Thursday, November 04, 2010

Thought it was because of his middle name?

Ronaldus Magnus used to say, "There you go again, Sam" when responding to another stupid question put forth by the always pesky and mostly irritating Sam Donaldson of ABC News.

I'm tempted to invoke RWR here in responding to Eugene Robinson's idiotic op-ed in today's Wash Post.

I am not a member of the Tea Party, and don't purport to speak for the movement. But unlike Mr. Robinson, I seem to have a better grasp of the obvious. So, to help this misguided MSM-er, provided here are simple answers to the questions he poses.

Why is the Tea Party upset?
Maybe they don't like left-handed smokers? (OK, just kidding). To paraphrase James Carville: "it's the ideology, stupid."

I ask myself what's so different about Obama, and the answer is pretty obvious: He's black.
Well, technically he's only half-black; as he points out in this piece, Barry's on-food-stamps mother was white. But those like Mr. Robinson are the ones who keep score of such things. Besides, what color are Nancy (green with sparkly red shoes), Barney (rainbow), Harry (milquetoast) and Uncle Joe (does Botox have a color)?

Take it back from whom? Maybe he (Rand Paul) thinks it goes without saying, because he didn't say.
Maybe context of Paul's speech would useful to study. Tea Partiers want to take back the government from liberals, whatever the color of their stripes.

I have to wonder what it is about Obama that provokes and sustains all this Tea Party ire?
The better question is what is it about the Tea Party that provokes and sustains MSM misinterpretation and disdain? Critics such as Mr. Robinson -- not the Tea Party -- are the ones who have to get over skin color. Pigment fixation is on the Critics side of the argument and thus they'll see it everywhere they look. Why is it so hard for the MSM to understand that?

What makes some people feel more disenfranchised now than they were, say, during the presidency of George W. Bush?
For starters: how about doubling the amount of National Debt in 18 months that occurred under W in 8 years.

Bush was vilified by critics while he was in office but not with the suggestion that somehow the government had been seized or usurped.
Really!?! What planet was Mr. Robinson living on from December 2000 until Jan. 2009? Ever hear of a "hanging chad"? Ever read historical references to the Supreme Court decision "... that 'gave' the election to GWB....." Ever hear of Dan Rather and the Air National Guard personnel files? (We can't even read Barry's writings or see grades from his Harvard Law Review editor days.) Ever see the Comedy Central's series, "That's My Bush!" or the cartoon series "Lil' Bush"? Did he ever hear of the movie, "Recount"? Didn't he ever hear Algore introduce himself as "once the next president of the United States"?

Naw, GWB was never "pursued by a lavishly funded effort that tried its best to delegitimize his presidency."

But why would this concern about oppressive, intrusive government become so acute now?
How about for the 300 million of us who presently have healthcare plans now facing the prospects government mandates, insurer-of-choice uncertainty and indisputably higher costs? How about czars telling us how much salary is too much to make? How about meddling in everyday life from the trans fat in our foods to the light bulbs we use?

If the truth be told, it's probably because GWB went to Yale and BHO went to Harvard. (So did W for his MBA, but we're talking football here).

Critics like Mr. Robinson will continue to underestimate (and lose to) the Tea Party if they refuse to see it's not about race. They should remember: The first of the 12 Steps is to admit you have a problem.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Oil spill? What oil spill?


Obama administration lifts ban on deep-water drilling
--Washington Post, Oct. 12, 2010

Wow--Imagine that!

I knew POTUS was "Superman," but I didn't realize he used his Planet Krypton powers to fly around the world at super speeds, reverse the rotation of the Earth, and turn back time in order to save the Deep Water Horizon from exploding, thereby avoiding the oil spill and erasing the need for the drilling moratorium! Just think of all those thankful oil industry voters who can now concentrate on the elections. Just in the nick of time!

That's right, Jimmy. Just three weeks before the elections, and this gets pushed through, "..well ahead of the Nov. 30 date ..."

(Yes, but are they writing any new permits?)

Where is the investigative news media? Why aren't they covering this little maneuver? Too busy chasing red herrings at the Chamber of Commerce.

Do you think this might have something to do with the elections in Louisiana? Hey--if someone made such an accusation even though they don't have a bit of evidence, would that be enough to get journalists to ask questions? You know, like with the C of C funding sources?

If you are/were a Donkey voter, how do you rationalize this obvious, naked, cynical, politically timed move to blatantly attempt to sway votes and save seats (and Dem backsides, too). That's just my opinion, mind you. But I only know what I read in the paper.

Where are the Greenies now?
Where are the Alternative Energy advocates?
Where is General Electric and MSNBC?
Where are the Hollywood movie stars?

Looks like this Admin checked whatever principles it had at the door.

Have you?

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Waiting for Nowhere








Not to be outdone by "Waiting for Superman," now comes the union point of view.

"Race to Nowhere" which the Washington Post describes as "a quiet counterpoint to the better-known "Waiting for 'Superman,' " which focuses on failing urban schools."

Not wanting to pooh-pooh the documentary juggernaut that celebrates minority kids, parents and community thumbing their noses at conventional public education, the Post explains why that simple (common sense) answer implemented in Harlem can't possibly be expected to work elsewhere:
"Race to Nowhere" explores a different problem, the strains of competing in a pressure-packed academic culture that is highly test-driven and pushes some students to the edge.

Seems the little cherubs in this film are too wound up learning facts and figures to be tested to pass mean old standardized tests.

And SURPRISE! For this flick we have screenings inside schools (guess that's what passes for "quiet" in the eyes of the Post). "Quiet" meaning you'll probably not see a lot of people plunking down $ to see this in a theater like they did "Superman." Sounds like the distribution method for this propaganda piece is to inflict it onto captive PTA audiences or disguise it as a night dedicated to finding answers to education reform. Do you think it's going to be critical of unfit, tired but tenured teachers?

Well, which is it?

Are our schools so poor that we're turning out droves of idiots that (always) need more money -- or -- are they hyper achievement academies that produce stressed-out geniuses all headed to the Ivy League? (The US ranking -18 out of 36 industrialized nations- as evidence to the former. ) Where are all these creative little tykes? Seems a lot of them are posting sex videos and PowerPoints online.

Watch the trailer. Imagine the horror: Sometimes you have to study 6 hours. You have sports to play; instruments to practice. Extracurricular activities to get into a "good" school.

Really? Well, darn, guess that means you can't go out partying with friends, playing video games and watching 6 hours of TV or Facebooking. Our parents would have called it "keeping you off the streets at night."

Sorry, no sympathy here. None of these angels in Race to Nowhere have it more stressful than those defying the odds by growing up poor, minority, in a single parent household, dodging crime and drug dealing AND getting good grades in Harlem.
Buck up, kiddos. The world you enter will expect results, not the creative time and self-esteem you'll enjoy living with your parents until you are 26.

But can you guess which movie wins the “Best Documentary” Oscar?

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Where's a snail-darter when you need one?

Read with interest good ol Howie Kurtz "Media Notes" today "Making of a mosque mess."
(We'll skip the "Mr. Obvious" stand that The Teleprompter recited on Friday and his equally obvious "walk-backs" on Saturday and Sunday.)

How short memories are around here! And what strange bedfellows Islamic worship centers make with Liberal views on property rights. Suddenly the champions of Eminent Domain and the Endangered Species Act have become hawkish on laissez-faire property ownership and use.

Return with me now as we go back in time to recent US property rights cases, which are replete with sanctions against what lawful owners may do with their personal property.

  • Take for example the EPA's preference for fringe-toed lizards, kanab ambersnails, and fairy shrimp over land owners. Dare I invoke the dreaded "snail darter" or the muther of all animal rights trumping property rights--the Great Northern Spotted Owl?
  • Then there are those pesky "neighborhood associations" suing flag-waving veterans who want to put out Old Glory out front. And how about the activists complaining about mountain top mining practices messing up the views for, oh, about 10 people in the hollers of West Virginia?
  • Oh, and let's not forget the "preservationists" (Civil War) in Virginia and community organized (anti-capitalists, etc.) against Wal-Marts in Chicago.
  • Does anybody recall the Disney theme park retreat from Northern Virginia back in the 1990s? (The land that was too sacred for a historical theme outside the US Capitol is now a sprawling housing development full of Freddy Mac/Fanny Mae McMansions.)
Granted, some of these examples had to do with law (i.e. Endangered Species and Clean Water acts), which NO ONE is denying they have a right to build if lawfully zoned and legally owned. Yet others have to do with aroused popular opinion or organized community protests (some of which were bussed into the communities they protested).

Where were all the concerns about legal property rights then?

Companies, individuals and private groups withdraw finely laid plans all the time due to unpopular opinion or activism. This is no different.

A larger question has to do with the delay in replacing St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church--the ONLY house of worship actually destroyed by 9/11 attacks. It still has not yet been rebuilt.

Friday, July 09, 2010

Original Recipe or Extra Crispy?


I've been wanting to blog about this topic since the matter came up last week with the July 1 "new law day". This little ditty in the WashPost finally gave me the impetus to sound off.

Now, I'm not a Harvard Law prof, but it seems to me that Mr. Kennedy's examples aren't exactly "apples-to-apples."

First of all, he brings up the Crack Conspiracy Theory (which immediately should signal caution) but since he brought it up, let's go with it.


Unless Mr. Kennedy is stooping to use racial profiling (and with that name, I can't see how this is possible) crack-heads don't necessarily have to be African-Americans (haven't we been told that?). No, crack cocaine laws apply to those persons of any color carrying/using/dealing crack, just as powder cocaine laws apply to those felons. The law has to do with "the thing" NOT the person holding the "thing."

More apropos analogies might be, say, a tax on Rap music CDs or skin tattoos, which theoretically (or dare I say stereotypically) were once the provenance of one racial group more than another. Yet even these examples aren't the same as this law because a sizable portion of Rap consumers are indeed Latinos and Whites; and just tune into any NBA game and you'll see that many non-Caucasian players (regrettably) sport "tatts" nowadays.


It would be interesting to know two things:

1) the percentage of tanning booth customers who are "people of color," AND,

2) if the law-writers knew or discussed this statistic while drafting the legislation (even the snarky off-the-record jokes told in the House & Senate cloakrooms).


But since the Tanning Tax's purpose -- in fact, not in effect -- is to single out tanning beds for an excise (or special) Tax, and the means of this extra revenue is derived from people who seek to DARKEN skin color, how can this tax NOT be considered directed at (and therefore primarily disadvantage) one racial group over another?


A tax on Jheri curl, anyone?

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Follow the Blago

This cracks me up--Have you seen yesterday's "Swampland" blog on TIME magazine?

Talking about how the Blago trial in Chicago is opening up a can of worms regarding the complete "transparency" of our Dear Leader. (Now there's a news flash.) Seems that in the wacky, zany world of Chicago politics*, expressing a preference by name and sending in a go-between to lobby for a certain candidate IS NOT the same thing as meddling in the Senate seat replacement process.

(* = which is the Media's term for letting things slide--could you imagine hearing "that's just Texas politics" for explaining the US Attorney firings a few years ago?)

But here is my favorite passage:


"Since the press had no information suggesting otherwise, President
Obama was allowed to move on from the scandal." --
Michael Scherer

ALLOWED! The press "had no info suggesting otherwise..." WTF?!? Did the "press" think Barry deserved a Mulligan since it was just his first drive off the first tee? Mustn't allow a quid pro quo scandal get in the way of a good "immaculation" (nod to RHL3)

Isn't "The Press" supposed to get otherwise information? I couldn' t believe it when it was happening and I really can't believe someone is no suggesting that maybe the news didn't look into this enough. Duh!

And since when does the press take spoon-fed "internal" investigation at face value? (Oh, since Barry just won, that's since when.) BO: "...Um, .... we investigated ourselves, really hard... and we found that we did nothing wrong. Honest. So I guess that answers that." Hey, have you seen my way-cool Office of the President-Elect seal?"

That whole fiasco was akin to "Nothing to see here folks. Nothing to see. Move along, move along."

Friday, May 28, 2010

Surprise: C&A Doesn't Blame POTUS for Oil Disaster

Gentle Readers: Surprise!

Contrary to what you might think, Circles & Arrows does not think the lengthy ongoing response Deep Horizon Oil Rig disaster is the fault of the POTUS. Don't wait for a pithy punchline, that's it. We don't think the current situation is due much to what he's done -- or not done -- (except maybe Bobby Jindal's permits to build-up barrier islands).

Ironically, though, Obama is feeling the brunt of the ugly stick he and his kind have fashioned lo these past 40 or 50 years. The Left has dumbed-down three consecutive generations into believing there is nothing a government cannot do if given 1) the acquiescence of the population and 2) enough of other people's money. To be sure, Barry has picked-up and carried this banner farther and faster than anyone in his Party (except for maybe LBJ) but he is only the latest in that long line, not the first.

If anything the oil rig disaster off Louisiana's coast shows that no government, or administration, can do EVERYthing. As much as we'd like to think otherwise, "big brother" government is not all powerful; indeed (outside the realm of laws, which are backed up by guns and just as deadly paperwork) it's not all that powerful to begin with compare to the forces of nature. This is especially true when dealing with human encounters with the physical world, such as a Space Shuttle re-entering Earth atmosphere, an uncapped oil well 5,000 feet below the surface or, say, shoddy levies against a category 3 hurricane.

Some time ago, a guy made a mint from writing that "When Bad Things Happen to Good People." That's a truth that people should be taught instead of "there's a government program for that."

The reality is that POTUS cannot go out and run the underwater submersible and cap the raging oil gusher. Nor could George Bush fly helicopters filled with water down to the Super Dome. About all Barry can do in this instance is pick up the phone and tell people -- who he can order or control -- to do something; he has to rely on others to do their part and rely that still others he doesn't directly control will cooperate or at least won't hinder what his troops are doing. He has a few hundred "Brownies" that he's been given (or has selected/appointed) and his reputation is tied to what they are able to do.

The details of the condition are somewhat different from 5 years ago, but the reality is the same. It's NOT Barry's fault now just as it was not W's fault then.

What this whole fiasco DOES illustrate (a fact which nobody really seems to have observed to date) is: this is what happens when things go unscripted. THAT is a true measure of leadership. We'll see how this plays out.

Pres. Obama has done more than enough other stuff to find fault with in 1.5 years, but right now, this isn't one of them.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

New Feature: The Chuck Todd "Daily Homer"


We're not the first to opine that Chuck Todd, Chief White House correspondent is a "homer" for POTUS.

Starting today, we introduce a new feature, "The Chuck Todd Daily Homer."

It will chronicle the madcap, zany antics of one "F. Chuck Todd" (as the master would put it) as he leads daily contortions and calisthenics on behalf of the White House Press "Corpse" and MSNBC in lap-dogging presidential positives, ignoring pesky negatives, glossing over toughies or otherwise carrying the water for this Administration.

Today's display about the president's "alleged" job offer to Sestak is only the most recent example. Anyone who watched Morning Joe this morning would have thought this fill-in host for Meet the Press was substituting for Press Sec. Robert Gibbs.

First -- Get the people ON the record, Chuck. Regardless of Sestak's job, that's your job.
Second -- Stop being such friends with Axlerod and grow a pair: "Who cares if your telling me what you heard, David, you're on this interview to answer to this question because we can't speak directly to your boss. If you don't know, the next time you talk to the president, ask him. Then come back when you know the answer to that question because I'm not going to stop asking it."
Third -- It’s not up to Chuck to defend "the press corpse" for not covering the story enough (even if he did cover it). Yes, a few outlets have run a story on this, but they stop pursuing when they get Axlerod's tap dance. "The Press" is much larger than him, and he knows it--and they AREN'T covering this story enough.
Fourth -- It's also not Chuck's job to argue FOR the Administration and inject his hypothesis as to what "may" have happened between the Prez and Sestak: "Sestak may have thought he heard a job offer..." What's up with that? And it's not Chuck's job to whip out the obligatory "Dick Cheney Story." Wasn't Obama supposed to be different that the last Admin? Wasn't he supposed to be "the most Transparent" president? You've beat up that horse enough; why not hold this Admin to the Bull$#@* they promised instead?
Fifth -- If anything you, as "WH chief correspondent" and the other WH press corps should use this (among many things) to beat a daily drum to have a live press conference from the Communicator in Chief instead of being his lap dogs. Almost 1 year and no chance to ask him about this scandal, the recent primary election losses, Arizona Immigration Law, union pension bailouts, the Euro troubles, Greece/Portugal crisis, Gulf Oil Spill, his Supreme nominee, the still open Club Gitmo, the Koreas, KSM trial, etc. Would you really have sat idly by and allowed Bush to go this long w/o a presser with all this stuff going on?
Lastly -- You never did answer Joe's statement that were this the Bush Admin, newspapers, politicians and pundits would be shouting from the rooftops, Chuck.

But--What a way to kick-off this Feature!

USA Today Takes 2 Weeks to Put 2 and 2 Together

A few weeks ago, after the surging performance of the Tea Parties in primary elections across the country, the vaunted USAToday business pagerather smugly chastised we who apparently don't like to be overtaxed with this little back-hand rebuff:
"Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for
a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found."
---Dennis Cauchon, USA Today, May 10, 2010
Well, aren't we red-faced for our wrong-headed, self-centered fixation about our citizen obligation to the US Treasury! We should be GLAD we're only paying what we are; in fact, there's obviously more room to grow taxes and we'll still be better off. Good thing USAT pointed that out for us, we might actually have voted for one of those Tea-Partiers under this false pretense.

Oh, except this little ditty two weeks later (by the same author), "PRIVATE PAY SHRINKS TO HISTORIC LOWS."

"Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds." -- Dennis Cauchon, USA Today, May 25, 2010.

Although we'll give Mr. Cauchon and the paper props for actually running the second story, but ... duh ... why run the first article? Can you say, "No $@!&, Sherlock." But it gets better.

Can you guess which sector grew during this time? Yep, you guessed it:

"At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010."

Still later in the article, comes another couple of quotes from a new "Mr. Obvious" economic expert from the Maize and Blue in Ann Arbor.

"The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower
rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says."
This revelation is only eclipsed by the entirely predictable and complete asinine comment from a mouthpiece economist from the Lefty, "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities":

"It's the system working as it should," Paul Van de Water says. Government is stimulating growth and helping people in need, he says. As the economy recovers, private wages will rebound, he says.
And the skies will clear, the flowers bloom, the birds will sing, no more "ring around the collar," pounds and inches will melt away in just 7 days, and the lion will lay down with the lamb.

Mr. Van de Water is right about one thing, "the system is working" as the Administration expected it would.

Kinda gives the whole, "I hope he fails" remark (that someone made) new meaning, doesn't it?

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

MSM Whistling Past the Tea Party Graveyard

Yeah, that's it Katie, Keith, Wash Post, etc. The success of anti-incumbents and Tea Party candidates is "trouble" for the GOP.

Can you just hear the jubilation in the White House and at the DNC after Tuesday's primary election results?

(At least Matthews got it right about Specter's race)

Will the MSM stop at nothing to carry the water for the Dems?

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

A Tale of Two Protests

I'm all for peoples' freedom to protest, exercise their first amendment rights.

But some observations from this news story compared to coverage of, say, recent Tea Party events or last summer's Health Care "town hall meetings" are vivid examples of mainstream media's double standard.

Protests of Massey Energy's annual stockholders meeting in Richmond, Va., from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Here, the deaths of 11 formerly hard-working but poor, non-unionized, and recently deceased Appalachian miners are being exploited to protest the rich, greedy, shameless capitalist investors and uncaring, ruthless, regulation-dodging businessMEN.

1) No mention of racial make-up of participants or the percentage of minorities participating. No questions to identified minorities as to whether they felt lonely, no curiosity about what they had against the company (as if it would be somehow different from others), and no indicated surprise about them being there.

2) Funding source. Story mentions persons were "bussed" from several states. No mention of who paid for the buses or the motivation to bring the protesters to the meeting.

3) Emotional state. No real examination of motive, and no depiction of their emotional state--were they "angry," (reserved for right-wingers) or just "concerned"? "Outraged" is reserved for describing left-leaning causes.

4) Goals. What did the protesters hope to achieve? We assume it's to ask company not to put profits over people, but what does that mean exactly and what sort of specific outcome do they seek? Do they want to see specific safety measures instituted or will just allowing the union into more mines be OK as an outcome?

5) Goals II. The article belatedly does mention that at least a portion of the protester were calling on the ouster of the Massey's CEO, Don Blankenship (and three board members). However the article doesn't examine if they "hated" Mr. Blankenship personally, whether they considered their protestations as a form of "hate" or if they just disagreed with his policies and performance? Also not known is whether Blankenship's race had anything to do with why the protesters were there.

6) Packing? No mentions of persons carrying weapons AND no mention that the reporter scanned the crowd specifically looking for visible weapons.

7) Artistic expression. No mention of signage carried by protesters (other than banner) or various "keywords" (or insignia) that appeared on the signs. Does that mean that there were none or that certain words did appear on signs but we just not mentioned in the story?

8) Who Dat? Protesters identified as "union members," "miners" and "environmentalists" but no indication whether they are true volunteers -- i.e. participating at their own expense -- or expenses being reimbursed by outside interests (such as the Unions, political parties, or environmental groups, and which ones.) Furthermore, there's no mention as to whether the protesters were actually being compensated (paid) to be there. Therefore no "take" or editorializing as to whether such monetary support changed the legitimacy of the protest.

9) Media incited. No indication that the group had been listening or watching a particular media outlet, say MSNBC or Real Time with Bill Maher, or Daily Show.

10) Party/Party. No mention of how the majority of the protesters voted or which party they were affiliated with. Again, we don't know if that question was asked by the reporters, only that it did not make the print edition.

11) Fearless leader. No clear idea of who or what organized the protest. Article uses the term "protest organizers" but not whether they were spontaneous group, organized for this event only, or part of an on-going group or organization. The article eventually mentions "CtW Investment Group, a money adviser affiliated with organized labor" who initiated a campaign against Massey, but does that mean CtW was behind the protest?

12) Arrests. Mentions the arrest of two 20-somethings (one from New York the other "of the Washington area" -- two areas well known as hot spots of coal mining activity.) Well, at least they did report of the police action.

13) Rally description. The newspaper uses the term "raucous" -- does that mean gregarious, light-hearted frat boy raucous ("boisterously disorderly"), OR mean-spirited, angry, emotionally inflammatory raucousness ("disagreeably harsh or strident")?

14) Feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa. No mention of how the presence of the protesters made the stock-holders feel (threatened? amused? welcomed?) No mention of the term "intimidation" affecting the meeting attendees or whether the unfurling of the banner would have been "disruptive" to the business being conducted inside the meeting room.

[Editor's Note: We have to give the RTD credit when credit is due. The paper did post a very good editorial not long ago comparing the Tea Parties and the Arizona Illegal Immigration law protests. Good for them on the Editorial Page. ]

Now, to work on the news side of the fence.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Couldn't have said it better....

"It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, .."

(You have to wait for the guy's comment at the end of this report).

Thanks to Matt D. for finding this story.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

The fastest flash in the pan in recent memory



Well the MSM is all aflutter about (NY-D) Rep. Massa's weird performance on Glenn Beck.

Funny, they don't propose the sinister same motives about his later appearance on Larry King. I guess Larry didn't have an agenda when he booked him. (Oh, maybe he did, but much more pure than Glenn: ratings!)


But before they get all 'holier than thou' on us, it is the MSM that needs to get real. Imagine if this would have been a GOP Representative going off about the Left's favorite whipping boy -- Karl Rove. Some rookie Republican calling Rove the "son of the devil's spawn' and asserting Karl would be willing to 'sell his own mother' for political victories, can you imagine the stampede to book that guy? Not only Larry (who cares anymore anyway?), but Sponge Keith Squarepants, handsome Rachel, the horses' a$# Mr. Ed, Tingley Chris, Comedy John, hobo Bill, etc., would have lined him up in a second.

And the guy would have been toasted by everyone from the editorial pages of the NYT to WashPo, and probably displaced POTUS on next week's cover of Time (well, maybe shared it with BO). He'd be hailed as "a courageous whistle-blower" unmasking the distasteful, bare-knuckled, slash-and-burn GOP political machine praying at the alter of Lee Atwater. Not only that, they'd be calls for immediate Congressional and perhaps criminal investigations, accompanied by the timeless "this puts the (GOP) president's agenda on hold" while these "serious charges" are looked in to.

Rather than smirking about how the Right (and Larry) got played by Massa, the MSM and the Left ought to be asking, how did this guy get elected as a New York liberal democrat? After all, he was YOUR guy until Monday. Another question: How many more do they have like this one?

Friday, February 19, 2010

Just what you'd expect from a hard-hitting journalist asking the tough questions...


Great Moments in CBS News history:
Edward R. Murrow ("This, Is London.")
60 Minutes ("I'm Mike Wallace, I'm Morley Safer, I'm Dan Rather, I'm Harry Reasoner....tick, tick, tick, tick").
Walter Kronkite ("President Kennedy ... [sigh] .. is dead")
And now, Perky Katie: Harper's Bazaar.
How the mighty have fallen.
Sad day for the Eye Network.

Friday, February 05, 2010

Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?

Pelosi: Where Are the Jobs, Mr. President?

A very good question, Nancy.

Note how it reads if you subsitute a name here or there.

“The fact is that President [O's] misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since President [O] took office, the country has lost [8.7] million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover."

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Dear Germans: Take it easy; things will be all right

Saw a post mortem on the Mass Senate Election in Spiegel recently. Seems they are ready to cash in their Obama Bonds and call it a day. After reading: The World from Berlin: The World Bids Farewell to Obama, you really hope they keep the sharp objects away from those peeps and lock the windows with ledges.


Problem is that Spiegel's foreign “observers” on both the Left and the Right (and Center) completely missed it what is rather obvious to we lowly US citizens not in NYC, LA or DC. Whether it’s expected by their publication, inherent in their natures, or I’m just so incredibly prescient (LOL!), they just can’t see the Black Forest for the trees. So I fired off a letter to der Editor.


Senator Brown's victory wasn't because of the Republican Party machine and the loss isn't because the country is now poised to swing back to knuckle-dragging cavemen days. And it’s not because Oakley ran a poor race (look what she had to use for ammo). Contrary to what the POTUS told George Stephanopoulos, the anger that swept Brown into office WAS NOT the same anger that propelled him into the presidency. The anger that produced Brown was in response to what was coming OUT of today’s Oval Office.

First of all I told the German editors, Healthcare is NOT as big of an issue to everyday Americans as Europe sees in most of the Domestic and Foreign news media; it really has never been high among – unaided – polls of Americans. It’s only talked about because it’s a priority for Democrats seeking a platform and (naturally) those that don’t have health insurance. On a good day, Healthcare is lucky to be in the top 10 issues we think about, but it IS higher on our minds than global warming.

The real cause of Massachusetts was what happened during the later stages of the Healthcare debate in Congress in December 2009 and early January 2010. People finally had enough of how much Obama lied to them. There I said it, he L I E D. Thank you, Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-R).
Whether or not one agrees with the causes of the Iraq War, and whether one thinks Bush lied about when and what evidence was known or not known about Saddam links to Al-Qaeda or presence of WMDs, the truth is that a case was made at the time, and the US Congress and the UN OK’d going in. None of that debate was personally administered by Mr. Bush. The same cannot be said by Mr. Obama in the case of healthcare, yet no one could speak this truth to power.

Until Massachusetts on Jan. 19.

So for starters, here are the four reasons I shared with Spiegel’s audiences for the “Shot heard ‘round the world, part 2”.

First, Barry said 1) OmamaCare won't add to deficit or cost us more, which is not correct; even we poorly educated Americans realize you can't add 40 million more people, especially those whose – pre-existing conditions – healthcare IS going to be more expensive, without costs going up to pay for it.

2) Then, when you have to literally bribe the 4 last Senators in his own party to convince them to vote for it, (i.e. the Louisiana Purchase and the Nebraska Buy-out) -- how good can the plan be? If it’s SO good and noble and landmark, why aren’t they climbing all over themselves to vote for it?

3) Next, Barry campaigned on and promised to open up the final bill-writing process and put it on TV (C-SPAN). Transparency was Obama’s middle name. Until December, when he reneged on that promise without explaining why, he ignored the director of C-SPAN’s open offer to carry the deliberation (and Nancy Pelosi flouted the mere thought of the promise), and didn't even TRY to make this happen.

4) Lastly, BAM said that “the era of lobbyists and special interests having influence” and being brought in for secret "sweetheart" deals was over. Until the Labor Unions didn't like hearing their "Cadillac" healthcare coverage was going to be taxed; they said “excuse me, Mr. President” went up to the WH for a meeting and lo & behold Obama decided to exempt them from the proposed tax.

THIS is why Massachusetts happened.

Mr. Brown was a no-body until after Christmas Eve, when most of this Healthcare double-dealing started to happen. Well in-between tropical Christmas vacations, NBC/Leno/Conan internal troubles, a heartbreaking international disaster in Haiti, it turns out that the People were paying attention. And they didn't like it what they saw. That is what really happened.
So I tried to calm Spiegel’s readers by assuring them it wasn't because Massachusetts voters loved water-boarding, it wasn't because they don't want good schools for their kids.

It was simply because the President promised one thing and ignorantly, blatantly tried to get away with the opposite. Until the US media can have the courage to plainly say that Obama didn’t tell us the truth, the Germans (and all foreign media) will continue to be puzzled by American politics.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Mr. President, tear down this wall





"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together,
not negotiating
behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together,
and broadcasting
those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the
American people can see what the
choices are."


Then - candidate Obama (he really wasn't much of a senator, spent most of his time getting ready to run) - at a debate vs. Hillary Clinton

Los Angeles, Jan. 31, 2008