BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:31 PM

Your response was evasive and non-material, Counselor.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:57 PM

Imaginary money is both given and received on a computer screen, BB, by the stroke of a key. It was never minted and it was never printed. It has no real value. The government did not create it. It's not real.

The world has been enslaved by ridiculous amounts of this imaginary money, created through bank loans (the biggest ones TO governments who must pay them back PLUS interest), and we're all paying daily to service the debt to the imaginary money. It IS the money-lenders (the major banks) who have enslaved the entire world in this fashion, and that is why we have inflation and why our dollars are worth less with every passing year.

We are living under a gigantic pyramid scheme, perpetrated by the major banks in collusion with the politicians who are at their beck and call. It has to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:39 PM

Ah, but imaginary money has great value, senor Hack. If some of it is transferred to your account, you can turn it into cash, pay for meals out, airfare, hire help from all sorts of willing folks, buy interesting clothes and good brandy and decent cigars.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

That's right, Amos! (grin) That's why it's so popular.

As long as everybody agrees to pretend that the phony money is real, the game goes on, but the money loses its value steadily. The problem is that all that easy credit created a worldwide balloon of non-existent money, and it all generated debt through interest charges, thus enlarging the already gigantic balloon of non-existent money every FURTHER...........................

and a lot of people got themselves so far into hock that they couldn't even afford to make their scheduled payments...

and their governments did the same thing...and had to raise taxes (income tax didn't exist in North America before the First World War!).....

and so many debtors defaulted that the lenders began to experience financial collapse themselves...

and finally.... POP!

The phony money balloon burst.

And there we are.

Complete greed combined with total irresponsibility has landed us in a bad spot. This, despite the fact that there are still just as many talented and capable people all over the world who can still do the same useful work...provided that the financial situation wasn't fucked by the wordwide practice of USURY.

Usury (lending money and charging interest on the loan) was once illegal in several of the world's great religions. Guess why? It's an immoral practice that allows someone to get money for doing absolutely NOTHING...for doing no real work at all. It should never have been made legal, but greed won out.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:00 PM

American Gays and Lesbians Feel Betrayed by Obama

By Marc Pitzke

More and more Americans support equal rights for gays and lesbians and oppose the ban on openly homosexual soldiers serving in the military. But Barack Obama seems to be behind the curve on gay rights -- and the calls for him to act are getting louder.

Not even the rain kept them away. First, there was only a handful, then a few dozen, and finally thousands. They marched from New York's West Village through the traffic to Union Square, chanting. Many carried posters and banners many with slogans like "Civil rights now," "Equality for all families" and "No tolerance for intolerance."

However, one banner showed a portrait of US President Barack Obama as a two-headed Janus figure. The left head was spouting Obama's famous 2008 campaign slogan, "Yes we can." But the right head was saying: "No we can't."

The recent march through Manhattan was officially directed against the refusal of the Supreme Court of California to annul the Proposition 8 referendum banning same-sex marriage. But many of the protesters -- who were mainly gay men and lesbians -- had another enemy in mind: Obama.

Obama's perceived hypocrisy makes the protestors almost more livid than Proposition 8 itself. In their opinion, Obama has chickened out of openly taking a stance on the latest act of the eternal American culture war surrounding gay marriage -- contrary to the hopes of gay Americans. "Where's Obama?" asks Lisa Ackerman, a lawyer who is marching through the rain with her girlfriend. "His silence speaks volumes."

Indeed, where is Obama? It's a question which is being posed increasingly often by gays and lesbians in the US. Despite their initial skepticism, they almost exclusively supported Obama in the presidential race once Hillary Clinton had been eliminated. In return, Obama had said he would be their "fierce advocate" and promised among other things to scrap the notorious Pentagon "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the US military and to help pave the way to the right to same-sex marriage.

But American gays and lesbians are still waiting in vain for Obama to fulfill his election promises. While the US in general is clearly heading in the direction of a relaxation of homophobic policies, the White House is shying away from the issue. Even worse, on some issues, it has actually put new stumbling blocks in the way of gay rights.

On Monday, the US Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration and refused to hear an appeal from former Army infantryman James Pietrangelo against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The 1993 law, which bars openly homosexual soldiers from military service, relates to "the government's legitimate interest in military discipline," argued Obama's Solicitor General Elena Kagan in the administration's brief to the Supreme Court.

'Where Is Our New Deal?'

The Supreme Court's decision was just the latest in a series of incidents that have turned the American gay lobby against the president. As well as DADT (as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is commonly known) and gay marriage, gay activists are frustrated by slow progress in the fight against AIDS and the ban on visas and green cards for people infected with HIV. For some, these cases confirm the doubts they already had about Obama when he asked the pastor Rick Warren -- who opposes gay marriage -- to give the invocation at his inauguration.

"Where's our fierce advocate?" wrote Richard Socarides, who advised former President Bill Clinton on gay issues, recently in the Washington Post. "Across a broad spectrum of issues -- including women's rights, stem cell research and relations with Cuba -- the Obama administration has shown a willingness to exploit this change moment to bring about dramatic reform. So why not on gay rights? Where is our New Deal?"

Admittedly Obama did issue a presidential proclamation declaring June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month," a move applauded as a "nice start" by gay activist David Mixner on his blog. But many activists feel that Obama is lagging behind when it comes to concrete commitments.

With his reticence, Obama is bucking the national trend. The struggle for equality for homosexuals has become an "almost-inevitable march," said former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, who outed himself and resigned from office in 2004, in an interview with the New York Times Magazine. Gay marriage has now been recognized in six states, and most activists see the California referendum as just a temporary setback." (der Spiegel)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:33 PM

"But American gays and lesbians are still waiting in vain for Obama to fulfill his election promises. "

And pray tell who ( besides bankers and Unions) is NOT still waiting?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:34 PM

sorry, last was me.


"But American gays and lesbians are still waiting in vain for Obama to fulfill his election promises. "

And pray tell who ( besides bankers and Unions) is NOT still waiting?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:06 PM

I assume you and your fellow Republicans are waiting anxiously for him to put his foot in his mouth and screw things up badly, Bruce. Sorry he has disappointed you so far. Why not direct your bitterness at a more harmful opponent instead of someone who is working hard to make improvements? Wouldn't it be more productive and useful?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:16 PM

Ah, Bruce, you know, it won't do--you can't get better if you use me as your reason for communicating what you communicate. I know I am not your role model, and if all you are doing with all this is trying to make me wrong through shabby mimicry, it just won't help you. And it certainly does not communicate to the real dialogue in any way. Let it go. Let it go. You'll be the better for it, honest.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:21 PM

You seem to be complaining a lot more than conservatives did about your comments- perhaps YOU need to take lessons from us?

Or maybe you just do not like being treated as you have treated others?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:21 PM

Ousted AmeriCorps watchdog defends waste probe
         
Ann Sanner And Pete Yost, Associated Press Writers – 1 min ago

WASHINGTON – An inspector general fired by President Barack Obama said Friday he acted "with the highest integrity" in investigating AmeriCorps and other government-funded national service programs.

Gerald Walpin said in an interview with The Associated Press that he reported facts and conclusions "in an honest and full way" while serving as inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

In a letter to Congress on Thursday, Obama said he had lost confidence in Walpin and was removing him from the position.

Walpin defended his work on Friday. "I know that I and my office acted with the highest integrity as an independent inspector general should act," he said.

Obama's move follows an investigation by Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star. Johnson and a nonprofit education academy he founded ultimately agree to repay half of $847,000 in grants it had received from AmeriCorps.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled the investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy.

"It is vital that I have the fullest confidence in the appointees serving as inspectors general," Obama said in the letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Vice President Joe Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate. "That is no longer the case with regard to this inspector general."

The president didn't offer any more explanation, but White House Counsel Gregory Craig, in a letter late Thursday to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, cited the U.S. attorney's criticism of Walpin to an integrity committee for inspectors general.

"We are aware of the circumstances leading to that referral and of Mr. Walpin's conduct throughout his tenure and can assure you that the president's decision was carefully considered," Craig wrote.

Walpin said he gave the integrity committee "a full and complete response" that was also signed by several people who worked on the case. "I have no question but that we acted totally properly," he said in the interview.

Grassley had written Obama a letter pointing to a law requiring that Congress be given the reasons an inspector general is fired. He cited a Senate report saying the requirement is designed to ensure that inspectors general are not removed for political reasons.

Grassley said Walpin had identified millions of dollars in AmeriCorps funds that were wasted or misspent and "it appears he has been doing a good job."

The inspector general found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.

In August 2008, Walpin referred the matter to the local U.S. attorney's office, which said the watchdog's conclusions seemed overstated and did not accurately reflect all the information gathered in the investigation.

"We also highlighted numerous questions and further investigation they needed to conduct, including the fact that they had not done an audit to establish how much AmeriCorps money was actually misspent," Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence Brown said in an April 29 letter to the federal counsel of inspectors general.

Walpin's office made repeated public comments just before the Sacramento mayoral election, prompting the U.S. attorney's office to inform the media that it did not intend to file any criminal charges.

In settling the case, the government agreed to lift its suspension of any future grants to the academy and Johnson agreed to immediately repay $73,000 in past grants. The academy was given 10 years to repay the remaining $350,000.

Brown said at the time of the settlement that prosecutors determined there was no fraud, but rather a culture of "sloppiness" in St. HOPE's record-keeping.

Kevin Hiestand, chairman of the board of St. HOPE Academy, said in a statement it was "about time" Walpin was removed. "Mr. Walpin's allegations were meritless and clearly motivated by matters beyond an honest assessment of our program," he said.

Ken Bach, who works in the inspector general's office at the national service corporation, will be acting inspector general until Obama appoints someone to the position.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:22 PM

Well, I think I have made the point many times that there are important, substantive differences in intent between the two Administrations, and you have ignored those statements. But of course, conflating things as the same when they are different is surely the quintessential impulse of stupidity. So, I have asked you to be cognizant of certain important differences, and you have declined. This makes it rather clear that you are more interested inholding on to your justifications, bitterness, and "make-wrong" attitude than you are in having a dialogue on the merits.


So fare thee well, amigo.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:24 PM

House Health-Care Bill to Include $600 Billion in Tax Increases

By Laura Litvan

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill's details next week as they struggle through "what kind of heartburn" it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. He also said the measure's cost will reach beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a down payment for the policy changes.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion, Rangel said, "the answer is yes."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:30 PM

Amos,


"important, substantive differences in intent between the two Administrations"

Yes- the Bush administration was dedicated ( after 9/11) to the protection of the US and it's citizens. Obama seems, from his actions, to be dedicated to the protection of Banks and Unions.


You seem to believe that YOUR "justifications, bitterness, and "make-wrong" attitude " against Bush were somehow ok, while any criticsm of Obama is wrong.

Obama has feet of clay- or there would be no way that I could be critical. When he trancends humanity to become God, then I might join you in worship- until then, think about how others view what you see as heaven on earth.


Feel free to start adressing the facts of the criticsms, instead of attacking those who dare deny his god-hood.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 05:38 PM

Obama Hovers From on High


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 12, 2009

"And the Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters"
-- Genesis 1:2



When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been "acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating" between America and the world. Now that Obama has returned from his "Muslim world" pilgrimage, even the left agrees. "Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God," Newsweek's Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama's lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you. Thus:

(A) He told Iran that, on the one hand, America once helped overthrow an Iranian government, while on the other hand "Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians." (Played a role?!) We have both sinned; let us bury the past and begin anew.

(B) On religious tolerance, he gently referenced the Christians of Lebanon and Egypt, then lamented that the "divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence" (note the use of the passive voice). He then criticized (in the active voice) Western religious intolerance for regulating the wearing of the hijab -- after citing America for making it difficult for Muslims to give to charity.

(C) Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women's rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country -- balanced, of course, with this: "Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." Example? "The struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women's softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds -- while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well -- but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who's to judge?

That's the problem with Obama's transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn't mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight.

A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Tehran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism."

True, France prohibits the wearing of the hijab in certain public places, in part to allow the force of law to protect Muslim women who might be coerced into wearing it by neighborhood fundamentalist gangs. But it borders on the obscene to compare this mild preference for secularization (seen in Muslim Turkey as well) to the violence that has been visited upon Copts, Maronites, Bahais, Druze and other minorities in Muslim lands, and to the unspeakable cruelties perpetrated by Shiites and Sunnis upon each other.

Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: "For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation" -- disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror.

For all of his philosophy, the philosopher-king protests too much. Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He's showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

Distorting history is not truth-telling but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one's own country.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:56 PM

Krauthammer is being a reactionary pisspot of bilious fulmination, and your perspective seems unusually vulnerable to his odors, I must say.

You are vigorously mischaracterizing my view, which in no wise approaches adulation, but strives for evenhandedness and knows the difference between war-mongering (regardless of justification) and diplomacy (regardless of the sound and fury of detractors and push-button rancor-vendors).

Why you lik epeople who speak in generalities, promote hatred and fling about such bile, I cannot say.

As for my own bile against Bush, he was given a responsibility to make America stronger, and he failed completely at it. He was given a fiscal trust and betrayed it. He wasted American lives by misestimation, bad planning, poor execution and being too much the ragdoll of profitmakers.

Obama is under the same pressures as Bush; so far he has stood up to them far better.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:27 PM

"but strives for evenhandedness "


Hardly.


You have failed again, in attacking the person rather than finding any fault in his facts or logic.


Sloppy, Amos, sloppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 08:09 PM

News report- if this was Bush, Amos would be screaming...





Obama taps more big donors for ambassadorships


Jun 12, 12:16 AM (ET)

By MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Thursday tapped four big Democratic Party donors for plum ambassadorships in Europe and Latin America while naming six career diplomats to posts in Africa, the Mideast and the Pacific.

Washington lawyer Howard Gutman, who raised more than $500,000 for Obama's campaign and personally contributed the maximum $4,600 to it, was nominated to be the next U.S. envoy to Belgium, the White House said in a statement.

Gutman also contributed $2,300 to now Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics.

Obama named former Virginia Lt. Gov. Donald Beyer to be ambassador to Switzerland and Luxembourg. Beyer, who made his money as a car dealer, raised more than $500,000 for Obama and also contributed $4,600 to his campaign, according to the center.

Vinai Thummalapally, a Colorado business executive and Obama friend who raised between $100,000 and $200,000 for the campaign and donated $4,500 to it, was named the next U.S. ambassador to Belize. Thummalapally's wife, Barbara, contributed $2,800 to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama also named Washington lawyer Mark Gitenstein, who donated more than $4,000 to now Vice President Joe Biden's presidential campaign and contributed $1,500 to Clinton's campaign to be ambassador to Romania.

Career diplomats were nominated on Thursday to be envoys to Burundi, Tunisia, the Marshall Islands, Oman and Suriname. Obama also chose retired Army Gen. Alfonso Lenhardt to be ambassador to Tanzania.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:21 PM

You guys should try living together. It would be just like Ernie and Bert. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM

To the contrary, Bruce, I can think of a number of prime locations to which Obama should appoint Bush ambassador.

The problem with trying to discuss issues after they are presented by Krauthammer is that his writing is so full of rhetorical slants and fulminating clouds of emotive button-pushing that it is very difficult to isolate his actual propositions under all the scum. Nor, I think, worth much time to do so, because, like others who dance in Limbaughland under the full moon, his gold comes from his being angry, not from his being accurate. So he is not liekly (and as his acolyte, I suppose you may also be the same) to discuss issues by the light of reason. He's not vested in reason, but in harsh feelings. They are his stock in trade.

So although I plead guilty to an ad hominem remark, I must plead extenuating circumstances and aggravated provocation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:43 PM

Something Bush would not have done, demonstrating very quick intelligence and humor, as well as compassion, on the part of the President.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 06:17 PM

"his writing is so full of rhetorical slants and fulminating clouds of emotive button-pushing that it is very difficult to isolate his actual propositions under all the scum"


So he took lessons from your choice of Bush comments as well???

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:08 PM

I would say probably not--more likely from the Mindless Windbags of the Right such as Hannity, Cheney, Savage, Rush and Coulter, none of whom seem to be able to present a complete and rational thought twice in a row.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 07:19 PM

But didn't they all take lessons from you and your NYT ... windbags?

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 09:50 PM

I wish they were mine!!

Most of them are a good deal better informed and better connected than I cab hope to be.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:49 AM

An interesting piece in the New York Times dicusses the rising tide of unreason on the right wing of American -politics, abetted by the Fox faction and their ilk. But the problem is not rhetoric; it is the increase in ill-informed, radical hate talk which leads people to believe things that are not true and resort to violent solutions, or the contemplation of them. It would of course be a different matter if the threats were based on factual reports.

There is an entirely too large proportion of people in this country who only occasionally trip across logic by accident, and who prefer instead to act on the momentary stew of feelings they are surrounded by; this makes them vulnerable to rhetroical high-emotion low-reason persuasion by political, religious or social pundits who know how to push the buttons, if not how to parse the facts.

Contributing to this kind of unreason is not a good thing to do.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:24 AM

That's true, and it's not a good thing to do on either side of any political equation, as it were. Bad arithmetic yields incorrect data.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 12:34 AM

"Here's one thing Barack Obama does not have to worry about: the opposition. Approval ratings for Republicans hit an all-time low last week in both the New York Times/CBS News and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls. That's what happens when a party's most creative innovations are novel twists on old-fashioned sex scandals. Just when you thought the G.O.P. could never match the high bar set by Larry Craig's men's room toe-tapping, along came Senator John Ensign of Nevada, an ostentatiously pious born-again Christian whose ecumenical outreach drove him to engineer political jobs for his mistress, her cuckolded husband and the couple's son. At least it can no longer be said that the Republicans have no plan for putting Americans back to work.

But as ever, the lack of an adversary with gravitas is a double-edged sword for Obama. It tempts him to be cocky and to coast. That's a rare flaw in a president whose temperament, smarts and judgment remain impressive. Yet it is not insignificant. Though we don't know how Obama will fare on all the challenges he faces this summer, last week's big rollout of his financial reform package was a big punt, an accommodation to the status quo. Given that the economy remains the country's paramount concern — and that all new polling finds that most Americans still think it's dire — this timid response was a lost opportunity. It violated the Rahm Emanuel dictum that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste" and could yet prompt a serious political backlash." (NYT Column)

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 05:32 AM

Guess Who Wishes Bush Was Back


By David S. Broder
Sunday, June 21, 2009

In a conversation the other day with a White House official, I heard something I'd never expected from an employee of Barack Obama's. "I wish," he said, "George Bush would speak up a little more."

In the five months since he left the presidency, Bush has immersed himself in his memoir. He has stayed home in Texas and rarely spoken publicly. The result has been that he has largely disappeared from the news and -- the point the Obama aide was making -- pretty much has been forgotten.

Bush's silence has made it harder for Obama to keep the public focused on Bush as being responsible for our present difficulties -- the weak economy, the unsettled wars, the scandals of Guantanamo and the detainee program.

It is not for lack of trying. Obama regularly reminds the public in his speeches and news conferences of all the problems he inherited from his predecessor. But to reporters covering the White House, those reminders have become familiar boilerplate. And since Bush won't fight back, they rarely get much coverage.

Five months into his tenure, Obama has become the only president the American people think about. And a series of polls last week showed that when Americans think about Obama, they are becoming increasingly critical.

The Wall Street Journal-NBC, the New York Times-CBS and the Pew Research Center polls all reported similar findings. Barack Obama retains his personal popularity, with overall job approval scores at upward of 60 percent. But when asked about specific important policies of the administration, the scores are much lower -- or even negative.


In Andrew Kohut's survey for Pew, the share of voters applauding Obama's handling of the economy declined from 60 percent in April to 52 percent now. He barely broke even on his approach to the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts, with 47 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. By a 22-point margin, those polled disagree with spending billions to keep the companies operating.

For weeks, polls have consistently registered opposition to Obama's decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. His speech blaming Bush for opening the prison apparently did little to ease the political fallout.

The New York Times-CBS poll had more worrisome news. As the size of the budget deficits has become more evident, concerns about the budget policies of the administration have grown. By a 2-1 margin, this survey found that voters answered negatively when asked if Obama has developed a clear plan for dealing with the deficit. A 52 percent to 41 percent majority rejected the Obama priority for stimulating the economy at the cost of higher deficits. They said the focus should be on reducing the deficit.

Health care, Obama's latest and biggest fight, will provide another test of his leadership, with indications in several polls that Republicans and Democrats are taking opposing stands, despite the president's calls for a bipartisan bill.

At least until Iran exploded in popular protest against what appears to have been a rigged presidential election, there was broad approval here at home for Obama's handling of foreign policy. But the White House expects more criticism of the troop buildup in Afghanistan, with the summer likely to produce more fighting and higher casualties.

In sum, Obama has probably extracted most of the political benefit available from the high pitch of activity at home and abroad that has marked the early months of his presidency. Now people are starting to take a more critical look at the decisions he has made. And they are waiting, with varying degrees of patience, to see how the big policy gambles of the early days play out.

Obama is fortunate that the public does not see a clear alternative coming from congressional Republicans. But he misses being compared on a daily basis with his predecessor. Thus, the irony of Obama people saying, "Bring back Bush."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:43 AM

Well, I generally agreew ith David, but not on this one...

Sure, as some tough policy decisions get made the lobbiests crank up the attacks and with the Party-of-No opposing everything that Obama supports the poll numbers are going to flucuate from one policy to another but as for Obama's popularity ratings at this point in his presidency all I have heard is they are better than any of his predesessors so he must be doing somehting right...

I think the mood of the people, however, is that they would like to see a little more bipartisanship and with the Party-of-No playing out their hand we ain't going to get that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 06:57 PM

So, Bobert, David Broder is a ok newsman when he toes the line, so to speak. In other words, when his column agrees with your POV. When he strays from that line, though, he is not such a good newsman. Right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:23 PM

No, Dougie, David is still a great writer... We just happen to disaggree on this one... Hey, there isn't one person on the planet who I will agree 100%... That's life...

BTW, Happy Father's Day, Big Guy!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:56 AM

N.Korea accuses Obama of nuclear war plot

Jun 21 06:57 AM US/Eastern


North Korea has accused US President Barack Obama of plotting a nuclear war on the communist nation by reaffirming a US assurance of security for South Korea, the North's state media said.
In a first official response to last week's US-South Korean summit, the state-run weekly Tongil Sinbo said in its Saturday edition Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak "are trying to ignite a nuclear war".


"The US-touted provision of 'extended deterrence, including a nuclear umbrella' (for South Korea) is nothing but 'a nuclear war plan,'" Tongil Sinbo said.

It said it wasn't a coincidence that the United States has brought "nuclear equipment into South Korea and its surroundings and staged massive war drills every day to look for a chance to invade North Korea."

Pyongyang has created weeks of tension by conducting a second nuclear test and test-firing missiles.

At a summit with Lee in Washington Wednesday, Obama warned that North Korea is a "grave threat" and vowed to defend South Korea.

A Seoul presidential official told Yonhap news agency Lee would seek a written US commitment to provide a nuclear "umbrella" for Seoul as part of "extended deterrence" against Pyongyang.

North Korea detonated its second nuclear device on May 25, following the first one in 2006. It also went ahead with what Washington said was a disguised test of a long-range missile in April.

The United Nations Security Council in response agreed to tighter cargo inspections, a stricter arms embargo and new targeted financial curbs to choke off revenue for the North's nuclear and missile sectors.

In response Pyongyang has vowed to build more nuclear bombs and start enriching uranium for a new atomic weapons program.

Some analysts say the sabre-rattling is part of an attempt by 67-year-old ailing North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Il, to bolster a succession plan involving his youngest son, Kim Jong-Un.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:55 AM

Well, if Obama can hold the Republican war mongers in check then there ain't gonna be no more new wars under his administartion...

I did see that the Repubs cornered the House last week into an ill-thought out resolution... Ron Paul was the only voice of reason...

So, who knows... The Repubs still have well honed skills in whipping folks up into a lather when it comes to self righteousness and super-patriotism, two elements needed to before a president can order up and new and shiney war...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:02 AM

"Well, if Obama can hold the Republican war mongers in check then there ain't gonna be no more new wars under his administartion..."


I have such confidence in this Bobert(c)Fact....

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:12 AM

Well, that's what it boils down to, Bruce...

The Repubs are full of mischief and love their wars 'cause they are real good at starting them... Not too good at managing and ending them but good at getting folks all lathered up...

We'll see...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 08:22 AM

And Democrats are idiots who take no action until war becomes the only choice- and then they get millions killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 09:53 AM

Nice to see that your mutual partisan respect for one another remains rotting in the dumpster. No wonder you have a country that can't come up with a decent foreign policy or a sensible domestic policy either.

Lincoln had it right: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Your house is permanently divided against itself by the corrupt partisan 2-party system you have in place. The only thing that can save it, seems to me, is if the Democratic and Republican parties ceased to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:40 PM

Hey, wait a minute, LH... Though I strongly disagree with the Repubs I also disagree with the Dems on lots of stuff, as well...

Just 'cuase I voted for Obama don't make me no stinkin' Democrat 'cause I'm still Green, thank you... That makes 3 political parties...

But I do agree that the Repubocrats purdy much have the deal sewn up...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:31 PM

Well, I was referring more in a collective sense to the American population as a group than to you and BB specifically as individuals, Bobert.

What I mean is that Americans, as a nation, are mesmerized by the divide between the Democrats and Republicans, and it keeps them uselessly battling with each other without ever coming up for air...and that is bad for your country. That is "a house divided".

I see no cure for it but an end to the party-dominated political system itself.

Partisan systems divide and permanently cripple a society by turning the citizens against each other and perpetuating those divisions. It's stupid. It's unnecessary. It's counterproductive. It damages true democracy. It's a bad idea. It should never have been done.

James Madison, one of your founding fathers, advised strongly against forming political parties in the newly born USA. He said it would result in the eventual destruction of a truly democratic system and domination of it by special interest groups. He was right.

You have been hijacked by 2 huge gangs of political scoundrels who serve monied special interests. They have divided and conquered you for their own ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:37 PM

How fortunate for you, LH, that you have the perspective, and the distance, and the secure, altitudinous remove, from which to diagnose our situation for us, and how blessed are we that you have chosen so to do!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 01:39 PM

Amen!

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 11:32 PM

Yeah, yeah... ;-) Have you been told today, Amos?

If the USA would leave the rest of the world alone, we wouldn't have to talk about you so much. There's a price to pay for being the Imperial Rome of this postwar era, you know, so you're just gonna have to put up with a little comment from the outlying "colonies".

I am against the divisive institution of political parties everywhere, by the way, not just in the USA. I think you know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 08:42 AM

I think that the US's problems escalated in the 80s for several factors, LH, that aren't necessarially the two party system... First of all, Japan began kicking our butts... The steel industry was stolen by the Japanese... Our car manufacturers felt the Japanese competition squueze... Electronics??? The same... What came out of this was a reaction of American industry and the American worker to fight back...

Also, we had deregulation which shifted income to the upper 5%, who rather than reinvest it, used it to build grossly opulant house and rubbed their new found wealth in the other 95%'s faces...

We also had the rise of professional sports and branding and, well...

...bottom line, the US became very competitive and we got away from win-win toward win-lose and we are stuck in a win-lose cycle...

Oh sure, we talk about cooperation but we don't walk cooperation...

Now personally, I think that progressives are more willing to compromise than the conservative counterparts who are wedded to tax cuts and as little government as possible... The problem here is that thiese policies have not made our country stronger but less equitable and therefor weaker...

That, of course, is MO...

BB will have another opinion, fir sure...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:06 AM

"I think that progressives are more willing to compromise than the conservative counterparts who are wedded to tax cuts and as little government as possible..."

If by progressives you mean the present Democratic Party, I do disagree with this opinion. I see no effort on the part of the President or Congress to even consult or advise, much less compromise with the Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:14 AM

Obama Closes Doors on Openness

By Michael Isikoff | NEWSWEEK
Published Jun 20, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jun 29, 2009


   
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama's much-publicized Jan. 21 "transparency" memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a "presumption" of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies "if practicable" for cases involving "pending litigation." Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other "lawyerly hedges" means the Holder memo is now "astonishingly weaker" than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)

Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig's office. The separate standard for "pending" lawsuits was inserted because of the "burden" it would impose on officials to go "backward" and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama "has backed up his promise" with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now "under review."

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:51 AM

Interesting points you make, Bobert. I don't for a minute believe that the conservatives are truly against "big government"! Quite the contrary. What they are in favor of is a very big government that is really a consortium of very wealthy private entities who work together to share the spoils and who effectively ARE the government. Their employees aren't on government payroll, but the companies themselves are sustained by government-arranged contracts and that's where the public money goes. Government by corporate monopoly in other words. That is a different form of government, and it pretends it isn't big government, but it is. Bush spent massively when he was in office, and it went to the benefit of people like Haliburton and Blackwater and many other such companies who landed lucrative contracts from the government. The corporates control legislation through their money, their connections, and their lobbyists. They have Congress in their pocket. That's a government by corporate oligarchy.

I think what most damaged your society was the period of de-regulation that was brought in by Ronald Reagan. In the short term, it resulted in rapid growth (due to much easy money being made available by lending institutions). In the long term, it bankrupted the entire society, because the money wasn't real. The banks created it out of thin air (by making loans), and we are now paying the price for that. It was a giant pyramid scheme, and it has gone bust as all pyramid schemes eventually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 01:11 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html

June 23, 2009
Categories: Blogs

Obama calls on HuffPost for Iran question

President Obama, during today's news conference, departed from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post's Nico Pitney second, in between the AP and Reuters.

However, it seemed more like a choreographed moment than break with tradition, as Obama said he knew Pitney was in attendance and would probably have a question about Iran.

According to POLITICO's Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.

CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about."



By Michael Calderone 12:51 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 02:28 PM

You carefully avoid pointing out, Bruce, in your rush to make Obama look bad, that the HuffPo question producedone of his weakest answers in the conference, and was anything but a placating softball querstion. But distinctions like that might esacape you. Bush's lackey-journalists never pinned him.

In other news the conservative New Republic comments:

"Critics such as Krugman and Frum are correct that surrendering intellectual ground comes at a cost. Our most successful presidents articulate clear, forceful public rationales for their beliefs --think of Roosevelt or Truman excoriating reactionary Republicans at home, or Truman, Kennedy, or Reagan standing up to the Soviets internationally. It is a mistake, however, to view Obama's strategy as an act of submission.

Consider how Obama explained his approach toward Iran during a recent interview with Newsweek:

    Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

This is a perfect summation of Obama's strategy. It does not presuppose that his adversaries are people of goodwill who can be reasoned with. Rather, it assumes that, by demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord, Obama can win over a portion of his adversaries' constituents as well as third parties. Obama thinks he can move moderate Muslim opinion, pressure bad actors like Iran to negotiate, and, if Iran fails to comply, encourage other countries to isolate it. The strategy works whether or not Iran makes a reasonable agreement.

The results remain to be seen. But it eerily resembles the way Obama has already isolated the GOP leadership. Obama began his presidency by elaborately courting the opposition party. Republicans in Congress believed that, by flamboyantly withholding cooperation, they could deny Obama his stated goal of bipartisan harmony and thus render him a failure. Instead, they wound up handing Obama the alternative victory of appearing to be the reasonable party. Polls showed that the public, by overwhelming margins, believed that Obama was trying to work with Republicans and that Republicans were not reciprocating.

Likewise, by defusing the complaint among Islamists that the United States disrespects their religion, Obama can more easily force the Iranian leadership to negotiate on the terms of its stated goals. This is actually "a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers," as American Prospect editor Mark Schmitt wrote in 2007. "One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in," Schmitt explained, "treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem."

This apparent paradox is one reason Obama's political identity has eluded easy definition. On the one hand, you have a disciple of the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky turned ruthless Chicago politician. On the other hand, there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist. The mistake here is in thinking of these two notions as opposing poles. In reality it's all the same thing. Obama's defining political trait is the belief that conciliatory rhetoric is a ruthless strategy."

Jonathan Chait -- senior editor at The New Republic.

Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views: the Obama Administration
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 03:52 PM

MONDAY, JUNE 22ND, 2009 AT 2:29 PM
A Significant Breakthrough to Assist Our Seniors
Posted by Katherine Brandon

Today, the President announced a landmark agreement with pharmaceutical companies, who pledged $80 billion in prescription drug discounts over the next 10 years. This compromise is the latest step towards a new consensus amongst health care stakeholders to help reduce costs and provide quality care for all Americans –- last month a coalition of health care industry leaders agreed to $2 trillion in savings over 10 years.

The President was joined by Senators Max Baucus and Chris Dodd, and introduced by AARP President Barry Rand, who called the plan a "new opportunity" for those who have been burdened by the costs of prescription drugs.

The President announces the agreement
(President Barack Obama speaks about the agreement to lower drug costs for seniors, Monday, June 22, 2009,
in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House.   With the President are, from left, CEO of AARP Barry Rand, Senator Max Bachaus (D-MT) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT). Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
The agreement, which was reached between Sen. Baucus, Administration officials, and the nation's pharmaceutical companies, will ultimately reduce the price of prescription drugs by half for millions of America's seniors. As part of the upcoming health care reform legislation, drug manufacturers that participate in Medicare Part D will either pay a rebate to Medicare or offer a substantial discount of at least 50 percent on prescription drugs to seniors who fall within the infamous "doughnut hole"— payments between $2700 and $6153.75 not covered by Medicare. The deal will help close this unfair gap in coverage, providing relief for millions of seniors who have been burdened by these out-of-pocket expenses, making it easier for them to get the prescriptions that they need.
In addition to providing half-price discounts, the pharmaceutical companies will offer other discounts and savings to total an $80 billion reduction in costs. The President said this historic compromise marks a turning point in the journey towards health care reform that will lower costs for all Americans: