With Obie's lack of experience, is he "winging it" ?

OPINION FEBRUARY 18, 2009, 11:48 P.M. ET
Is the Administration Winging It?
Obama's reputation for competence is at risk.

Team Obama demonstrated remarkable discipline during the presidential campaign. From raising an unprecedented amount of money to milking every advantage from the Internet to grabbing lots of delegates from inexpensive caucus states, they left nothing to chance.

And now the administration has scored a major legislative victory in an extraordinarily short period of time. Less than 700 hours after taking the oath of office, President Barack Obama signed the largest spending bill in American history.

Nevertheless, this fast start can't overcome a growing sense the administration is winging it on issues large and small.

Take the vetting of cabinet nominees. Mr. Obama's aides ignored a federal investigation of New Mexico's Gov. Bill Richardson that started last August for a possible pay-for-play scandal. Mr. Richardson had to withdraw after being named to become secretary of commerce.

The administration treated as inconsequential the failure of its choices for Treasury secretary and White House performance officer, as well as its labor secretary-designate's spouse, to pay taxes. It failed to uncover Tom Daschle's problems with more than $102,943 in previously unpaid taxes, penalties and interest -- and once it did, aides assumed Mr. Daschle would be given a pass.

Team Obama promised Gen. Anthony Zinni he'd be ambassador to Iraq, then cut him loose without explanation. After the Bill Richardson fiasco, it romanced Republican Sen. Judd Gregg for commerce secretary -- then ignored his advice on the stimulus and wouldn't trust him with running the department, moving supervision of the Census into the White House. Mr. Gregg withdrew himself from consideration.

Then there is the stimulus itself. Mr. Obama's economic team met with congressional leaders in December to green light a bill costing up to $850 billion. But they described less than $200 billion of what they wanted in the envelope. In return for outsourcing the bill's drafting to Congress, the administration took on two responsibilities: running polls to advise Hill Democrats on how to sharpen their marketing, and putting the president on the road to sell a bill others wrote.

Team Obama was winging it when it declared the stimulus would "save or create" 2.5 million, then three million, then 3.7 million, and then four million new jobs. These were arbitrary and erratic numbers, and they knew there's no way to count "saved" jobs. Americans, being commonsensical, will focus on Mr. Obama's promise to "create" jobs. It's highly unlikely that more than 180,000 jobs will be created each month by the end of next year. The precise, state-by-state job numbers the administration used to sell the stimulus are likely to come back to haunt them as well.

Bipartisanship? The administration failed even to respond to GOP offers to endorse an Obama campaign proposal to suspend capital gains taxes for new small businesses.

Inexplicably, the president, in a prime-time press conference, raised expectations for Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan, which turned out the next day to be no plan at all. The markets craved details; they got none. When markets cratered, spokesmen didn't acknowledge the administration's poor planning, but blamed the markets.

Team Obama was also winging it on enhanced interrogation of terrorists. First it nullified all the Bush administration's legal authorities before considering what rules it should have in place. When the CIA briefed White House officials on the results obtained from these techniques, the administration backtracked and organized a four-month study of what rules were appropriate.

Something similar happened with the promise to close Guantanamo Bay within a year: The administration has no idea what it will do with the violent terrorists detained there. And on ethics, Mr. Obama proclaimed an end to lobbyist influence in government -- even as he was nominating lobbyists for major posts and filling White House ranks with former lobbyists.

Team Obama has been living off its campaign reputation for planning and execution. That reputation is now frayed, and all the bumbling and unforced errors will have an impact. Such things don't go unnoticed on Capitol Hill or in foreign capitals.

The president, a bright and skilled politician, has plenty of time to recover. The danger is that what we have seen is not an aberration, but the early indications of his governing style. Barack Obama won the job he craved, now he must demonstrate that he and his team are up to its requirements. The signs are worrisome. The world is a dangerous place. The days of winging it need to end.

WSJ

so that is why bush was voted for second term

No its because you can't fix stupid.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Hope 'n' Change: Democrats demand their own version of a recount

Next year, our nation will begin its once-a-decade assessment of the U.S. population, a task that is normally handled by the Census Bureau, an arm of the Commerce Department. But that, too, could change.

After being tapped by Barack Obama to head Commerce, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) was the subject of complaints by minority groups and Democrats (but we repeat ourselves), as many screamed in protest about a Republican "politicizing" the census and allegedly undercounting the number of inner-city, poor and minority Americans. Gregg subsequently withdrew his nomination over disagreement with the stimulus bill and the census, making the point moot -- to a certain extent.
The push to take the census away from the Department of Commerce and place it under the auspices of the White House raises serious questions about how accurate the next census will be. In other words, politicized. With all the things the census is used for, along with $300 billion in funding at stake, it's obvious that the count needs to be done as fairly as possible. Yet Obama's change could include a bid to use statistical sampling to make up for the supposed undercounting of affected (read: Democrat-voting) groups in the aftermath of the 2010 census.

It is obvious that Democrats want to preclude as much as possible the shift of congressional seats away from states that traditionally have been their strongholds into those that have favored Republicans. Even so, the probability of gerrymandering to pack as many Republicans into as few districts as possible on a state level will remain as the Supreme Court decided in a 1999 case. That case said that while congressional districts couldn't be determined using sampling, the states themselves could use sampling as they saw fit to determine state legislative boundaries. And all the while one can only speculate about the furor that would have ensued if George W. Bush had turned the census over to Karl Rove...

Bush increased the size of government, now Obama is doing the same. So much for change...

"Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It's irresponsible. And it's no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs or build a prosperous future for our children." --Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal

And that is what bobby jindal would want you to think. Obama was dealt a very bad hand in the game. I'd be willing to give him a bit of leeway to get the job done. It's better to try something then do nothing. think 1929-1932 thats when nothing was done. We seemed to have survived that era.

If I'm not mistaken Obama is looking at reducing and removing $2 trillion from the gov't in waste and reduction over the next 10 years. This sounds very, Idunno, frugal to me. Perhaps Clinton did do something right when reducing gov't waste and spending. Lets see how real fiscal responsibility is done.

We just had 8 years of wasteful spending and boondoggling ever. Lets talk about how the military spending in Afghanistan and Iraq were never part of the Military's budget in that time. seems Congress might have balked at the price tag.

Please when you find a fiscal responsible person in Washington DC let me know so he can be tossed out on his morals.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I think Biden is getting his material from a traveling circus...

"The 'Stimulus Czar' Joe Biden was asked to explain how the trillion-dollar stimulus bill will help a small business owner. Here's the best Czar Biden could come up with: 'For example, it may very well be that she's in a circumstance where she is not able, her customers aren't able to get to her, there's no transit capability, the bridge going across the creek to get to her business needs repair, may very well be that she's in a position where she is unable to access the -- her energy costs are so high by providing smart meters, by being able to bring down the cost of her workforce.' Clearly, Joe Biden has never run a business in his life. If this entrepreneur is worried about energy costs now, smart meters won't do any good unless they can block Obama's $300 billion carbon tax on utilities. And, what entrepreneur would put his or her business in a location that 'customers aren't able to get to'?" --Gary Bauer

And that is what bobby jindal would want you to think. Obama was dealt a very bad hand in the game. I'd be willing to give him a bit of leeway to get the job done. It's better to try something then do nothing. think 1929-1932 thats when nothing was done. We seemed to have survived that era.

If I'm not mistaken Obama is looking at reducing and removing $2 trillion from the gov't in waste and reduction over the next 10 years. This sounds very, Idunno, frugal to me. Perhaps Clinton did do something right when reducing gov't waste and spending. Lets see how real fiscal responsibility is done.

You won't see it because the gov't will barely pay down the debt, they will not balance the budget and then stick to it, they will keep spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave, and they will simply take items "off budget" as necessary.

We just had 8 years of wasteful spending and boondoggling ever. Lets talk about how the military spending in Afghanistan and Iraq were never part of the Military's budget in that time. seems Congress might have balked at the price tag.

Pffft. You've had AT LEAST 60 years of wasteful spending and boondoggling.

Please when you find a fiscal responsible person in Washington DC let me know so he can be tossed out on his morals.

There aren't any fiscally responsible people in Washington--they all just want to spend like hell to pander to the suckers and ideologues who simply don't understand how the gov't works.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You know what would help in the long term?
A Higher Education Contribution Scheme like they have in Australia.

Government pays for Uni, you pay it back @ 4% of your taxable income once you earn more than $40,000 a year.

Doesn't cost the government anything if the student is sucessful and they generate more tax from the higher wages the grads will now earn.
Also gives the poor an easier way to pay for a degree.

But hey, lets just allow the rich to get richer and the poor to fight over scholarships.

---

When I started college in 1986 in Texas I was paying $12/semester hour. In 4 years that went up to $32/hour. I heard that oil tax money is what kept tuition down. I can only assume that someone I Austin(texas state capitol) decided Texas oil men were not getting rich fast enough and cut the tax out. BTW just by comparison. I took a course at Kansas state in 1985 and the Tuition was $40/hour

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I don't understand why it has to be so expensive.

There are two sure ways to fix the education system in ANY country.

#1 Apply Scheme like above to reduce the cost of government spending.
#2 Force Public Servants to use Public services including their immediate families. (Medical/Edcuation)

I can say without a doubt that if Obama had to send his own children to a public school he would make good on his claim of "all children should have access to `complete and competitive education' from the day they're born, to the day they begin a career."

But until that happens they really won't care, they can buy their education with your tax dollars.

---

Inauguration Tickets and the Failure of Central Planning

by Shawn Regan, 3/5/2009

Hundreds of thousands of people converged on the nation's capital to witness the inauguration of Barack Obama. The select few who were lucky enough to secure tickets to the swearing-in ceremony viewed the event from the Capitol's lawn, while over a million ticket-less onlookers watched the ceremony on giant projector screens at the National Mall. But the event was not just a real-life lesson in Civics 101. It was an invaluable lesson in economics and a reminder of the problems that arise when government controls the distribution of resources. Given the current economic crisis and the power wielded by the executive, it is a lesson to which President Obama should listen carefully.

Tickets to Obama's inauguration were in extremely high demand. Unfortunately, markets did not allocate access to this scarce good; the government did. Members of Congress were each allotted a couple hundred tickets to distribute freely to their constituents with only one rule: they were to be given out for free. But days after Obama was elected president, congressional offices were flooded with thousands of requests for tickets to the historic event. With no pricing mechanism for allocating the tickets, which were going for as high as $40,000 on websites claiming to sell tickets, the government resorted to its favorite form of distribution: the political process.

Given discretionary power to distribute tickets however they pleased, Congress provided first dibs to lobbyists, high-dollar political donors, and whomever else they owed favors. Predictably, many elected officials were vague in describing how their tickets were distributed. Some claimed to have used lotteries to give out tickets by "random selection." Most refused to disclose where the tickets went, while others acknowledged that some went to "friends and family."

Although the inauguration was publicized as the most accessible in history, multiple reports indicated that, despite Obama's pledge of transparency and responsibility, special interests played a highly influential role in the inaugural affairs. In the week prior to the inauguration, The Wall Street Journal reported that lobbyists and corporations found loopholes in the latest congressional-ethics law that "allow[ed] them to pay for special access to lawmakers and members of the incoming Obama administration" during the inaugural festivities. By skirting ethics legislation, lobbyists attended lavish VIP inaugural events by paying big money — up to $55,000. These events allowed special-interest groups to brush shoulders with some of the most influential members of Obama's administration.

The government also attempted to ensure that it had exclusive power to distribute inaugural tickets by prohibiting average citizens from selling them. Senator Dianne Feinstein passed legislation through the Senate that criminalized the sale of inaugural tickets. In addition, Feinstein secured "voluntary" agreements from online auction websites such as eBay to ban ticket resale.

"These tickets are supposed to be free for the people," said Feinstein. "Nobody should have to pay for their tickets."

However, many did pay for a ticket, but the payment was to the government. The Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC), of which Feinstein is a member, distributed tickets in exchange for up to $50,000 in inaugural contributions.

Senator Feinstein's double standard is clever if you're a politician. If free people were able to sell their inaugural tickets, then they might not go to the politically appropriate authority, as deemed by Feinstein and her political cohorts.

Indeed, most of the tickets distributed by the PIC went to the well-connected elite: campaign donors, lobbyists, and party loyalists. According to the watchdog group Public Citizen, more than half of the inaugural financers who donated $300,000 to the committee were also lucrative donors for the Obama campaign. Among the 211 fundraisers that helped fund over $27.6 million for the inauguration were executives of firms receiving financial bailout money from the federal government such as Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

The inauguration episode is replete with valuable economic lessons that many in Washington, the media, and voting booths across the country should understand about the government's precarious relationship with economics. For one, the government cannot suspend the laws of supply and demand, regardless of whether they subsidize, regulate, or criminalize the market. The "free" tickets to the inauguration were far from free, as supply was dwarfed by an enormous demand, and obtaining a ticket required either lots of money or cozy political connections.

Second, when governments, instead of markets, ration scarce resources, their performance is dismal. Shortages and incompetence are commonplace in government-run economies, because no amount of design by government planners can anticipate the myriad demands of the people. Government planners do not face the incentives provided by competition in private enterprise. The inevitable result is poor management. The thousands of ticket holders who were kept out of Obama's swearing-in ceremony know this well. Inaugural planners mismanaged some of the entrances, leaving them stranded in an overcrowded traffic tunnel and left out of the historic event.

Lastly, when the government is given the power to control such scarce and valuable resources, political favors and special interests hover like vultures over carrion. Lobbyists line up at the trough of government largesse, while politicians, eager to gain reelection, engage in political quid pro quo.

The politically charged allocation of inauguration tickets and other favors to those who are well connected is a sad reality of politics. It is a reality that our new president needs to realize in the midst of our economic troubles. Despite platitudes of responsibility and change, the administration's near-trillion-dollar economic stimulus package is laden with political favors and other vote-buying schemes.

The lessons learned from the unseemly distribution of Obama's inaugural tickets should give him pause regarding his first acts as president. His record-sized stimulus bill ignores the corrupting propensity Congress has to distribute favors to constituents out of the taxpayer's purse. In addition, it rests on the dubious assumption that government can better decide where resources should be devoted.

Regardless of mantras of change, politics is unlikely to change unless President Obama heeds the lessons learned from the inaugural ceremony. His first move should be a drastic reduction in the government's size and scope. Sadly, I think I am more likely to get a ticket to the next inauguration than to see that happen.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

What we can look forward to if Obie institutes government health care:

"What's a life worth? Apparently not much in Great Britain. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the government agency that decides which treatments the National Health Service will pay for, has effectively banned Lapatinib, a drug that was shown to slow the progression of breast cancer, and Sutent, which is the only medicine that can prolong the lives of some stomach cancer patients. Banning beneficial drugs due to cost is nothing new in Britain. NICE, which has to be one of history's most ironic acronyms, forbade the use of Tarceva, a lung cancer drug proven to extend patients' lives, and Abatacept, even though it's one of the only drugs that has been shown in clinical testing to improve severe rheumatoid arthritis. Once again, we have to ask: Do we really want to use the British system as the model for a U.S. health care regime? Promises of an effective, cost-effective health care system operated by the federal government are cruel fabrications. The British system shows that the state makes a mess of health care. So does the Canadian plan, which is plagued with unhealthy and often deadly waiting times for treatment. The Swedish government system is no better. It also refuses to provide some expensive medication and, inhumanely, refuses to let patients buy the drugs themselves. Why? According to a Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons article, bureaucrats believe doing so 'would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.' Like Canadians, Swedes are subjected to long waits. They also have denial-of-care problems that sometimes lead to death. A reasonable person would see the record of repeated failures in government-run medicine as evidence that such a system is not sustainable. Yet every central planner thinks he or she -- or his or her immediate group -- is smart enough to correct the flaws of socialist programs and therefore has the moral authority to force others to participate in his experiments. It is the same thinking that will move a person to say we are the ones we've been waiting for." --Investor's Business Daily

Hope 'n' Change: Another Obama nominee drops out

Charles Freeman withdrew his nomination to chair the National Intelligence Council, which oversees reports filed by the nation's 16 intelligence agencies. On his way out, he decried "the barrage of libelous distortions of my record [that] would not cease upon my entry into office." So who is responsible for this libelous distortion? He blames the "Israel Lobby," whose aim is "control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views."

Part of the reason that Freeman wasn't "kosher" is that he is a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and now heads the Middle East Policy Council, which is partly Saudi-funded. It seems that this funding helped convince him that the attacks on 9/11 were provoked by U.S. support for Israel. In other words, it's not that some Jewish conspiracy kept him down, but putting a man like this in the mix of national intelligence would be a national security liability.

Freeman's withdrawal is a relief, but his nomination is troubling. As The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto points out, hatred of Israel "is a central tenet of Freeman's worldview -- a worldview that Obama, through some combination of incompetence, inattention and indifference, has made slightly less marginal than it was before." Who says associations don't matter?

So, Obie drops the term "enemy combatant" and then proceeds to take the exact same position that Duyba did. Brilliant. The relevant quote from the article below, "...the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration."

Surprise, surprise, surprise, Obie taking the exact same position that Dubya did.

The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo.

From the NYT:

March 14, 2009
U.S. Won’t Label Terror Suspects as ‘Combatants’
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html?hp
By WILLIAM GLABERSON

The Obama administration said Friday that it would abandon the Bush administration’s term “enemy combatant” as it argues in court for the continued detention of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in a move that seemed intended to symbolically separate the new administration from Bush detention policies.

But in a much anticipated court filing, the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration.

The filing signaled that, as long as Guantánamo remains open, the new administration will aggressively defend its ability to hold some detainees there.

“The president has the authority to detain persons” who planned or aided the 2001 terrorist attacks as well as those “who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or Al Qaeda forces,” administration lawyers wrote.

The Obama administration said it was relying on existing principles of the international law of war. A public statement indicated that the government was moving away from claims of expansive executive power often used by the Bush administration to justify Guantánamo.

The new administration took pains to try to point out that it was taking a different approach. It said the new definition “does not rely on the president’s authority as commander in chief” beyond the powers authorized by Congress. The filing, in Federal District Court in Washington, was meant to provide a definition of those detainees who can be held and bitterly disappointed critics of Guantánamo, who said it seemed to continue the policies they have criticized for more than seven years.

It was the latest example of the Obama administration’s taking ownership of Guantánamo, even after having announced it would close the prison, where 241 men remain.

“This seems fundamentally consistent with the positions of the prior administration,” said Steven A. Engel, who was a senior lawyer responsible for detainee issues in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel until the final day of the Bush administration.

Mr. Engel added that the term “enemy combatant” was not the issue. “The important point is that they recognize that we can detain members of the enemy” during a war, he said.

The new administration’s position had been the subject of wide speculation before a court deadline Friday for the administration to tell federal judges what definition it believes the courts should use in the habeas corpus cases reviewing detainees’ cases. Some detainees’ lawyers had hoped for a much narrower definition, perhaps one that would have eliminated simply “supporting” the Taliban or Al Qaeda as a ground for detention.

Such a change, some of the detainees’ lawyers had predicted, could have undercut the government’s justification for holding as many as half of the remaining prisoners, including jihadists captured in Afghanistan who never fought the United States and others who the government has indicated may have had only tangential ties to Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The new definition did add a requirement that to justify detention a detainee would have to have “substantially supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or forces associated with them. But the administration did not define “substantial,” and the detainees’ lawyers said they doubted that the change would help many of their clients.

The filing, which was made in some 40 habeas corpus cases of detainees’ challenging their imprisonment, is expected to be the government’s position in more than 200 such cases and to govern a separate review of all cases outside of court that has been ordered by President Obama.

Some critics of Guantánamo said that Friday’s filing fitted a pattern of recent moves by the administration that seemed intended to undercut continued criticism of Guantánamo but did not make significant changes in detention policy.

They noted that after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. visited the detention camp last month, he proclaimed it “well run.” They said they had been stung as well by a Pentagon report commissioned by the new administration that said last month that the detention camp on the naval base at Guantánamo Bay meets the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva conventions.

Ramzi Kassem, a detainees’ lawyer who teaches at Yale Law School, said Friday that the new administration had yet to deal effectively either with efforts to release many of the detainees or to improve the conditions at the camp.

Mr. Kassem said the filing Friday was an additional indication that the new administration had yet to grapple with the complexities of Guantánamo or the detainees’ cases. “I think they may be very much under the influence of the rhetoric of the outgoing administration,” he said.

But the Department of Justice filing portrayed the adjustment of the government’s position in expansive terms. In a public statement accompanying its filing, the department said the government’s position had been devised to adhere closely to the requirements of the international law of war, longstanding principles that permit enemy fighters to be held until the completion of hostilities.

The Bush administration made those arguments as well, but it also often included extensive assertions of broad executive authority.

Obama administration officials have repeatedly argued in recent months that they intend to make decisions about detention policy that they see as more rooted in legal principles than their predecessors. Although the term “enemy combatant” had been used in a World War II Supreme Court case, critics of the Bush administration said officials used it to permit detentions that would not have been authorized under the international rules of warfare.

In their court filing, Justice Department lawyers repeatedly cited the international law of war and its principle that “capture and detention of enemy forces” is authorized. But the filing made it clear that the Obama administration rejected arguments of detainees’ lawyers that it should sharply depart from many policies of the last seven years.

The government lawyers noted that some detainees’ lawyers had argued that only those detainees who have been alleged to have directly participated in hostilities against American forces should be detained. The law of warfare does not limit the United States’ authority to hold only those with such direct involvement in fighting Americans, the filing said.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So, Obie drops the term "enemy combatant" and then proceeds to take the exact same position that Duyba did. Brilliant. The relevant quote from the article below, "...the Justice Department argued that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges, much as the Bush administration had asserted. It provided a broad definition of those who can be held, which was not significantly different from the one used by the Bush administration."

Surprise, surprise, surprise, Obie taking the exact same position that Dubya did.

The status quo is dead. Long live the status quo.

From the NYT:

>snip<

Do you think his supporters, to whom he was the New Messias Cometh, have started to notice, or do you think they are still mesmerized and won't notice anything for a long time?

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

More marvelous foreign policy, big surprise!

The gift that keeps on giving

Many people are skeptical about President Obama's foreign policy acumen, but offering a welcoming hand to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown ought to be a no-brainer. After all, Great Britain is our oldest and staunchest ally. Combine that with Obama's superhuman charm, and one might see the makings of a great visit. Not even close.

Brown came to Washington and met a White House and a State Department that were embarrassingly unprepared for his arrival. No state dinner, no joint press conference. But the traditional gift exchange was the capper. Brown presented Obama with a signed first edition of Sir Martin Gilbert's definitive seven-volume biography of Winston Churchill, only to discover that the bust of Churchill given by Tony Blair to George W. Bush had been returned to the British embassy by Obama's staff. Brown then presented Obama with a penholder made from the timber of a warship that combated the slave trade. In return Obama gave Brown a stack of Hollywood DVDs. Brown is blind in one eye and doesn't watch many movies, and unless he knew to buy them in the PAL format, the DVDs are not compatible with British disc players.

The excuse the White House gave was that Obama is overwhelmed with handling the financial crisis and is exhausted and out of sorts. The message here is: It's not that our president is callous; he's just in way over his head. One ignorant State Department official, when questioned by the London Telegraph, compounded the embarrassment by yelling about the special relationship between America and Great Britain. "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." If this is a window to how our foreign policy is going to be handled over the next four years, then we have some serious problems coming our way.

Same old status quo!

"Obama's proposed budget shows all the vision, restraint and grace of a grasping committee chairman, using the cover of a still-unresolved banking crisis to push through a broad liberal wish list before anyone notices its costs and complications. The pledge of 'responsibility' has become the massive expansion of debt, the constant allocation of blame to others and the childish cultivation of controversy with conservative media figures to favorably polarize the electorate. The pledge of 'honesty' and 'sacrifice' has become the deceptive guarantee of apparently limitless public benefits at the expense of a very few. The pledge of 'bipartisan' cooperation has become an attempt to shove Republicans until their backs reach some wall of outrage and humiliation. None of this is new or exceptional -- which is the point. It is exactly the way things have always been done." --columnist Michael Gerson

"When I took the oath of office, I pledged loyalty to only one special interest group -- 'We the People.' Those people -- neighbors and friends, shopkeepers and laborers, farmers and craftsmen -- do not have infinite patience. As a matter of fact, some 80 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt wrote these instructive words in his first message to the Congress: 'The American people are slow to wrath, but when their wrath is once kindled, it burns like a consuming flame.' Well, perhaps that kind of wrath will be deserved if our answer to these serious problems is to repeat the mistakes of the past." --Ronald Reagan

The honest truth is that Bush wouldn't and couldn't be honest to Congress, and congress didn't care, or the American people. Had he been honest he'd have included all the funding for His 2 wars and his new prison system in the budget. What he did in reality is forced congress to pass emergency spending bills several times a year. THis made his budgets look "normal" and not exagerated like our Presidents does now. Simply put you have to ask yourself would you rather be lied to or take the honest budget and accept what we've been paying for all along with the dishonest budgets in one fell swoop.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The honest truth is that Bush wouldn't and couldn't be honest to Congress, and congress didn't care, or the American people. Had he been honest he'd have included all the funding for His 2 wars and his new prison system in the budget. What he did in reality is forced congress to pass emergency spending bills several times a year. THis made his budgets look "normal" and not exagerated like our Presidents does now. Simply put you have to ask yourself would you rather be lied to or take the honest budget and accept what we've been paying for all along with the dishonest budgets in one fell swoop.

I would prefer Obama kept his promises.

It's a shame that the "discourse" on this and other of the Politics boards have frequently become nothing more than a cut and paste from online articles and blogs that have clearly been written by others.

If you like someone else's ideas and choose to copy their text, might I suggest that you kindly attribute the quote ... or the entire article ... and give the author and the online source the appropriate credit.

---

Join the PACK!