? Is this bad for me and good for you? Or is it the other way around?

But what everyone in Washington ought to be paying attention to is Bayh's reason for leaving. He probably could have kept his seat if he wanted it, but he decided, basically, that serving in the United States Senate was a waste of his time. "For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should," he said, putting it mildly.

The fundamental message that the country has been sending to Washington for years now is: You people never get anything worthwhile done. That accusation is not literally true, as anyone who pays close attention is well aware. But the big unsolved problems that we've known about for ages -- soaring debt, crumbling infrastructure, a crazy health-care system, you know the rest -- remain unsolved.


Bayh said that one of his final straws was the recent Senate vote to kill a bipartisan commission to come up with solutions for the federal deficit and our long-term debt. "The measure would have passed, but seven members who had endorsed the idea instead voted 'no' for short-term political reasons," Bayh said, in an accurate recounting.

It is incredible that a U.S. senator believes he can be of more service to his state and his nation in some other role -- running a business, leading a university. Wow.

Anyone who wonders why there is such anti-incumbent fervor in the land ought to have a chat with Evan Bayh. I didn't agree with him on every issue, but on the dysfunction in Washington he's absolutely right. This city is broken because too many of our leaders confuse politics with service. Americans know the difference.

By Eugene Robinson | February 15, 2010; 3:20 PM ET

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 07:39 PM

Interesting question as to what has prevented Congress from operating as it should. Undue influence by lobbyits? Obstreperous nabobbery from Republicans? Deep ennui? Corruption?

Oh, by the way, an interesting graph:

The road to Recovery--2008-2010

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 07:53 PM

Very interesting times we have goin' on here... On the right we have a bunch of hypocritical Tea baggers who say they are mad at big governemtn but the first to complain if their mama's Medicare or Social Security is cut... On the left you have folks who have purdy much thrown up their hands with Obama and his moderate to conservative policies and in the middle are one heck of alot of folks who are just plained scared that they are gonna lose their jobs, houses or whatever it is that they have worked all their lives to have...

Meanwhile, no one is focusin' on the problem here and that is that the rich and China have corraled all the money and there really isn't enough left in circulation for the bottom 95% of wage earners...

Yes, very interesting... The Tea Partiers sacre me because they are so ignorant that they can't not be turned around with reason... The left, of which I am part, get stuff but have been so disenfranchised over the years that it is madening...

Kinda like the guy who comes to the hospital with a gunshot wound and there are two guys dressed like doctors... One has never so much had one day of medical training and the other has been practicing medicine for 30 years... Who to pick??? Of course the Tea Partier will pick the real doctor but when it comes to policies he's more than likely to pick the guy who makes fun of the real doctor...

Very strange...

Must be the season of the witch???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:20 AM

Amos,

"my.barackobama.com"

That alone would, if a Bush site, have caused you to call me all sorts of names and ignore the data.


Care to give the same chart by some reputable source? With real munbers?

Or extend it back to say 1998?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:27 AM

CNN poll: 52% say Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012

By Michael O'Brien - 02/16/10 01:35 PM ET

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll.

44 percent of all Americans said they would vote to reelect the president in two and a half years, less than the slight majority who said they would prefer to elect someone else.

Obama faces a 44-52 deficit among both all Americans and registered voters, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday. Four percent had no opinion.

The reelection numbers are slightly more sour than Obama's approval ratings, which are basically tied. 49 percent of people told CNN that they approve of the way Obama is handling his job, while 50 percent disapprove.

Still, the 2012 election is still a long way's away, with this fall's midterm elections looming large. Republicans are hoping to make inroads into Congress, while Democrats are hoping to hold onto gains won in the 2006 and 2008 cycles.

Respondents to CNN were split at 46 percent as to whether they preferred a generic Republican or Democratic candidate in this fall's elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:29 AM

Sometimes even Hillary gets it right!


Clinton clings to Bush ideals on Iran

Stephen Kinzer guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 February 2010 20.34 GMT

The US policy of engagement with Iran never got off the ground – and now Hillary Clinton has resorted to Bush-era sabre-rattling

Hillary Clinton's sudden volley of shots at Iran marks the end of an engagement policy that never really began. She wants to convince the world that the regime in Tehran is opposed to serious talks with the west. That may be true, but we'll probably never know because in fact, no one has offered such talks.

In laying out the American approach to Iran, Clinton showed how little US foreign policy has changed since the last years of the Bush administration. President Bush famously explained that he would not negotiate with unfriendly regimes because he didn't want to "reward bad behaviour". He wanted states like Iran to change of their own accord, not as a result of negotiation but as a pre-condition for being allowed to negotiate.

Clinton embraces this same idea. She rejects the view that as Iran becomes more threatening and approaches nuclear breakout capacity, diplomatic engagement becomes more urgent. Instead she takes the opposite view. "We don't want to be engaging while they are building their bomb," she said this week.

Whether the increasingly splintered regime in Iran would or could respond to a serious offer of negotiations is highly uncertain. What is clear, though, is that the regime has not been offered this option. The Obama administration, like its predecessor, has made clear that it is interested in negotiating only one thing: curbs on Iran's nuclear programme. No country, however, would agree to negotiate only on the question that an adversary singles out, without the chance to bring up others that it considers equally urgent.

A more promising approach would be to tell Iran what President Nixon told China 35 years ago: if you agree to consider all of our complaints, we will consider all of yours. Clinton has made clear that the US will make no such offer. Instead it clings to the decades-old American policy toward Iran: make demands of the regime, threaten it, pressure it, sanction it, seek to isolate it, and hope for some vaguely defined positive result.

Some of America's most seasoned diplomats are eager for the chance to see what kind of a "grand bargain" they could strike with Iran. An ideal one would curb the nuclear programme, guarantee some measure of protection for brave Iranians who are being brutalised for defending democratic ideals, and give Iran security guarantees that might lure it out of its isolation and lay the groundwork for a new security architecture in the Middle East. Instead the US has fallen back on sabre-rattling. This pleases Israel, war hawks in Washington, so-called American allies like Saudi Arabia – and most of all, President Ahmadinejad and his reactionary comrades in Tehran. They thrive on confrontation, and are doing all they can to bait the US into attacking their country. It is a strategy as effective as it is dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 06:55 AM

Even CHINA is beginning to bail on Obama!


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

Foreign demand falls for Treasuries
By Alan Rappeport in Washington

Published: February 16 2010 18:01 | Last updated: February 16 2010 23:04

Foreign demand for US Treasury securities fell by a record amount in December as China purged some of its holdings of government debt, the US Treasury department said on Tuesday.

China sold $34.2bn in US Treasury securities during the month, the US Treasury said on Tuesday, leaving Japan as the biggest holder of US government debt with $768.8bn. China overtook Japan as the largest holder in September 2008.

The shift in demand comes as countries retreat from the "flight to safety" strategy they embarked on upon during the worst of the global economic crisis and could mean the US will have to pay more to service its debt interest.

For China, the shedding of US debt marks a reversal that it signalled last year when it said it would begin to reduce some of its holdings. Any changes in its behaviour are politically sensitive because it is the biggest US trade partner and has helped to finance US deficits.

Alan Ruskin, a strategist at RBS Securities, said that China's behaviour showed that it felt "saturated" with Treasury paper and that this is the sign of a trend. The change of sentiment could come at the detriment of the US dollar and the Treasury market as the US has to look to other countries for financing. Japan and the UK could pick up some of that slack and last month both added to their Treasury holdings. However, the overall monthly sell-off of $53bn was the biggest on record.

The figures come as the White House grapples with how to cut the US deficit, which is projected to be $1,560bn in 2010, or 10.6 per cent of gross domestic product. However, the move away from the safety of US debt is a sign of growing confidence in the global economy.Net purchases of long-term US securities declined to $63.3bn from $126.4bn in November, according to Treasury figures. Foreigners increased their purchases of US equities, buying $20.1bn in December after buying $9.7bn the previous month.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 07:08 AM

sorry- last post was from HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:42 AM

Drowning in Debt: What the Nation's Budget Woes Mean for You

Economists Predict Cutbacks, Tax Increases That 'Aren't Even Imaginable'

By DEVIN DWYER
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17, 2010


American political and economic leaders have sounded the alarm for years about the red ink rising in reports on the federal government's fiscal health.

David Muir looks into how the deficit has become so large.But now the problem of mounting national debt is worse than it ever has been before with -- potentially dire consequences for taxpayers, according to a report by the nonpartisan Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform.

"It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink," said President Obama in Nashua, N.H., on Feb. 2. "Most of it is structural and we inherited it. The only way that we are going to fix it is if both parties come together and start making some tough decisions about our long-term priorities."

Obama will sign an executive order tomorrow that establishes a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform to make recommendations on how to reduce the country's debt.

Over the past year alone, the amount the U.S. government owes its lenders has grown to more than half the country's entire economic output, or gross domestic product.

Even more alarming, experts say, is that those figures will climb to an unprecedented 200 percent of GDP by 2038 without a dramatic shift in course.

"Within 12 years…the largest item in the federal budget will be interest payments on the national debt," said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. "[They are] payments for which we get nothing."

Economic forecasters say future generations of Americans could have a substantially lower standard of living than their predecessors' for the first time in the country's history if the debt is not brought under control.

Government debt, which fuels the risk of inflation, could make everyday Americans' savings worth less. Higher interest rates would make it harder for consumers and businesses to borrow. Wages would remain stagnant and fewer jobs would be created. The government's ability to cut taxes or provide a safety net would also be weakened, economists say.

While much attention has been focused on the government's deficit-spending surge during the recession, many economists agree short-term budget overruns -- as ominous as they may seem -- are not particularly problematic.

"What threatens the ship are large, known and growing structural deficits," said Walker, a problem that few politicians seem eager and readily able to fix.

In a recent ABC News poll, 87 percent of Americans said they are concerned about the federal budget deficit and national debt, and most strongly disapprove of how their political leaders are handling the situation.

But public dissatisfaction has not proven enough to compel members of Congress or current and previous Administrations to set aside their partisan differences to achieve a balanced budget.

Most Republicans don't want to raise taxes; most Democrats don't want to cut spending. The result is a stalemate on how to put America back in the black.


the entire article

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:42 AM

"In a wild hunt for ratings, CNN embarks on a poll question just one year into the four-year term of President Barack Obama asking if Obama deserves a second term. The fact that the poll was created during a period of high unemployment coupled with a still-new President Obama would tell a politically-aware ten-year-old that President Obama wasn't going to come out looking to good in such a poll: 52 percent said no; 44 percent said yes.

But CNN ran the poll with that predictable outcome anyway. All the better for stupid buzz; CNN got it. That CNN ran such a poll is totally intellectually irresponsible. It is so because they knew what the outcome would be. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that people polled will be unhappy with both President Obama and The Congress given the state of the economy. It also is equally irresponsible to poll just 1,023 Americans, and of that, only 923 registered voters. The poll sample size is too small to be taken seriously.

This blogger could have gotten a bigger sample size himself. Many of the polls ran in this space have drawn over 2,000 responses. For CNN to run a poll of just 1,023 people given their broadcast reach is, again, irresponsible.

CNN's embarked on what appears to be a really bizarre quest to discredit President Obama. Their main man in this effort in front of the camera has been David Gergen, advisor to a number of past Presidents and currently head of the Public Leadership Project at the Harvard John F. Kennedy School of Government.

CNN's Gergen regularly issues baseless evaluations of President Obama that include not-well-veiled political desires. For example, David Gergen mentions dropping the "Public Option" in the Health Care Reform proposal, rather than proving he's a really good student of politics by explaining how Obama could get a Public Option passed by Congress and discussing the problems with pushing a Public Option.

That's just one example. David Gergen's gotten so bad, this blogger changes the TV channel whenever he appears.

And that's often.

Of late, Gergen's on an "anti-Obama" kick that from this view has totally destroyed his credibility. As he's part of what appears to be an overall effort on CNN's part, it's only logical to report that CNN's political credibility is equally low. Not the best place for the self-proclaimed "trusted news source" to be.

President Obama deserves a second term, regardless of what CNN says. Stay tuned."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=57381#ixzz0foOo24Vf

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 11:45 AM

By CNNMoney.com staffFebruary 17, 2010: 9:58 AM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks gained Wednesday morning, as encouraging reports on housing and corporate profits reassured investors about the strength of the burgeoning economic recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:53 PM

* For the first time in seven years, the size of the U.S. military presence in Iraq has fallen below 100,000.

* The White House named a new U.S. ambassador to Syria yesterday, which wouldn't be especially noteworthy except it's the first time we've had an ambassador to Syria since 2005.

* President Obama is moving forward with his bipartisan commission on debt reduction. He's chosen former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson (R) and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles (D) to serve as co-chairmen.

And if you think conservative Republican lawmakers are ridiculous at the federal level, consider how truly insane they can be at the state level. In South Carolina, one GOP lawmaker introduced a bill to prohibit the state from accepting U.S. currency. Seriously.

...NOTHING BUT 'NET'.... It's now impossible for serious observers to claim the stimulus didn't create new jobs. The leading economic research firms -- IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers, and Moody's Economy.com -- estimate that the effort has already created as many as 1.8 million jobs, and will create about 2.5 million jobs when all is said and done. As far as the independent Congressional Budget Office is concerned, those are conservative estimates -- the CBO believes the stimulus is already responsible for as many as 2.4 million jobs....

(Washington Monthly)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 08:57 PM

"It leaves the right looking for alternate rhetorical strategies. Today, House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) tried a new tack in a press release. Notice the addition of one key word to the GOP talking points:

One year [after the stimulus bill became law], not one net job has been created as unemployment rose from 7.6 percent to nearly 10 percent nationwide. [emphasis added]

Matt Finkelstein explained why this rhetorical shift matters: "The distinction here is important. By shifting the focus to 'net jobs,' Pence is effectively conceding that the Recovery Act did create jobs -- that, while unemployment rose more than expected, we would be even worse off if the program hadn't passed."

This also suggests that Republican officials are starting to worry, at least a little, that the economy might be improving far more than they'd like. If job creation starts picking up in a meaningful way in the Spring, as the Obama administration expects, the good news for the country may be bad news for the GOP's midterm election strategy. They'll need something negative to say, and pointing to net job growth may fool a few people.

But probably not many. It's really very foolish -- the recession began in December 2007, and the economy fell off a cliff in September 2008. The month the president took office, thanks to conditions Obama inherited, the economy lost 741,000 jobs. A month later, it was 681,000. A month after that, it was 652,000. Of course there's going to be a net job loss. The net loss will exist for quite a long while. When a nation experiences a downturn of this severity -- easily the worst since the Great Depression -- it takes a very long time to make up the lost ground.

The goal is to see improvements and growth. Maybe Pence understands this, maybe not -- he is a few threads short of a sweater, if you know what I mean -- but either way, this "net job" talk is absurd...."

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 09:02 PM

Vice President Biden made a rather bold claim about the administration's counter-terrorism efforts: "There has never been as much emphasis and resources brought against al-Qaeda. The success rate exceeds anything that occurred in the [Bush/Cheney] administration."

Today, David Ignatius considers whether the claim is accurate.

The Karachi raid [that led to the capture of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar] is part of a broad offensive that has sometimes been overlooked in the partisan squabbles over whether the Obama administration should be giving Miranda warnings to terrorist suspects. "The real action has been pounding the hell out of al-Qaeda and its allies around the world," the official argued.

The numbers show a sharp upsurge in operations against al-Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan since Barack Obama took office.... All told, according to U.S. officials, since the beginning of 2009, the drone attacks have killed "several hundred" named militants from al-Qaeda and its allies, more than in all previous years combined. The drones have also shattered the leadership of the Pakistani Taliban, which has been waging a terror campaign across that country. [...]

[S]urely the country can agree, looking at the evidence, that Obama has been no slouch in pursuing what he said in his inaugural address was a "war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

It's simply astounding to hear conservative Republicans claim that President Obama has been "weak" on counter-terrorism. Short of having the president air-dropped into mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan with a knife in his teeth and an assault rifle on his back, I'm not sure how more aggressive Obama could be. More to the point, he's far more forceful and successful on the issue than Bush -- who somehow managed to cultivate a bogus reputation of "toughness" -- ever was.

The AP had a similar assessment the other day, emphasizing, among other things, that Obama's decision to reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq has "freed up manpower and resources to hunt terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan." It's an approach that "intelligence officials, lawmakers and analysts" believe is working. Obama has also made regional gains with constructive outreach to Islamic allies, which has bolstered international cooperation.

Those of us who take national security matters seriously can take comfort in the fact that congressional Republicans can't filibuster the Obama administration's counter-terrorism efforts. GOP obstructionism can undermine the economy, the strength of our health care system, and our national energy policy, but fortunately, Obama is the Commander in Chief.

Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 17 Feb 10 - 09:04 PM

he system in Washington is "broken." Every effort does require an inexplicable "supermajority." The entire policymaking process is "dysfunctional."

But what officials need to understand is the importance of taking the next step -- explaining why this is and who is responsible.

As much as I'm sympathetic to the vice president's entirely accurate concerns, his omissions make all the difference. For viewers who don't know what filibusters or cloture votes are, they're thinking, "There's a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress. If the system is broken and dysfunctional, maybe it's Democrats' fault."

Except, for anyone interested in reality, that assumption couldn't be more wrong. If legislation received up-or-down votes in both chambers -- the way Congress operated for the better part of two centuries -- the system would work quite well and the dysfunction that drives everyone crazy would largely disappear.

Biden, in other words, needs to name names -- Republicans broke the American legislative process. They did so deliberately, during a time of crises, because they're desperate to undercut the Democratic majority, regardless of the consequences. The GOP's tactics have no precedent in American history, and violate every democratic norm that keeps our system moving.

It's not enough to share Americans' disgust; Dems need to help the public understand this mess. They can do so by avoiding jargon and legislative terminology, and calling Republicans' obstructionist tactics what they are: a dangerous political scandal.

Don't talk about "filibusters" or "supermajorities"; talk about the Republican "scandal" that has brought the system to a halt. Talk about Republicans "shutting down" the American policymaking process, and ignoring the will of the voters.

ÑSteve Benen, Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 12:09 AM

With the unemployment rate in the U.S. lingering just below 10% and the midterm elections just nine months away, job creation has become the top priority in Washington. President Obama has called for transferring $30 billion in repaid bank bailout money to a small-business lending fund, saying, "Jobs will be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and we're going to start where most new jobs do: with small business."

WHY? so that $30 billion can be put on Bush's tab, It was supposed to be returned to the treasury by law but now it will show up as a deficit created by the previous administration and Obama can take credit for whatever benefits come from spending an additional $30B we have to borrow from the Chinese.

People with very little knowledge of what is actually happening keep complaining about Bush "giving money to the banks"

It was a loan to be paid back with interest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 08:16 AM

Amos:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/ VS CNN



You want to (try to) justify your bias?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:00 PM

Jobless Claims in U.S. Rose Last Week to 473,000

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance unexpectedly increased last week, pointing to an uneven recovery in the labor market.

Initial jobless applications rose by 31,000 to 473,000 in the week ended Feb. 13, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The total number of people receiving unemployment insurance was unchanged and those receiving extended benefits increased.

Companies may want evidence of accelerating sales before hiring after making the deepest payroll cuts in the post-World War II era. Federal Reserve policy makers said last month that while consumer spending has picked up, it's partly â€쳌constrained by a weak labor market.â€쳌

â€쳌There is still a lot of labor market weakness out there,â€쳌 said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York. â€쳌I don't think the weather has had as big an impact on claims as many think it has.â€쳌

The Labor Department said it had to estimate filings for Texas, Hawaii and Alabama because it didn't receive data from employment offices in those states. California provided its own estimates instead of complete figures.

All Recipients

Continuing claims held at 4.56 million in the week ended Feb. 6. The continuing claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs.

The number of people who've used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting extended payments rose by about 274,500 to 6 million in the week ended Jan. 30.

The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, held at 3.5 percent in the week ended Feb. 6, today's report showed. Twenty-four states and territories had an increase in claims for that same week, while 29 had a decrease.

A separate report today from the Labor Department showed wholesale prices in the U.S. accelerated more than anticipated in January, led by a jump in costs of energy, light trucks and pharmaceuticals. The 1.4 percent rise in prices paid to factories, farmers and other producers followed a 0.4 percent increase in December, the government said.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:03 PM

After they met, the Dalai Lama indicated to reporters he was not offended that Mr. Obama had decided not to see him before a presidential visit to China last November.

"He always is showing his genuine concern, including his recent visit to Beijing, as he has said, his concerns about Tibet, beside other global issues like that," said the Dalai Lama. "So I expressed my thanks to him."

---

A fine and insightful being, that Dalai Lama....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:17 PM

Bruce:

I THINK you are referring to my posting the article at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail??blogid=95&entry_id=57381#ixzz0foOo24Vf .

I see nothing that needs justification. Especially given the light you and Sawz have brought to this thread.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:26 PM

Do I detect that Amos has misgivings about the economic future of America?

Come on Amos. Come in out of the cold. You will be treated kindly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:38 PM

CNN = the new Fox...

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:01 PM

Sawz:

What the F are you referring to? Your instinct for disjoint cognitive leaps defies imagination.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:41 PM

Well if It is totally untrue, you can simply state the affirmative cognitively instead of using hostility, profanity, rhetoric, bloviation and ad hominem attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:46 PM

bloviate - orate verbosely and windily

To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner

Mock-Latinate formation, from the word blow.

orate - talk pompously

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

Look who is calling the kettle black, Amos...

(Oh, I'll prolly be called a racist for usin' that ol' sayin'... Sho nuff will... Lemme go hide unner the bed...)

Yer right tho, Amos... Sawz is way off his meds an' ain't all that coherant of late... Just lashin' 'n flailin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 07:16 PM

OK, I will. Of COURSE I have misgivings about the future of the American economy. AFter the sheer chaos imposed on it by Bush, and Reagan, and their jailbird buddies at Goldman Sachs and AIG, and similar outfits of less note, I am amzed Obama has managed to fend off catastrophe as well as he has. I am dfurther amazed that you and your il insist on continuing to barf on his shoes with every small minded carp you can come up with no matter what. I think that kind of behavior is, to put it simply, demented.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:55 PM

Bobert: Are people that seek to find some sort of reference to race in everything, racist?

Thanks again for dropping the ostentatious [oops] wording Amos. ;D

"jailbird buddies at Goldman Sachs"
Does this mean Geithner is a jailbird?

I know he incapable of filling out an income tax form without "accidentally" cheating or "accidentaly" not reporting certain income after he was notified to do so but I wouldn't take it to that extreme.

In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns. In the same year, he played a supporting role to Henry Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, in the decision to bail out AIG just two days after deciding not to rescue Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy. According to some observers, Geithner severely damaged the U.S. economy.

New York Times 24 November 2008:

.....While Henry M. Paulson Jr., the current Treasury secretary, has taken a drubbing for the changeable nature of the government’s efforts to bolster the financial industry â€" some of which clearly contradicted each other â€" Mr. Geithner has managed, for the most part, to remain unscathed. He’s been widely praised as a bright, articulate out-of-the box thinker who is a bailout expert, to the extent anyone can truly be an expert at fast-changing emergencies.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Geithner was the point person for weeks of sleep-deprived Bailout Weekends. It was Mr. Geithner, not Mr. Paulson, for example, who put together the original rescue plan for the American International Group.

And, of course, Mr. Geithner also helped oversee and regulate an entire industry whose decline has delivered a further blow to an already weakened American economy. Under his watch, some of the biggest institutions that were the responsibility of the New York Fed â€" Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and most recently, Citigroup â€" faltered. While he was one of the first regulators to smartly articulate the potential for an impending disaster, a number of observers question whether he went far enough to stop the calamity....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:05 PM

The unemployment rate in the U.S. dropped to 9.7 percent in January, while payrolls declined by 20,000, Labor Department figures showed Feb. 6. Manufacturers added to payrolls for the first time in three years and that may help revive the rest of the labor market.

Some companies continue to cut staff. Humana Inc., the best-performing U.S. health-insurance stock this year, will reduce its workforce by 5 percent as the company faces shrinking private-sector enrollments and cuts in government-backed Medicare payments.

About 2,500 jobs will be eliminated through attrition, outsourcing and shedding positions, the Louisville, Kentucky- based company said Feb. 4 in a statement. The insurer also plans to hire 1,100 people in the growth areas of medical-cost containment, pharmacy management and specialty products, for a net reduction of 1,400 workers.

"This regrettable but necessary reduction in our workforce is a direct result of Humana's need to align the size of our company with that of our membership,"said Michael McCallister, the company's president and chief executive officer, in the statement.

3,000 Cuts

Warren Buffett's [supporter of Obama during his campaign] Berkshire Hathaway Inc. cut about 3,000 jobs since December after customers scaled back orders for building-related materials, the firm said in a regulatory filing last week.

"If you look at our carpet business, our brick business, our insulation business, all of those businesses have had significant reductions in employment," Buffett said in an interview in Omaha, Nebraska, on Jan. 20. "The day the orders come in, we hire back. But there's no reason to hire people if they don't have anything to do."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:33 PM

Here's Why Warren Buffett Endorsed Obama Today: McCain Failed to Get 'Lobotomy'

Huffington Post May 19, 2008

Obama supporters, naturally, are excited about word today that one of the world's richest men, Warren Buffett -- the sage of Omaha -- has thrown his support to the Democratic frontrunner, although it's not likely to put Nebraska in the win column for Obama this November.

But why does Buffett like Barack? And why now? The wire service reports only reveal that Buffett announced an endorsement of Obama because he looks like the nominee: "I will be very happy if he is elected president. He is my choice." Not exactly food for thought.

But to find out more, I discovered a May 5, 2008, on-the-fly interview with Buffett carried by CNBC.

The interviewer, Becky Quick, asked Buffett to pretend for a moment that she was John McCain. She then asked, "Is there anything I can do, any economic issue I can get behind, that would actually make you think twice about potentially supporting me?"

Buffett replied: "I would say that if you felt the tax burden should be shifted in a significant way to the super-rich and away from the middle class, I would say that would make me re-evaluate you."

Quick/McCain: "So I could eventually gain your support come November?"

Buffett: "Well, in the end I vote on issues now. I think it's pretty clear in many major areas what all three candidates would do."

Then he said, chuckling, that it was "unlikely" he would back McCain "unless he has a serious change, a lobotomy or something like that."

Buffett explained: "I don't think McCain is going to change his views to be in accord with mine. I admire him a lot. I think he's an absolutely first-class human being, and if the Republicans are going to elect somebody I hope it's John McCain.

"But he has too many ideas that are different than I do, particular in terms of what I would call social justice."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 18 Feb 10 - 10:44 PM

Buffet rolls Obama under da bus:

Warren Buffett Blasts Obama's Bank Tax, Compares It To A 'Guilt Tax'

Huffington Post February 18, 2010

Speaking to CNBC at Berkshire Hathaway's special shareholder meeting, billionaire Warren Buffett blasted President Obama's proposed tax on the nation's largest banks, and had some oddly optimistic words on the souring housing market.

Buffett's argument against tax, which is laid out in the below video, is that the levy unfairly punishes banks for the losses forced upon taxpayers during the bailout of the auto industry. The largest banks, Buffett said, have already paid back the government with interest. Separately, Buffett told Bloomberg that he "didn't see any reasons why the banks should have to pay a special tax," and questioned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had not been asked to pay similar fees.

(Keep in mind, however, that Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway owns an enormous stake in Wells Fargo, and large investments in Bank Of America and Goldman Sachs, all of which would fall under Obama's proposed tax.)

Here's Buffett:

    "If it's some kind of guilt tax or something of that sort because banks were among the [firms] that were saved back in 2008, everybody was taken care of then. And the banks, basically, somebody like Wells [Fargo], it's cost them a lot of money to be in the TARP and it was basically forced upon them. They didn't want to take the money, but really had no choice...The government's made a lot of money off Wells. They've made a lot of money off Goldman. They've made a lot of money off JPMorgan. And where they're at going to lose money, at least where it's possible they'll lose money, is in the auto companies."

Responding to the news that new housing starts in 2009 were the worst since WWII, Buffett said, "You want to have a bad number for a while."

He added, "We had more supply than demand for three of four years in housing. Buffett's not alone in his contention that the housing market is badly weighed down by an inventory overhang, which basically means far too many houses were built during the boom years.

Buffett's solution? Let the housing market continue to languish and build fewer houses. Or, he joked: "You could get 13-year-olds to start cohabitating and create more households that way -- and I think we'd get a lot of volunteers among 13-year-olds."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 08:26 AM

"Miss Me Yet?" Bush Merchandise a Hit Online

Posted by Stephanie Condon

(Bob Collins/Minnesota Public Radio)The cheery image of former President George W. Bush appeared on a billboard in Minnesota earlier this month, next to the words, "Miss me yet?" It appears a lot of people think it's a fair question.

The online store CafePress saw a spike in demand for items featuring the same image as the billboard, the New York Daily News reports. Ten "Miss Me Yet?" items were on the company's list of its top-selling designs, CafePress spokeswoman Jenna Martin told the Daily News.

"There were no Obama-themed designs on the list," she said. "Bush has stolen the political spotlight, just like Sarah Palin did the week before when she re-surfaced with crib notes written in her palm."

Obama-themed merchandise saturated the Washington area around the time of the president's inauguration last year, but by the fall, the enthusiasm for Obama caps, t-shirts, commemorative plates and so forth, seemed to fizzle. U.S. News and World Report noted earlier this month that even the Obama Store, located in tourist-filled Union Station, has closed, in what "may be the most tangible sign yet that the [Obama] honeymoon is over."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 08:58 AM

Jitters over China's waning taste for T-bills
By Robert Cookson and Michael Mackenzie

Published: February 18 2010 18:16 | Last updated: February 18 2010 19:02

If there is one thing that gets investors twitchy, it is the fear that China is losing its appetite for US government bonds.

As the biggest and most liquid pool of assets in the world, the US Treasury market lies at the heart of the global financial system and allows the American government to finance its trillion-dollar budget deficits. Until recently, China has been the largest foreign official holder of US debt.

That is why the latest release of Treasury International Capital (Tic) data, showing that China's holdings of Treasuries fell by a record amount in December, has caused something of a stir.

China's holdings fell by $34.2bn to $755.4bn from the previous month, prompting renewed jitters that the country was diversifying from Treasuries over fears about their future value.

China's holdings have fallen from a peak of $801.5bn in May 2009, and the data come at a time of heightened political friction between Beijing and Washington over issues such as Barack Obama's meeting with the Dalai Lama, US weapons sales to Taiwan, and pressure on China to revalue the renminbi.

"These developments require monitoring because they could cause China to become even less enthusiastic buyers of US Treasuries," says Yasunari Ueno, chief economist at Mizuho Securities in Tokyo. "A key issue now is how China will act in 2010 in light of the deteriorating bilateral relationship with the US."

China may have indeed started to rebalance its foreign reserve portfolio from US Treasuries, he says, having piled into the asset class after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. But most analysts, including Mr Ueno, believe the December dip in China's holdings of US Treasuries more likely has more mundane explanations. They also caution against reading too much into the Tic data, which is prone to big monthly swings and is subject to so-called transactional bias.

Tic data is further clouded as the true holdings of Asian central banks such as the People's Bank of China are obscured by their use of custodians in big financial centres offshore.

Dealers believe China may have made significant purchases in the past year through Hong Kong and London. Treasury holdings by Hong Kong rose to $152.9bn in December – up from $77.2bn in Dec 2008.

Meanwhile, UK holdings of Treasuries have also surged, reaching $302.5bn in December, from $230.1bn in October.

In terms of China's portfolio of Treasuries in the Tic report, the December data show a further big reduction in holdings of short-dated bills and buying of longer-dated coupon debt. China's T-bill holdings dropped by $38.8bn in December while its holdings of notes rose by $4.6bn.

Rather than selling any of its holdings, China appears to have let the bills mature and then used some of the proceeds to buy longer-dated coupons, analysts say. Extending its purchases along the yield curve is, partly, a sign of China's confidence in the US government's ability to service its debt. The Tic data show that China has not diversified into US equities or corporate bonds.

During the financial crisis, China built up holdings of short-dated T-bills from $14bn in mid-2008 to $210bn by May 2009 and they are now back around $70bn.

"The latest data is consistent with them shrinking the T-bill mountain rapidly, although there is more to come, as the likely underlying desirable holdings of T-bills is probably nearer $20bn," says Alan Ruskin, strategist at RBS Securities.

"China is simply fine tuning its portfolio and as US banks and consumers continue deleveraging, there will be enough domestic demand to buy Treasuries," says John Brady, senior vice-president of global interest rates at MF Global.

Mr Ueno says the most probable cause of China's decline in Treasury purchases, is simply that the country's foreign reserves grew at a slower pace in December. Julian Jessop, economist at Capital Economics, predicts that December's Tic data represent a brief pause before China's purchases of Treasuries resume.

And even if China is shifting out of US Treasuries, it would not necessarily cause trouble in the market as long as other buyers step into the breach. Indeed, US Treasury yields remain well inside last summer's peaks as other countries have stepped up their buying.

Significantly, Japan overtook China as the biggest foreign holder of US Treasuries in December, and its monthly purchases have been consistently rising since May. The country, which is seen as having a more stable relationship with the US, held $768.8bn of Treasuries in December, an increase of $142.8bn from the previous year. Analysts see little rationale for China to reduce its Treasury holdings dramatically, given that such a move would be likely to have severe consequences for Beijing.

If Chinese demand for Treasuries disappeared and it started selling, US interest rates would rise, analysts say. This could throttle a US economic recovery, damage Chinese exports, and also reduce the value of China's existing vast holdings of Treasuries as yields rose and prices fell, damaging a key plank of its currency reserves.

Moreover, China's currency link with the US dollar entails there is a limit to how far they can diversify their foreign reserves.

"So long as China's currency is pegged to the US dollar, they will need to recycle their trade surplus dollars back into US assets," says Gerald Lucas, senior investment adviser at Deutsche Bank.

Which is yet another reason why Tic data is being closely watched. If the latest numbers mark the beginnings of a diversification by China away from US Treasuries and other dollar assets, a widely speculated rise in the value of the renminbi against the dollar is on the cards.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:21 AM

And now he's pissing off China by meeting with the Dolly Llama.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 11:52 AM

A bit of a conundrum, that. I would love to meet the Dalai Llama. I think most people would be glad of a chance to meet him. Well, most thinking people would, at any rate. The fact that it bothers China is a bit inconvenient, and it's also very ironical, because the Dalai Llama has done all he can to persuade angry Tibetans NOT to undertake any form of violent resistance against the Chinese occupation of their country.

He's the only significant voice in preventing such violent resistance so far.

When he dies, the lid is going to come off the pressure cooker in Tibet, and there will be violent resistance...which the Chinese no doubt will have the strength to crush with even greater violence...but that will be of little comfort to the unfortunate Chinese who must deal with it directly when it comes.

And China doesn't seem to get that. They will miss the Dalai Llama when he's gone...unless they are just too pig-headed and self-absorbed to get the connection when the shit hits the fan.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 12:17 PM

LH,

I have met the Dalai Llama ( at the Smithsonian FAF a few years back).

I think your assesment about Tibet is probably correct. But I think the Chinese ARE aware, and are looking for that violence, in order to "ethnically cleanse" Tibet for their own population. Why should the government care about individuals? They always have more population to move in, after the slaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:28 PM

Ah! You may be right, BB. I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to be cynically pragmatic enough to have just such a plan in mind. If so, it won't be nice, and it will lead to a lengthy guerilla insurgency in that region, because the Tibetans won't all just go away and die quietly.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:38 PM

Yes, I think that is China's game as well. As long as the Llama can gad about the globe and keep international attention on the matter, China's government won't move. The minute he's gone it'll be cleansing at its worst.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 01:54 PM

"...For several reasons, Obama can't – or won't – follow suit. It would be out of character for someone more scholar than brawler, more conciliator than demagogue. His decency seems to preclude demagoguery. One of his heroes is Abraham Lincoln, who assembled a "team of rivals" cabinet and who said: "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."

Even more salient is the fact that Obama is black and risks being seen as "uppity" and combative in a country still acclimating to its first African-American president. White congressional Republicans can savage him, but a black president can't reciprocate.

There is a grand tradition in Washington of creating enemies for the sake of political expediency.

No one was better at making or finding enemies than Richard Nixon. For decades, he accused opponents of being cozy with communists, a menace he greatly exaggerated. But, when Nixon became president and later pals with the communist leaders of China and the Soviet Union, he had to create new enemies. So he exploited white fears of black street crime and forced busing. It succeeded in wooing white Southern Democrats disaffected by President Johnson's civil rights agenda into the Republican fold, where they remain today.

Harry Truman used the same communist threat to get his way with a miserly Congress. Shortly after World War II, a depleted Britain needed reconstruction loans. Prof. Walter Burdick of Elmhurst College told me: "Senator Arthur Vandenberg [R] of Michigan advised Truman to 'scare the hell out of Congress' to get the money other Republicans wanted to use to balance the budget and pay for the war. Harry did it, and it worked." Fear is not always a negative tactic. Truman used the same ploy to pass the much-needed Marshall Plan.

Truman and every Democrat who ran for the White House for the next half century berated Republican Herbert Hoover for the Depression. Decades after the 1929 crash, I recall Jimmy Carter confiding he "hated" to have to castigate "poor old Herbert Hoover," whom he confessed he really liked. Similarly, even if he doesn't like to do it, Obama seems to be embracing Bush as his No. 1 adversary. For being asleep at the switch while America slid into a great recession, Bush is a ripe target.

This is a crucial moment in Obama's presidency. It requires an element of leadership that he's so far not shown. Obama has read too much law and not enough Shakespeare. In "Henry V," King Henry says, "In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility."

But Obama's political enemies war against him daily, so his only option may be to follow Henry's next words: "But when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect."

Presidential politics is not for the faint of heart. "

Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN. He writes a biweekly column.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 02:46 PM

Calvin Broadus Jr.: "The KKK gave Obama money"

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:26 PM

JEsus, Sawz, have you no decency?

One bent rapper says something, to an interviewer, based on no real data or source, and you cite it as an authoritative reference? Are you some kind of histrionic bot?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:53 PM

Amos: where did I characterize anything?

I like that shiny new word of yours. It proves ????

It proves Amos has a fetish for words and an aversion to facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:10 PM

Amos delights in words the way Blackbeard delighted in slaughter... ;-D   You could call that a fetish.

But as far as facts, Sawzaw, this is what I find: Everyone has an aversion to facts that don't appear to benefit or support an argument they hold dear! On the other hand, they absolutely adore facts that do appear to benefit or support their argument.

There are usually a variety of facts available...millions of them, in fact...and what people normally do is they comb through those facts for the ones that seem to help their argument and they ignore or discount the rest.

This is true of you, me, Amos, and the rest of the 5 billion or so people presently residing on the planet. ;-D They all carefully select the facts they like and try hard to disregard the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,GUEST-Art Thieme at the library
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:29 PM

This is the first time I've looked into this thread.

Some of you have said good things that I agree with.

The rest have said a load of tripe!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 10 - 04:40 PM

Sounds like a safe summation of pretty well any thread out there, Art. ;-D