Slip Slidin’ Away

Slip 'n Slide

That is what appears to be happening to the support for Obama’s 3.6 trillion dollar budget proposal.  That is despite his incessant campaigning and ubiquitous presence on television and the Internet.  Imagine where his numbers would be without the PR blitz.

Now, we know why the White House laid on the immense trans-continental public relations offensive over its immense budget these past two-to-three weeks.

The Gallup Poll did another one this week on President Obama’s $3,550,000,000,000 budget for fiscal 2010 and found support for it down slightly, disapproval up slightly and even “Don’t Knows” also up a bit…

People who feel positively about his budget fell from 44% in late February to 39% this week. People who feel negatively about the budget increased one point to 27% in the same time frame. And after all that budget talk, people who claim to not know enough to have an opinion increased 10% from 30% to 33%. (I believe that is a typo, D/K increased 3%–GCH)

And it is not Republicans and Independents who Obama’s media campaign is meant to try to influence.  It is his own party faithful who are starting to realize that the man they voted for really doesn’t share their values all that much.

But new deficit projections last week by the independent Congressional Budget Office put the White House on the defensive — and prompted congressional budget leaders to drop elements of the president’s budget. The new CBO numbers projected $9.3 trillion in federal budget deficits over the next 10 years — $2.3 trillion more than the White House had estimated. Unlike the president, congressional leaders opted to present five-year budget outlooks.

“When you lose $2.3 trillion and you are asked to dramatically reduce the deficit — to get it down to 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product, which we have done — you’ve got to do a lot of things,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D) of North Dakota, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee.

Meanwhile the Democratic leadership continues to paint a picture of partisan bliss where hope and change rule the day:

As House and Senate budget panels marked up FY 2010 budget resolutions today, President Obama headed up to Capitol Hill to rally support for his own $3.66 trillion budget.

“It went great!” the president said, after a closed meeting with Senate Democrats today. The president also met privately with House Democrats.

“It was vintage Obama,” added Senate majority leader Harry Reid, after the mid-day meeting. “He made us all feel content, inspired by where we need to go.”

Even Robert Gibbs fell back on their tired old campaign rhetoric,

Pressed on whether changes in budget drafts on Capitol Hill marked a significant break with White House priorities, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that change is not easy to bring to Washington.

“Would the president like to see a 10-year budget? Would the president like to see disasters fully accounted for? Would the president like to see budgeting that accounts for the possibility of more money to stabilize our financial system? Yeah,” he said.

I guess that by “disasters” Gibbs is referring to Bush’s economic policy.  That may in fact be true,  and they can blame Bush all they want for “inheriting” this economic mess, but the deficit that Obama’s budget will create will forever belong to him, and the Democratic Party.  And despite Reid’s rosy picture, a lot of Democrats are not willing to stake their entire political careers on his budget proposal.  Especially given the fact that a lot of economists are starting to wake up and realize what we’ve been saying all along.  That Obama is not prepared for the job.  Or as Hillary was so soundly rebuffed for saying, “ready on day one”.  From The Economist, who endorsed Obama:

HILLARY CLINTON’S most effective quip, in her long struggle with Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination last year, was that the Oval Office is no place for on-the-job training. It went to the heart of the nagging worry about the silver-tongued young senator from Illinois: that he lacked even the slightest executive experience, and that in his brief career he had never really stood up to powerful interests, whether in his home city of Chicago or in the wider world. Might Mrs Clinton have been right about her foe?

I guess they just turned racist all of a sudden.  But cracks are beginning to form, and even some freshmen Democrats, who are generally expected to tow the party line, are not willing to tether their political fortunes to the deficits that Obama’s budget will create.  My own Senator, Kay Hagan, is one of those freshmen.

North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan said Saturday that the budget proposal pushed by President Barack Obama would burden the nation with an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion, a shortfall she deemed “completely unsustainable and unacceptable.”…

Her decision to renounce some of the popular president’s ideas comes as a striking contrast to her campaign last year, when she cozied to his mantra of change as North Carolina voters swept both into office. It underscores her eagerness to depart from the big-government plans of her party even as she tries to influence legislation as a backbencher in Washington’s upper chamber.

Don’t think that such apostasy has gone unnoticed by the obamabots.  They sent out their first wave of Obama’s Witnesses last weekend to encourage party remembers to remain loyal to their Messiah.  Now they’re telling them that they need to remind their elected representatives in congress to remember their place.  This is from an email Mawm got from local Obama capo, Faulkner Fox.

URGE SENATOR HAGAN TO SUPPORT OBAMA’S BUDGET:
Senator Kay Hagan is not as supportive of Obama’s budget as she should be.
Lots of emails and calls from Obama supporters in Durham could be extremely
persuasive. Write–or call–and urge her to abandon her participation in
Evan Bayh’s conservative Democratic club and support the President’s budget
in the key areas of affordable health care for all, sustainable energy
independence, and real education reform.

So Fox thinks Hagan is not being as supportive as she should be? I’m glad that Fox is on top of dictating what US Senators should and should not be doing.  So Ms. Fox, how supportive should she be?  Would bowing down and kissing the ass of the Messiah in Chief be enough for you?  The arrogance is astounding.  Why don’t we send Fox an email and let her know what we think she should be supporting?   She can be contacted at faulkner@durhamforobama.org.

So despite his mainstream media propagandist’s claims that he is still the most Popular President Ever!!! It looks like support for his budget is slip sliding away…

This is who an opportunist nominates to be Secretary of HHS…

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius.  A woman who is willing to sell out women’s reproductive rights to get confirmed to her cabinet post.  See, last week the Kansas legislature passed a bill that ensures that women seeking an abortion “are able” (read–are forced to) look at an ultrasound of the fetus and listen to its heartbeat.  The point is to try to manipulate the choices that women make about their bodies by torturing them psychologically.

Kansas legislators approved an anti-abortion bill Tuesday that would ensure that women and girls seeking abortions are able to see ultrasound images or hear their fetus’ heartbeat before the procedure.

Groups that want to strip women of the right to control their bodies threatened to derail Sebelius’ nomination if she did not sign their torture statute into law.

The bill now needs the approval of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has repeatedly vetoed anti-abortion bills in the past. Anti-abortion groups are opposing her appointment by President Barack Obama to serve as U.S. secretary of health and human services, but the bill’s backers are hopeful she’ll sign it to ease her confirmation in the Senate.

In the past Sebelius has vetoed bills that in any way attempted to manipulate or curtail a woman’s choice.  Even ones that contained similar language as this one.

Sebelius vetoed bills to impose new restrictions on abortion providers or regulations on clinics in 2003, 2005 and 2008. Last year’s bill contained ultrasound and heartbeat-monitoring requirements, but the governor didn’t single them out in her veto message.

In the end, Sebelius decided to throw women under the bus in the hopes that by sacrificing their rights she might avoid a confirmation battle to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. And I don’t doubt that pressure from her future boss played a hand in making that decision.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius signs a bill ensuring that women and girls seeking abortions can see ultrasound images before the procedure.

The legislation, signed Friday and taking effect July 1, also ensures that abortion patients can listen to the fetal heartbeat.

Sebelius signed the measure as she awaits U.S. Senate confirmation as federal Health and Human Services secretary. Anti-abortion groups in Washington have criticized her nomination because of her abortion rights stance.

But really, is anybody going to be fooled by her cynical attempt to pander to religious fundamentalists?  Pro choice groups don’t think so:

Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, said he was skeptical that signing the bill would help Sebelius much with anti-abortion groups.

“They’ve already mounted a full-scale attack,” he said.

I have to agree that the rabid christianists are not going to fall for it either.  I doubt they would have any qualms about leading her to believe they will lay off the pressure in exchange for her signature on the bill only to turn around and throw their full weight to oppose her confirmation.  I mean, these are people who think acts of murder and terrorism are acceptable tactics in their battle to impose their invasive dogma on women everywhere.

I can only suspect that Barack “the end justifies the means” Obama is behind this latest pander to the religious right.   He and Sebelius should both be ashamed of themselves.  So should the women’s rights groups who endorsed this asshole over the more qualified woman candidate.  Every other woman should just be mad as hell.

Obama channels Bush.

The rhetoric used by GWB in justifying the Iraq war and the rhetoric used by Obama to justify sending more troops to Afghanistan (4000+ more than he had previously stated, to be specific) is strikingly similar.

Same Old...

George W. Bush (3/03):

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

Barack Obama (3/09):

“the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks are in Pakistan and Afghanistan”

George W. Bush:

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

Barack Obama:

“The safety of people around the world is at stake,”

George W. Bush

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

Barack Obama:

“The United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan.

...Same Old.

Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives,” said Obama, who has vowed to make Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror.

George W. Bush

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised…

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.

Barack Obama:

Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban — or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged — that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can

This doesn’t sound at all like the politician who supposedly gave the Best Speech EVER!!! which became the cornerstone of his campaign:

I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda…

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells…

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Funny, I didn’t hear mention of any of those things in his speech today justifying the escalation of the war in Afghanistan.  To me it just sounded like more of the same.  What happened to international cooperation?  What happened to fighting terrorism by going after financial networks and coordinated intelligence?  What happened to pressuring the Egyptians and the Saudis to stop oppressing their citizens and crack down on terrorism?  Won’t our escalation of military activities only serve to “fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda…”?

I understand that Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t the same.  But to use the same scare tactics and rhetorical propaganda that Bush used to get us bogged down in Iraq is both insulting and dangerous.  Especially given his talk about using non-bellicose means of ending terrorism that so many used as a talking point for electing him president. 

We told you he was a phony and a liar.  Now we’ve got 4 more years of the same old shit…

Empty Threats, Empty Promises

That seems like all we get from Barack Obama these days in regard to his plan for the economy.  First of all, if we don’t go along with the President’s plan, we are doomed to another Great Depression.  After earlier claims that if congress didn’t pass the stimulus bill, the US economy might never recover, Obama made a similar claim in his prime time campaign ad press conference regarding his budget proposal:

The budget I submitted to Congress will build our economic recovery on a stronger foundation so that we don’t face another crisis like this 10 or 20 years from now…

That’s why this budget is inseparable from this recovery - because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity.

We will probably never know if these threats are even remotely close to the truth, but on the other end of the spectrum, when it comes to promises, it appears that Obama’s rhetoric and reality are in two separate dimensions.   Back when he was pushing the stimulus package, Obama not only predicted economic Armageddon if Congress didn’t pass it, he also promised that if they did it would “save or create” 3.5 million jobs.  Well, that sounds kind of nice, depending on what it means to “save” jobs, of course.  Cinie, as usual, cut straight through the BS to point out just how ludicrous this claim was.

When you say “save or create 3.5 million jobs,” all that means is that after whatever arbitrary time limit you impose, if at least 3.5 million people, out of the approximately 140 million currently employed , are still employed, you win.  You could lose every other job there ever was, or might, or could have been, if 3.5 million people are still employed at the end of say, 6 months, you’re a hero, in some alternate universe, warped perspective, shared national suck on Michael Phelps’ bong full of Alex Rodriguez steroids-enhanced KoolAid flavored hopium in the front seat of Chris Brown’s luxury rent-a-car kind of way.

About the same time, Obama was on yet another campaign swing through the Midwest to stir up support for his stimulus package.  He stopped at a Caterpillar plant in  East Peoria, IL where he made the statement that the stimulus would allow the CEO of the company to rehire some of the 20,000+ workers that had been laid off the month before.  At the time, the CEO himself seemed to contradict this claim.  Here are their dueling statements:

Well, reality seems to be on the side of CEO Jim Owen rather than the Campaigner in Chief.  This news just in only a month after Obama’s promise that layed-off workers would be rehired:

Caterpillar Inc. is laying off more than 2,400 employees at five plants in Illinois, Indiana and Georgia as the heavy equipment maker continues to cut costs amid the global economic downturn.

CAUTION: Stimulus Inside!

And some of those jobs are at the very plant where Obama promised that his stimulus would create jobs.  But if you look closely enough at that claim, it is more than just a bit confusing.  In fact, just looking at how the government comes up with its numbers is like looking into the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark.  It is so convoluted it just might melt your face off…

The stimulus projections are top down, a matter of economic multipliers and complex division infused with things that may or may not happen.

The government estimated how much the spending and tax cuts might grow the economy. Then that effect was translated into projected job growth overall. Then that theoretical pie was divided into chunks to show what each state and sector of the economy might get out of it.

All of this without knowing, for example, how exactly states will spend money they get from Washington. Or how money going directly to a bridge or manufacturer will support other jobs in the communities.

Among the assumptions used in White House and congressional forecasting:

_Every one-point gain in the gross domestic product will translate into 1 million jobs.

_For every two jobs directly created by the stimulus spending, a third job will be indirectly created. The 2-to-1 ratio is rough and varies considerably by sector.

_For each dollar states receive from Washington, they will decide to use 60 cents to avoid spending cuts, 30 cents to avoid tax increases and 10 cents to reduce drawdowns of their rainy day funds.

_A tax cut has only one-quarter of the value of a spending increase of the same size, in terms of expanding the economy.

_Every dollar spent on unemployment benefits is worth $1.63 of quick economic expansion. Food stamps boost the economy even more.

The overarching goal — and promise — of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs is built on vagaries such as these.

And after all those “vagaries” they couldn’t come up with anything less meaningless than “save or create”?  Well I guess they’ll have to now factor in those subsequent job losses at Caterpillar.  As it stands now, the stimulus, as promised, must save or create 3,502,400 jobs.

BTW, if you didn’t catch the new episode of South Park last night, it is good for a few giggles.  Among other things, we find out that the Treasury Department is making policy decisions by letting a headless chicken run around on a table of options and choosing the one where it ends up falling (options range from “bailout” to “hold a press conference”).   In the end, a Jesus-like Kyle saves the economy, but as we know all too well, even if Jesus Christ himself did intervene, you know who would still be getting all the credit…

more about “Paying For Everyone’s Debts – Clips -…“, posted with vodpod

Obama to end Don’t ask Don’t Tell? Don’t hold your breath.

Sgt. Leonard Matlovitch, Sept. 1975. We're STILL waiting...

Obama continues to string gays along with the promise of repealing DADT which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military.  The United States is one of the very few western industrial powers that doesn’t allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military.  Democrats have told us for years that it would be a priority to end discrimination in our armed forces under a Democratic administration.  So what gives?

New statements from administration officials indicate that a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is moving at a slower pace than some would like.

Media reports earlier this year from the Boston Globe and the Associated Press stated that President Obama is consulting with defense advisers before initiating repeal of the law, which bans open gays from serving in the military.

But statements issued to the Blade this week from officials associated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Defense Department are raising questions about the level of consultation that has taken place.

Of course Obama’s hordes of homophobic frat boi zombies will tell you that the President has a  lot on his plate with the economic situation, and that silly things like civil rights for millions of Americans will have to wait.  That’s a hard pill to swallow given that Obama seems to be able to work on other things like reinvigorating stem cell research, reducing energy consumption in federal buildings,  funding high speed transit, and subsidizing lenders of student loans.  All of those things, which fulfill promises to other Democratic constituencies, seemed to be important enough to get the president’s attention, even with the big bad recession taking up all his time.  Why then can he not do ONE THING for the gay community that overwhelmingly voted for him?

And obots, don’t bother mentioning the US signing the UN resolution supporting gay rights. That’s about as empty an action as one could take.

Sgt. Matlovich, R.I.P.

And it is typical of this administration’s continual lip service to the gay community.  What has Obama got to lose by signing a document which was a nonbinding resolution presented over 3 months ago, and was signed by less than half of all UN member states?  The Obama administration itself concluded that the resolution was basically meaningless.

But Wood said a “careful interagency review” by the Obama administration had concluded that “supporting this statement commits us to no legal obligations.”

But back to DADT, is Obama really consulting with the military about repealing the discriminatory statute?

“The chairman has had an informal conversation with the president about this, but there was not a lot of substance to it in terms of detail,” Kirby said. “He was not asked for his recommendation, nor was he tasked to go provide that.”

Kirby said no memoranda were circulating among the Joint Chiefs addressing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Defense Department spokesperson Cynthia Smith declined to comment on the extent to which DOD is considering repeal and would only discuss DOD’s commitment to the law.

“Our policy implements the law Congress passed after prolonged research and debate,” she said. “The department will continue to follow congressional mandate on homosexual conduct.”

The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment on the remarks.

That’s not surprising. Obama doesn’t like to talk about gay issues that much. Neither does his Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Several months ago, gullible gays and lesbians rejoiced over this cryptic, insulting, one-word answer to the question of whether Obama would repeal DADT

Um, some of us would actually like more than one word Mr. Gibbs.  We like pesky things like details.  You know like when he plans on repealing DADT.  Because waiting for a second term is unacceptable.  And hiding behind the uniforms of the military brass isn’t either.  Obama is the Commander in Chief.  He may consult the military on this issue, but hardly needs their endorsement.  They are obliged to follow his command.  The military implements policy, it doesn’t make it. That’s the job of the civilians.

Nathaniel Frank, who’s gay and a senior fellow at the Palm Center, a think-tank at the University of California in Santa Barbara, said the civilian population and not uniformed officials would instigate repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

“Obviously if the Joint Chiefs express confidence in their troops’ ability to make this change, it will go more smoothly,” he said. “But in a democracy, civilians control the military, not the other way around. And the Pentagon has already made clear it will follow orders on this.”

Not only that, but with his budget, Obama has the perfect vehicle to set in motion the repeal of DADT.

Sarvis maintains the administration could instigate a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal by making elimination of the law part of his fiscal year 2010 defense budget.

Sarvis earlier told the Blade that that method of repeal would show alignment from defense officials. It would also place on opponents the burden of attempting to remove the language from the defense budget.

The administration released a summary of Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget request a few weeks ago and is planning to release the full details of the budget in April. No mention of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was included in the summary.

Hmmm….I wonder why not?  Maybe it’s because Obama doesn’t give a DAMN about gay people.  Maybe it’s because he is homophobic and a disgrace to the civil rights movement.  But he sure likes their money and their votes, and he’ll do everything he can to kick this can down the road to 2012 so that he can again dangle the promise of repeal in front of gay and lesbian Americans.

In the meantime, gays and lesbians continue to be discharged from the US military, violating their civil rights and making this country less secure.

In a March 12 statement, Moran said that the armed forces “continue to discharge vital service members” who are gay when operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have compromised the readiness level of the military.

The 11 discharged soldiers include a human intelligence collector, a military police officer, four infantry personnel, a health care specialist, a motor transport operator and a water treatment specialist.
Moran said he plans on releasing monthly reports on discharges as he receives the information.

If the president were serious about stopping this outrage, he could at the very least enact a moratorium on discharges.  But as things stand, this Commander in Chief is continuing to let  his soldiers down.  And he continues to show through his actions that he doesn’t believe that civil rights for gay and lesbian Americans matter.

SILENCE=DEATH

The Final Nail

As you all know, most of us PUMAs came into being shortly after the fiasco that was the DNC RBC meeting.  I was there and saw it live. Mawm took part in the protests outside.  In the afternoon he was in the chamber when the committee made its final decision, nullifying the votes of over 18,000,000 Democrats.  They called it unity.  Mawm told them what it really was, “Lipstick on a pig”.

The committee seated both delegations but gave each only half-votes. Clinton netted 24 delegates from the day but her supporters were verging on hysterical throughout the last 40 minutes of the meeting, heckling the panel for its decision. It was one of the ugliest Dem-on-Dem scenes I’ve ever witnessed, including chants of “McCain 08,” “Bastards,” and “Denver.” Not to mention “Lipstick on a Pig,”

Democracy in the Democratic party has been dead since May 31, 2008.   This is just the final nail in the coffin.

The DNC this evening announced a commission to look at the primary calendar for 2012, to be led by South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill. The most prominent Iowan is Attorney General Tom Miller, a very early Obama supporter.
But the dominant figure will likely be Obama’s delegate guru, Jeff Berman, a largely unsung, key player of the primary season who is close to David Plouffe, also on the commission, and to Bill Carrick, another commissioner.

The key goals:

The Democratic Change Commission will address three issues: 1) changing the window of time during which primaries and caucuses may be held 2) reducing the number of superdelegates and 3) improving the caucus system. A copy of the convention resolution establishing the Commission is below. The Commission must issue its report and recommendations to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee no later than January 1, 2010.

The Democrats don’t want their sham of a primary exposed again, so they’ve put their top Obama loyalist slimebags on the case.  Claire “my children tell me who to vote for” McCaskill will be deciding the rules.  Jim Clyburn, who tarnished his own civil rights reputation by sinking in to the mud to hurl accusations of racism at Hillary and Bill Clinton, will also be shepherding future Democratic votes.  If we didn’t already know that our party has been stolen, there’s no doubt of it now.  We can never go back.

And if you look at their agenda, it is clear that they are ensuring that they will be able to manipulate the outcomes of the primaries from here on out.  Particularly telling is the stated goal of reducing the number of SD’s, who we all know could have done the right thing and picked the candidate that a majority of Democratic voters voted for, Hillary Clinton.   Jim and Claire are going to eliminate all remaining safeguards protecting voter rights.

But if you voted for Hillary, don’t worry, she’ll be represented in the primary reform too:

It also includes Clinton backers Randi Weingarten and Minyon Moore.

Ever heard of them? I haven’t.

Democratic Party– R.I.P.

Then and Now–Obots are hypocrites

THEN-Hillary Clinton made the following statement to explain why having a primary carry on into June was not extraordinary:

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.” Clinton said.

The reference was obviously to the fact that Kennedy was still campaigning when he was assassinated in June.  But Obots called for her racist head, claiming she was secretly plotting Obama’s assassination.  Regardless, Clinton apologized for her “careless” remark,

“I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation – particularly for that family – was in any way offensive,” Clinton continued. “I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate in the state of New York. And have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.”

Keith Obotman, who had previously called for Hillary’s assassination, offered up a trademark spittle laced, vein popping rant.  Obots quickly jumped on the bandwagon with their own harsh denouncements.  The following video was the typical Obot reaction to Hillary’s “gaffe” and apology.

NOW-Barack Obama disgracefully mocks people with disabilities by making them the butt of a joke on late night television

“No, no. I have been practicing,” Obama said. “I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.”

Obama issued an apology to the Kennedy’s as well for his degrading comment. Obama’s comment, however, was not taken out of context, and his statement that he didn’t intend to hurt anyone by what he said just reinforced the notion that he is an insensitive asshole. But this was the typical Obot reaction from CNN’s iReporters

more about “People who live in glass houses – iRe…“, posted with vodpod

more about “Obama was wrong, but let’s look in th…“, posted with vodpod

Yeah dude, it’s OUR fault.  Fuck you.

Obots are hypocrites.

Palin Responds

Momma Pitbull

Sarah Palin, whose own son Trig has Down Syndrome, has responded to Barack Obama’s degrading remarks about people with disabilities

“I was shocked to learn of the comment made by President Obama about Special Olympics,” Governor Palin said. “This was a degrading remark about our world’s most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.

“These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will. By the way, these athletes can outperform many of us and we should be proud of them. I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community.”

Good for her.  After what the so called “progressive” community did to her and her family in this election, it is not surprising that their leader, Obama, would be just as callous and insensitive as they are.  Andrew Sullivan, who is a pig and a disgrace in his own right, had this to say on the matter:

The woman who used a Down Syndrome infant as a campaign prop attacks a presidential joke:

No, no, no Andrew, you slimy scumbag, she wasn’t using her child as a prop, YOU were using him as a prop by propagating a disgusting rumor during the campaign questioning if Sarah was really Trig’s mother. (this piece was accompanied by a picture of Bristol Palin holding her young brother)

There must be plenty of medical records and obstetricians and medical eye-witnesses prepared to testify to Sarah Palin’s giving birth to Trig. There must be a record of Bristol’s high school attendance for the past year. And surely, surely, the McCain camp did due diligence on this. But the noise around this story is now deafening, and the weirdness of the chronology sufficient to rise to the level of good faith questions.

Hey Andy, go fuck yourself.  Bareback.

Obama’s campaign never repudiated these disgusting rumors.  In fact Andy was rewarded for his mudslinging by being invited to a “get to know you” supper to thank Obama’s propagandists for helping him get elected.

But it is not surprising that Obama’s surrogates use his blatantly offensive and disgusting remarks to further bash Sarah Palin.  They have no conscience and no soul.  Palin on the other hand knows first hand how special children with disabilities are.  And they and their families knew what a great advocate they could have had in the White House.

President Obama is a disgrace

Does she deserve to be the butt of a joke?

Our President really is an asshole.  While his frat boi fans might think that personal attacks on people are funny, it is downright shameful for the president to get laughs at the expense of others.  Edgoforever wrote a somewhat psychic post on Obama’s sense of humor yesterday, pointing out that there’s no explaining what passes for humor these days.  She cited a Politico article that attempted to explain Obama’s style of humor.  What struck me is that his idea of humor is actually belittling other people:

Obama’s aides say the president behind the scenes is a funny man. No really, he is, they insist. It’s not just that he’s their boss.

“He is funny, but he also has, I think, a very good sense of humor just in terms of both responding to and teasing others,” said Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary. “Right before he went out for the joint session of Congress, he and I were backstage making fun of somebody or cracking up about a situation.”

Making fun of somebody is not “humor”.  It is vulgar.  And that is exactly what Obama did last night, suggesting his bowling is so bad that it is comparable to being in the Special Olympics:

The comment came midway through Obama’s appearance on the late night comedy show, when host Jay Leno quipped about the president’s lack of bowling skills: “I imagine the bowling alley [in the White House] has just been just burned and closed down,” Leno said.

“No, no. I have been practicing,” Obama said. “I bowled a 129. It’s like — it was like Special Olympics, or something.”

People that have very little compassion for others often don’t realize it when they belittle other people to get a cheap laugh.  And Obama’s non-apology apology demonstrates that he just doesn’t get it.

“The President made an offhand remark making fun of his own bowling that was in no way intended to disparage the Special Olympics,” Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton told reporters. “He thinks that the Special Olympics are a wonderful program that gives an opportunity to shine to people with disabilities from around the world.”

Well that’s the point isn’t it?  He is so insensitive that he didn’t even realize that what he was saying was offensive to people who work very hard

What about them?

and deservedly derive a great amount of  pride from their accomplishments.

It would be easy to overlook Obama’s callous remark if it weren’t part of a pattern that paints a portrait of a man with very little character who never misses an opportunity to make a joke at someone else’s expense.

Like Jessica Simpson:

“They took you off the cover,” Lauer said, holding a copy of the celebrity gossip magazine. “It’s a little hurtful,” Obama joked. “You got replaced by Jessica Simpson,” Lauer pointed out. “Who’s in a weight battle, apparently, Obama replied

Or Hillary Clinton:

Or Sarah Palin:

Or gay people/people living with HIV:

Or women:

Mac introduced Obama for the $2,300-a-head fundraiser at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Chicago and opened with his typical humor.

“My little nephew came to me and he said, ‘Uncle, what’s the difference between a hypothetical question and a realistic question?’” Mac told the crowd, “I said, ‘I don’t know,’ but I said, ‘I’ll tell you what you do. Go upstairs and ask your mother if she’d make love to the mailman for $50,000.’”

The joke continued with the mother saying she’d sleep “with anyone” for $50,000 — and then continuing to include Mac’s daughter hypothetically answering the question in the same way.

“Hypothetically speaking, we should have $100,000. But realistically speaking we live with two hos,” Mac said delivering the punch line that solicited a few hecklers in the political crowd.

Mac introduced Obama shortly after, and Obama called him a “great friend.”

“We can’t afford to be divided by race. We can’t afford to be divided by religion, or by region or class. Or by gender. That means, by the way, Bernie you got to clean up your act. This is a family affair. … I’m just messing with you,” Obama said.

Once again Obama has shown that he has absolutely no class and that he is not fit to be the leader of this great country.  He is a national embarrassment, much like the president that came before him, good old GWB.  And it’s not like making fun of developmentally disabled people wasn’t on his radar.  Just last month another asshole, Dick Morris, made a comment about being “retarded” in regard to understanding Obama on some point, which prompted this response from the Special Olympics:

Unfortunately, given the fact that the Special Olympics is run by the Kennedy clan, they were more forgiving when Obama essentially did the same thing.  From Tim Shriver:

“He expressed his disappointment and he apologized in a way that was very moving. He expressed that he did not intend to humiliate this population,” Shriver said Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Well if he didn’t “intend” to humiliate them, then that’s even worse.  It means that he doesn’t even get the fact that the hurtful words he uses are offensive.  To make matters worse, this is a person who regularly accuses others who criticize him of being racist.  Character matters in a president.  And sadly for our nation, character is something that President Obama is sorely lacking.

It’s good to be the King!

King Obama I

Yesterday Obama said in practically the same sentence that the “buck stops with me”, but that none of the AIG bonus mess was the responsibility of himself or anyone on his staff.   Apparently the president doesn’t know all that much about responsibility.  If he is ultimately the person to answer for this, then he is responsible.  Period.  You don’t qualify that by saying you are not to blame.  If they didn’t know about the whole AIG mess, then the problem is that they didn’t know what the hell was going on.  And in a lot of ways that’s even scarier.  The more likely alternative is that Obama is lying.  But the more disturbing trend is that Obama thinks that simply apologizing is enough to turn the page.  Obama has spent his short tenure as President repeatedly saying “my bad” and then changing the subject. 

“I know Washington’s all in a tizzy and everybody’s pointing fingers at each other and saying it’s their fault, the Democrats’ fault, the Republicans’ fault. Listen, I will take responsibility. I’m the president,”

 ”We didn’t draft these contracts,” he said. “We’ve got a lot on our plate. But it is appropriate when you’re in charge to make sure stuff doesn’t happen like this. So for everybody in Washington who’s busy scrambling to try to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it’s my job to fix these messes even if I don’t make them.”

And  the analysts  propagandists at CNN are helping him to weather the fallout of “taking responsibility”.

Obama’s approval ratings have hovered around 60 percent in recent weeks, slightly higher than his predecessors’ numbers near the same time.

Given those ratings, Crowley said, Obama “is well-positioned to weather out this storm.”

“He faces some political risk in the face of the revelation that his Treasury Department pushed for and got a legislative loophole, which AIG walked through to dole out its bonuses. Still, at the moment it is difficult to see the president taking a major blow,” she said, noting that most of the outcry has been directed at AIG and Geithner.

First of all, his approval ratings are actually historically lower at this point than his predecessors, as I explained here.  And furthermore, I think that her observation is more or less the narrative she and her cohorts would like to see take hold, rather than analysis of the actual situation.  I guess she believes that the more they say it, the more everyone else out there will start to believe it.  And why not?  That’s how we ended up with this trainwreck of an administration (not to mention 8 long years of GWB) in the first place.  Crowley gets some backup from her partner in crime, Bill Schneider,

Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst, pointed out that taking responsibility is different than “getting the blame.”

“It’s vaguer. It means, ‘Because I’m president, I am ultimately responsible for what happens, even if I didn’t do it,’ ” he said.

Yeah, whatever.  As State of Disbelief is fond of saying, “you can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit”, and that’s what it sounds like he’s doing to me.  The truth is that they’re trying to muddy the waters.  Obama is responsible, because his administration DID do it.  Geithner is not some rogue agent out there changing legislation willy-nilly.  And if he were, he should be gone, not being given the President’s “fullest confidence”.  But the Minitrue has another little earworm they’d like to start boring into your brain:  Time to move on people! Nothing to see here! (God this is starting to remind me  A LOT of the lead up to the Iraq war)

In Obama’s case, “blame me” is political code for “move on,” said Candy Crowley, CNN’s senior political correspondent…

“The president needs to take his own advice now, and move on — or at least try. Whether he is forced to address it again depends on circumstances and whether his critics are able to capitalize on the moment to suggest things are not being properly watched,” she said.

So Crowley thinks that Obama should just wash his hands of the whole mess a la Pontius Pilate and leave whoever will end up on the cross to their own devices.  Crowley goes on to paint anyone who wants to look further into this as ”critics capitalizing” on the moment.  For Candy, I suppose anyone that opposes Obama is cynically criticizing him for some OTHER reason than he is doing a downright piss-poor job.  No, it is the fault of the Limbaughs and the Cramers and the Goldsteins out there who only want Obama to fail.  The best way to deal with them is to pretend that he never does. 

And what better way to make sure the media keeps pumping out his message than to continually dangle bright objects in front of them:

Only eight weeks into the Obama administration, the president and first lady have already hosted their fair share of social events.

Lets party like it's 1929!

Indeed, White House social secretary Desiree Rogers has announced that the Obama administration plans to make Wednesday night social events a tradition.

I’m sorry, but a cocktail hour is not a “tradition”.  It is downright insulting to those of us who have jobs to get to on Thursday morning and wouldn’t dream of wasting our time and money doing cocktails every week.  But if they are going to be wasting so much time on a regular basis, can they at least explain how this is helping the American people?  Oh yeah, it’s not.

As Letitia Baldrige, former social secretary to first ladies Jacqueline Kennedy and Lady Bird Johnson, told FOXNews.com, “no real, substantial conversation takes place” at White House cocktail parties…

“But cocktail parties need a herd mentality. You go with the herd mentality and talk about what the herd is talking about. It’s nothing more, really, than going there to see and be seen.”

The party’s main function, Baldrige said, is simply to take care of people who feel left out or hurt.

“It’s a way of taking care of social obligations,” she said. “It’s just a way of making people feel good.”

In fact, Baldrige says it is an unspoken rule not to argue or protest at a cocktail party. “It would be grossly inappropriate to do so,” she said.  

So basically it is an opportunity to make sure everyone is on the same page and has the same talking  points.   Oh, and it doesn’t hurt that it strokes the egos of the Villagers and pundits, for whom this must be like getting to sit with the cool kidz in the cafeteria on a regular basis.  I bet they’re eating it up too since Obama’s predecessors didn’t feel the need to be the center of Washington social life,

The announcement seemed to be a departure from the past several years, as the parties had all but fallen out of fashion since the Reagan era. President George W. Bush was rumored to dislike cocktail parties, and had given up drinking years before he was sworn in. As former press secretary Dee Dee Myers told Politico.com, the Clintons did not have a wide circle of friends in Washington and were “not as social” as the Obamas have shown themselves to be.

In other words, Bush was a drunk, and Clinton was a low life.  Now that the media have a hip new duo in the White House who seem to think that half of their job involves schmoozing with the Washington elite, they’re ecstatic.  Maybe this was the change they kept talking about.  A return to the good life when the president afforded them the RESPECT that they so obviously deserve.

I think that a lot of these people are in for a rude awakening.  The media is overconfident now that they have proven that they can take a vicious attack on the US and use that raw emotion to steer the country into a war based on lies (and it wasn’t just Bush who lied to us, it was the whole media establishment).  But people tend to pay a lot closer attention when it involves their pocketbook.  Somehow it tends to make most of us able to cut through the crap and see the truth. 

Just because Obama and the media are telling us to “move on” doesn’t mean it’s going to happen this time.  I don’t think they’ve got as much control over that messaging as they think.  People can only take suffering so much while watching those in power flit from cocktail party to basketball game, to late night talk show.  Just ask Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette how that worked out for them. 

Well, at least while it lasts, it’s good to be the King!