From the Right

Observing my upside down America

Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama

Bush Bashing Media Engine Continues to Support Obama

with 2 comments

First, a couple of jokes

President Bush goes into a library. “I would like a cheeseburger and fries,” he says in a loud, clear voice.”
“But sir,” says the assistant, “this is a library.”
“Gee, I’m sorry,” says Bush, and whispers very quietly, “I’d like a cheeseburger and fries.”

Change We Can Believe In

Obama campaigned for the presidency with a sweeping promise of “change we can believe in” and entered office with America in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and with the nation at war on two fronts. It is a time when America is at one of the most challenging junctures in modern American history.

However, since his inauguration, confidence in this president has been fading – and fading fast.

Six months into his term, a July 2009 Rasmussen Poll showed just 30 percent of the nation’s voters “strongly approve” of Mr. Obama’s job performance while 40 percent “strongly disapprove” of the president’s performance.

An October 2009 Gallup Poll recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April. It is worst poll rating drop in 50 years.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.”

Jones continued, “Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

President Obama is also facing criticism from the right for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

In a speech given at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, Vice-President Dick Cheney accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger” .

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.” – Vice-President Dick Cheney

Cheney further criticized Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.” – Vice-President Dick Cheney

Former Bush deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said, “For a guy who campaigned on taking responsibility and looking forward, he spends an awful lot of time pointing fingers and looking backward.”

Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon defends their Bush bashing and believes things are better now than they have been.

“I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since ’07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it? Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months.” – Liz Chadderdon

While he asserts his responsibility for addressing the nation’s problems, Mr. Obama manages to highlight that he was left to deal with others’ missteps.

At a July 2009 town-hall meeting in Michigan — the state with the nation’s highest jobless rate — Mr. Obama said that fixing the economy is “a job I gladly accept.”

But he added, “I love these folks who helped get us in this mess. And then suddenly say, ‘Oh, this is Obama’s economy.’ ”

Wrapped in controversy, Bush’s support of TARP legislation averted a full-blown economic melt-down but Obama wants to take the credit and often claims Bush let the economy burn, despite evidence to the contrary.

While Bush didn’t compel Obama to spend money nearly as fast as it could be printed, or roughly double the projected debt over the next decade, Obama continues to blame Bush for the $1.42 trillion dollar deficit. Obama’s motto: “Stop Bush – before he makes me spend again!”

As expected, the nation’s press levied this list of criticisms over his drunken spending habits.

New Orleans who? What’s a New Orleans?

After Obama’s recent trip to the Gulf Coast regions which are still wrestling with Katrina’s aftermath, a few Gulf Coast newspapers and politicians were a bit miffed about the shortness of his visit.

The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune : “That’s it?”

The Picayune’s Jonathan Tilove : “Say what you will about former President George W. Bush and his administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath — the man knew how to put together a post-Katrina White House visit to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. “They were exhaustive, exhausting, sun-up-to-sundown, sometimes multiday and multistate affairs.”

Mississippi’s Sun Herald : “Why are we invisible?”

Fellow Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu : “If this visit is too brief, it will not afford the president the opportunity to see firsthand the impact that an effective and committed administration can have on rebuilding neighborhoods and communities.”

Obama’s day began with a visit to the Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School in New Orleans’s Lower Ninth Ward. In the afternoon, he held a brief town hall meeting at the University of New Orleans Lakefront campus.

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city. As president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the city, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic National Committee fundraiser. The press had this to say about his disappearing act.

Obama Shirks Meeting with The Dalai Lama – Fears Angering China

When President Barack Obama decided not to meet with the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington in the first week of October 2009, analysts are sensing the rebuff is related to the $8 billion U.S. Treasury debt held by the Chinese government, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. Obama clearly sees his ability to continue to finance his deficit spending is tied directly to keeping China as happy as a Panda.

It was the first time since 1991 that the Dalai Lama has come to Washington and not met with the U.S. president.

Co-chairman of the Congressional Tibet Caucus, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), blasted “the administration’s unwillingness to meet with an internationally respected human rights leader in order to placate Chinese tyrants.”

“The U.S. has permitted China to have a one-way free-trade policy for decades, and now we are not only suffering the serious economic damage caused by that policy; we are finding ourselves politically vulnerable to a regime that is the world’s worst human rights abuser,” — Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.)

After awarding Obama with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, and in a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought.

Obama’s War with Fox News

There are those on the left who claim that Fox News is operating as a radio show outlet, not a news organization. Several top White House advisers have gone on other channels to criticize Fox News’ coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news station.

On October 20, 2009, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said White House officials

“render (that) opinion based on some their coverage and the fairness of that coverage.”

But asked how Fox News was different from other news organizations, Gibbs mentioned the channel’s 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. shows, in an explicit reference to “Beck” and “Hannity” — even though those two shows represent opinion programming.

Informed that those hours are for opinion programming, Gibbs said:

“That is our opinion.”

While the left may rejoice and find Obama’s tactic on target, Obama is going down a slippery slope. He is breaking a bit of new ground by focusing upon negative opinion about the effectiveness of his policies and attempts to marginalize the news outlet by claiming it isn’t a legitimate news organization.

Obama’s tactic removes all moral ground to stand upon which allows the left to complain if the next Republican president attempts to marginalize MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, et. al. simply because they disagree with opinion.

Obama’s behavior is childish, but it is to be expected from an inexperienced, untested, under-qualified yet glorified community organizer clueless about what it means to actually act like a president of the United States. Being president comes with some awesome challenges. So far, Obama demonstrates an inherent inability to meet and rise above those challenges.

Of a larger concern, if Obama cries foul over a little negative opinion and threatens to take his ball and go home like some school child, how will he behave when the going really gets tough with his failing foreign policies?

If the Bush Administration had declared a war upon the Liberal Media, we would never hear the end of it. The Liberal Media would make sure of that.

“If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened? That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.” — Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large, San Francisco Chronicle.

The True Colors of the Nation’s Media

Bush was frequently criticized for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House, the number of executive orders which pale in number compared to the pile already assembled by Obama and spending too much time on his bike.

How does Obama get away unscathed? Simple, while Obama continues with his Bush bashing campaign, the press is more than willing to oblige him. The Liberal Media Machine, aided by George Soros remains “in the tank” for Obama. What used to be Bush’s loudest critics are now Obama’s biggest supporters.

Apparently, the 500 pound gorilla is getting too big to ignore. Media observers have noted the president gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left, such as Media Matters and MoveOn.org.

While Bush was characterized by the press as being a Big Business Republican who “drove daddy’s car the White House”, stories about secret energy meetings and his lack of oratory skills, the press was all too willing to reinforce the image of a backward country bumpkin with ties to evil Halliburton over and over again and the “bots” on the left willingly drank the kool aide.

The press continues to paint Obama with a positive brush despite the fact that Obama is a empty suit, however, Saturday Night Live says what the media won’t.

Obama Defends Himself While The Press Feigns Criticism

President Barack Obama has been in office just nine months and already he is aggressively defending his legacy against criticism of his record on health care, climate change, closing Guantanamo, reforming immigration laws and financial regulations and his mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan.

“There’s an aspect of the campaign that’s all about projecting our hopes and our dreams and it’s full of excitement, and now we’re in governing mode, and governing is always tough because there are conflicting interests. Things take time, people argue. Our problems won’t be solved overnight, especially problems that grew over the course of decades.” — Barack Obama, at October 2009 fundraiser for Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick

At another fundraiser in San Francisco, Obama said he doesn’t mind cleaning up the mess Republicans left. “But I don’t want the folks who made the mess to sit there and say, you’re not mopping fast enough,” Obama says. “I want them to grab a mop!”

In the last week of October 2009, when Obama appeared at yet another fundraiser (YAFuR) in New York, a crowd of several thousand Obama supporters were chanting “Grab a mop!” a reference to his campaign mantra, “Yes, we can!”.

In spite of the fact that some Democrats are finding the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach, the New York Times’s idea of criticism is to note that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.” This piece of dazzling journalism represents yet another outstanding example of the dynamic and weighty investigative reporting for which the Times is best known.

Read more about the MOP here.

Advertisements

Written by Ben

October 28, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Posted in Barack Obama, Politics

Tagged with ,

Obama’s Afghanistan

leave a comment »

Obama is a politician. As such he should keep an eye on political goals. He should also be listening to General McChrystal more and talking less.

If Obama’s political goal is to defeat the Taliban and deny Al Qaeda a safe haven then Obama should have decided last week to give what McChrystal requests.

If Obama’s political goal is to cut and run then he needs to be talking to America to explain to us why the next attack on America won’t be coming from the same place which gave us 9/11 i.e. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The fate of Pakistan is with Afghanistan

As with the rest of the Western world, Pakistan has a stake in the Taliban problem. If Pakistan aids and harbors the terrorists in her country then that makes her an enemy of just about every civilized country on this rock. If not, then her responsibility is to destroy the Taliban for her own sake – if she has the political will. That is yet to be seen.

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are up against an ideology which threatens to overthrow their respective government. If Afghanistan should fall to the Taliban which gives Al Qaeda a safe haven of operations, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is at risk of falling into their hands. To then allow Pakistan to fall to the Taliban and Al Qaeda is insane. Aside from the U.S., India would be getting extremely nervous. Now it has escalated.

Under this scenario, the U.S. policy is to move in to secure the nukes. Whether or not we can secure them, the world (actually the U.S. because the world does not really seem to want to get involved with this) still has a problem with a country governed by the Taliban who now possibly possess a warhead. It is a condition which is not acceptable.

So tell me, what do we do with this problem? Do we stick our heads in the sand and hope these bastards forget their idea of Islamic domination at any cost? Do we cut and run away from the problem and allow it to escalate ? Remember their agenda includes the destruction if Israel.

A world vision

In a region of dictatorships, monarchies and theocracies with a foot in tribal law maybe a having a few democracies in the region is overdue.

At the end of the argument it boils down to knowing what kind of world we want. If we want a world with rogue states such as Syria, N.Korea and Iran who threaten the world nations who threaten nations with being “wiped off the map” then fear, uncertainty and doubt will rule the day. If we want a world with a stable future then we must get involved.

I agree, it’s ugly. But we cannot afford to sit on our hands and hope for the best.

No amount of law enforcement on the ground will prevent a freighter from quietly slipping into Boston harbor with a nuke on board.

Obama is too inexperienced in foreign affairs

Obama is dangerously over his head on this issue. He seems to be more comfortable dealing with controversial domestic issues than listening to the expert advice of General McChrystal.

At the end of the president’s Denmark trip to make his pitch for the Chicago Olympics Obama met with Gen. McChrystal. Our commander in Afghanistan was summoned from London and got 25 minutes of face time with the commander-in-chief.

That’s it — 25 minutes on the plane for the man Obama picked to lead 68,000 troops and rescue a war he calls one of “necessity.” Compare that to the 14 hours or so Obama wasted flying and speaking about the Olympics, and you get a snapshot of a president off course.

To date, Obama has given more time considering what kind of dog to buy.

If he continues to drag his feet on this issue the problem will evolve into the failure McChrystal is trying to prevent. I’d wager then Obama will blame McChrystal for it.

Meanwhile, Israel is getting nervous over Iran’s pursuit of nukes. What do yo want to bet that after Israel attacks those facilities, Obama throws Israel under the bus?

Newt Gingrich “gets it”:

“I think those of you who care about civil liberties had better be thinking through how we win this war before the (civilian) casualties get so great that the American people voluntarily give up a lot of those liberties.” – Speech at the National Press Club, Aug. 7, 2007

Written by Ben

October 5, 2009 at 10:59 am

A missed opportunity

leave a comment »

Jews aren’t the only segment of American society concerned about Barack Obama and his apparent willingness to throw Israel under the bus. This American is concerned that after Israel, he may throw America under that same bus.

I rest at night (albeit lightly) only because I gain a little bit of peace from the fact I did not vote for Barack Obama. My reasons for not voting for him comes more from personal efforts to do a little bit of research about him during the early days of his campaign and less from sound-bites provided by TV and radio. This research, coupled with a willingness to let the facts speak for themselves allowed me to assess his character and values as many know them to be today – only after the election.

My findings allowed me to see him as the socialist many are only now calling him. I saw a man whose character and values were formed and influenced by a 20+ year association with the Rev. Wright, an obvious racist and anti-Semitic, along with Bill Ayers and others of his ilk who harbor anti-American sentiment.

His background and early upbringing have given me cause to suspect his allegiance to America. This has since become painfully clear after hearing his recent speeches given abroad.

His experience with and knowledge of fiscal matters is showing to be abundantly weak. The motley collection comprising his cabinet have roots in Chicago politics and are tainted by the same. There have been jokes made of the fact that some members of his cabinet avoided paying taxes only to have them miraculously paid once they had been selected for the cabinet position. This has been drolly described as Obama’s earliest efforts in fiscal responsibility. To date, it’s been his best shot at it.

I could go on describing the weaknesses of this president including his naivete on foreign matters which will undoubtedly serve to be dangerous for America, but I will instead point to a missed opportunity for a great op-ed piece which can be read here. http://www.afa.net/youscareme.asp

In the end, it should be clear that we can never take our awesome responsibility to vote lightly; that our vote carries with it supreme consequences. It should also be clear that we have repeated history here.

We have rushed headlong for change, anxious to distance ourselves from a president who guided America out from the shadows of the events of September 11, 2001, only to be placed under a darker shadow of fiscal disaster for the nation.

One only has to look back upon the Ford-Carter election of 1976 and to reflect upon the psyche of America in the wake of Watergate to learn we have missed yet another opportunity to prevent history from repeating itself.

Live and learn can’t even be applied.

Written by Ben

June 15, 2009 at 6:25 pm

The thought police are coming – again.

leave a comment »

The fairness doctrine – the initiative which required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues – was scrapped by the FCC as unconstitutional in 1987. However, if Barack Obama has his way, it could come back in another form.

FCC commissioner Robert McDowell suggested the doctrine could be woven into the fabric of policy initiatives with names like localism, diversity or network neutrality. “According to some, the premise of any of these initiatives is similar to the philosophical underpinnings of the Doctrine: the government must keep electronic conduits of information viewpoint neutral,” he said.

For anyone out there who is not aware of the arrival of America’s version of Tass or Pravda consult the following links on the topic.

FCC’s McDowell Warns Against Fairness Doctrine.

Lynn Woolley: Obama’s planned assault on talk radio

On February 4, 2009, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat of Michigan) told radio host and WorldNetDaily columnist Bill Press, when asked whether it was time to bring back the Doctrine, “I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else – I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves.” When Press asked if she would seek Senate hearings on such accountability in 2009, she replied, “I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.”

Written by Ben

May 28, 2009 at 7:07 pm

$100 Million in savings!! Wowsers!!!!

with one comment

I know that $100 million dollars is a lot of money, but when you compare that against the pile it came from, it is a mere pittance.

Obama's idea of saving.

So which should make me the most angry about this? Is it the fact that Obama did not try to save us from a mountain of debt by taking a bigger budget cut? Or, should I be angry at the fact that I’m expected to be satisfied and grateful with this symbolic effort to reduce the size of the colossal budget, and in so doing, realizing that I and every other thinking American are begin played as an idiot.

Written by Ben

May 7, 2009 at 5:33 pm

A bill to let Big Government set your salary

leave a comment »

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.” And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

Full story here

Ed:  This change thing is fricking awesome.

Written by Ben

March 31, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Who benefits from this meltdown?

leave a comment »

Since 1989, Rep. Frank has received $42,350 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Senator Reid has received $77,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Dodd has received $165,400 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any other Member of Congress. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Carper has received $55,889 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

In just four years, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) has received $126,349 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, more than any Member of Congress except for Sen. Dodd. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has received $111,000 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has received $76,050 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has received $56,250 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)

Since 1989, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) has received $51,750 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Lindsay Renick Mayer, “Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Invest In Lawmakers,” Center For Responsive Politics’ “Capital Eye” Blog, www.opensecrets.org)