Archive for the ‘US Politics’ Category

The Impending Obama Meltdown

Thursday, February 5th, 2009


The Impending Obama Meltdown  

Victor Davis Hanson

Some of us have been warning that it was not healthy for the U.S. media to have deified rather than questioned Obama, especially given that they tore apart Bush, ridiculed Palin, and caricatured Hillary. And now we can see the results of their two years of advocacy rather than scrutiny.

We are quite literally after two weeks teetering on an Obama implosion—and with no Dick Morris to bail him out—brought on by messianic delusions of grandeur, hubris, and a strange naivete that soaring rhetoric and a multiracial profile can add requisite cover to good old-fashioned Chicago politicking.

First, there were the sermons on ethics, belied by the appointments of tax dodgers, crass lobbyists, and wheeler-dealers like Richardson—with the relish of the Blago tapes still to come. (And why does Richardson/Daschle go, but not Geithner?).

Second, was the “stimulus” (the euphemism for “borrow/print money”) that was simply a way to go into debt for a generation to shower Democratic constinuencies with cash.

Then third, there were the inflated lectures on historic foreign policy to be made by the clumsy political novice who trashed his own country and his predecessor in the most ungracious manner overseas to a censured Saudi-run press organ (e.g., Bush is dictatorial, the Saudi king is courageous; Obama can mend bridges that America broke to aggrieved Muslims (apparently Tehran hostages, Rushdie, serial attacks in the 1990s, 9/11, Madrid, London never apparently occurred, and neither did feeding Somalis, saving Kuwait, protesting Chechnya, Bosnia/Kosovo, billions to Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinians, help in two Afghan wars, and on and on).

Fourth, there was the campaign rhetoric of Bush shredding the Constitution—FISA, Guantanamo, Patriot Act, Iraq, renditions, etc.—followed by “all that for now stays the same” inasmuch as we haven’t ben hit in over seven years and can’t risk another attack.

Fifth, Gibbs as press secretary is a Scott McClellan nightmare that won’t go away, given his long McClellan-like relationship with Obama (McClellan should have been fired on day hour one on the job). Blaming Fox News for Obama’s calamities is McClellan to the core and doesn’t work. He already reminds me of Rev. Wright’s undoing at the National Press Club—and he will get worse.

Six, Biden is being Biden. Already, he’s ridiculed the chief justice, trashed the former VP, bragged on himself ad nauseam in Bidenesque weird ways, and it’s only been two weeks.

And the result of all this?

At home, Obama is becoming laughable and laying the groundwork for the greatest conservative populist reaction since the Reagan Revolution.

Abroad, some really creepy people are lining up to test Obama’s world view of “Bush did it/but I am the world”: The North Koreans are readying their missiles; the Iranians are calling us passive, bragging on nukes and satellites; Russia is declaring missile defense is over and the Euros in real need of iffy Russian gas; Pakistanis say no more drone attacks (and then our friends the Indians say “shut up” about Kashmir and the Euros order no more ‘buy American”).

This is quite serious. I can’t recall a similarly disastrous start in a half-century (far worse than Bill Clinton’s initial slips). Obama immediately must lower the hope-and-change rhetoric, ignore Reid/Pelosi, drop the therapy, and accept the tragic view that the world abroad is not misunderstood but quite dangerous. And he must listen on foreign policy to his National Security Advisor, Billary, and Sec. of Defense. If he doesn’t quit the messianic style and perpetual campaign mode, and begin humbly governing, then he will devolve into Carterism—angry that the once-fawning press betrayed him while we the people, due to our American malaise, are to blame.

CIA Nominee Panetta Received $700,000 in Fees

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

WASHINGTON — The White House’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta, has earned more than $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008, with some of the payments coming from troubled financial firms and from a firm that invests in contractors for federal national security agencies, according to financial disclosures released Wednesday.

Mr. Panetta received $56,000 from Merrill Lynch & Co. for two speeches and $28,000 for a speech for Wachovia Corp., according to disclosures released ahead of Thursday’s scheduled Senate hearing on Mr. Panetta’s nomination.

Both Merrill and Wachovia reported big losses last year and were acquired by larger firms. The Wachovia honorarium was dated Oct. 30, and the last Merrill Lynch honorarium was dated Oct. 11, according to disclosure forms filed by Mr. Panetta in connection with his nomination. At the time, Bank of America had agreed to a rescue of Merrill Lynch; Wachovia had agreed to be acquired by Wells Fargo & Co.

Leon Panetta

Associated Press

The Senate confirmation hearing for Leon Panetta, nominated to be director of the CIA, is scheduled for Thursday.

Mr. Panetta’s disclosure form illustrates how retired politicians commonly make money giving speeches and consulting for prominent companies with significant interests before the government. That was one element in the controversy over the cabinet nomination of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who withdrew Tuesday.

The former White House chief of staff’s disclosure form also shows the delicate balance President Barack Obama is trying to strike — trying to curb the influence of lobbyists, while relying on Washington veterans who often help clients navigate the halls of power. Mr. Panetta’s forms show that he performed government affairs consulting last year and also sat on the board of a public affairs firm that lobbies Congress. Like Mr. Daschle, who also worked for a firm with lobbying clients, Mr. Panetta doesn’t violate Mr. Obama’s ban on hiring registered lobbyists.

“We anticipate that [Thursday’s] hearing will focus on the substance of Mr. Panetta’s views about how to strengthen our intelligence gathering and keep our nation safe, as all of Mr. Panetta’s income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics,” White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Mr. Panetta also received a $28,000 honorarium from the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm that owns companies doing business with national-security agencies of the U.S. government. Carlyle holds a majority stake in the government consulting arm of Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., which works for the CIA and other agencies. A Carlyle spokesman said Mr. Panetta was paid to speak at an investor conference and that the matter was unrelated to Booz Allen or any other defense contractors.

Mr. Panetta also reported receiving a $60,000 “Governmental Advisor Fee” from the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents the shipping industry. The group lobbies the federal government regarding terrorism laws that affect shipping. A spokesman for the association didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Panetta is a former Congressman from central California who served as White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. A White House spokesman said Mr. Panetta “provided consulting services on port security issues and some labor issues” to the Pacific Maritime Association. The spokesman said Mr. Panetta was “unaware” if his work was related to lobbying efforts by PMA in Washington that were described in public disclosure forms. Regarding potential conflicts of interest involving his speaking fees from Carlyle and other firms, the spokesman said, “All of his income and investments have been thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics, and he will abide by whatever they require.”

Fleishman Hillard, a large public affairs and lobbying firm, also paid Mr. Panetta $130,000 in director’s fees. Fleishman Vice Chairman Paul Johnson said Mr. Panetta advises firm clients on policy and economic issues but performs “absolutely no lobbying or government relations work.”

Another source of income for Mr. Panetta was California State University, which hosts the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy, a nonprofit foundation. Last night, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee posed a series of new questions to Mr. Panetta about his finances, according to a Senate aide. The panel is seeking information on his relationship to a nonprofit firm called EduCap Inc. that is under investigation by the Internal Revenue Service. EduCap and a sister firm donated $50,000 to Mr. Panetta’s institute and provided flights on its corporate jet to Mr. Daschle and other Washington figures.

—Susan Schmidt contributed to this article.Write to Glenn R. Simpson at glenn.simpson@wsj.com

By The Objective Numbers

Friday, January 30th, 2009

By the objective numbers:  By John Yoak

  1. To my friends who are swept up by all the Obama-mania and socialist-loving-progressivism out there, who keep saying President Bush did some “Socialist” things too!… He did, Ok?
  2. President Bush proved he was, in fact, part “progressive”?…and did some wrong things in the final months of his presidency. As-if, your totally Marxist President Obama is okay? Two wrongs still don’t make a right. 
  3. The difference is, we were shocked as conservatives and saddened by President Bush’s move to the Left. However, President Obama shocks no one who knows his past record! Why?…Because he’s the “quintessential socialist”…or, like the self appointed enlightened ones call themselves and Obama, “progressive-liberal”…Yeah, like that somehow changes the historical truths about “Socialism, Marxism or Collectivism”. By any other name it’s all the same. And, it’s never worked anywhere! No, not even China. China’s capitalistic-communism is still “Communism”…American capitalistic-socialism won’t work either. It’s still “Socialism”…!
  4. For the record, conservatives were against the bailout. We don’t want socialism to succeed in making it’s way into American capitalism. It’s those kinds of policies we are against, whether they are Bush’s or Obama’s! Conservatives believe in allowing some to fail and the free market pendulum to balance itself out. Yes, while using “The Rule of Law”. 
  5. I believe in Milton Friedman’s laissez-faire economics style…where government is much less than 21% of GDP, today we’re heading past FDR’s record spending @35% of GDP and the stimulus bill etc will ad much more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
  6. No…”progressives” are no more enlightened, anymore than “conservatives” are behind the times by standing up for capitalism, free markets & the Constitution! We’re not simply “old-school” who can’t adapt.
  7. Also, capitalism isn’t broken or recently failed and it hasn’t been unfettered since FDR threw the “new-deal” net over it. Actually, it’s been managed-markets for more than 100 years now. It’s intrusive big-gov’s disfunctionalism that’s broken, not capitalism. The Republican party is not synonymous with conservatism but, even so, there were many Republicans and Democrats opposed to the bailout. And while we do distain any scent of socialism [yes] the “bailouts & stimulus” indeed reeks of it.
  8. Let’s be clear that it was Sec Paulson, a progressive-Keynesian style economist and former CEO Goldman Sachs, who presented the case for the initial bailout and lobbied President Bush & Congress, stating this was the answer to prevent a major economic meltdown (“crisis?” – over used word). Let’s also be clear that the Federal Reserve is not part of our federal government and that it is the Federal Reserve that controls our monetary policy and is now essentially controlling our fiscal policy as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics …
  9. No, it was NOT because of deregulation, quite the opposite. So while, yes, Bush approved of the bailout, I believe he granted too much autonomy to Sec Paulson by not paying enough attention while exiting Washington. Ultimately, he was forced to respond to Paulson’s public claims of pending economic doom if the bailout did not occur. Checkout his global view-points and China connections:> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson … Furthermore,  we acknowledge the incestuous relationships between Paulson, Bernanke, Greenspan, Pelosi, Reid, Frank & Dodd (Congressional Banking Committee) and many other high ranking Federal Reserve and economic advisors, again mostly Keynesian-social-engineers, and their ties to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).
  10. Now we come to the heart of it – The CRA initially was carried out by Sen. Barney Frank’s (It’s Uncle Barney – the Affordable Housing Sugar Daddy), using Acorn’s ground troops and implemented thru , Fannie/Freddie (quasi-gov organizations), Bear Sterns-Countrywide-WaMu, CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch etc, allof whom are conveniently the recipients of the big bailout. How interesting that Goldman Sachs and some of the other big banks have major investments in China…Sec. Paulson and Sec. Geithner (a tax cheat) just so happen to have lived in China and both speak fluent Chinese…Also, how ironic that China holds most of our debt by way of loans. More recently, the Feds like never before are running the printing presses to come up with the money (a “Ponsi scheme”). Are we the next Weimar Republic of mega-inflation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic
  11. So Paulson, Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, and Schumer teed the Keynesian ball up for President Obama: Now we see we’ve been duped, by recognizing the original bailouts only started the wheels of socialism rolling and conveniently provides cover while President Obama proceeds with transforming our economy by putting us at the same level of government spending as in Europe, under the guise of “stimulus”. He’s attempting to insert government like never before into the private sector. Just as FDR’s “new-deal” did in the 1930’s by squeezing out the private sector in favor of even bigger-government, and didn’t work…(8 years 17.2% median unemployment).
  12. This whole thing stinks. We are now under the radical leftists rule and big-government interventionism is now a reality, until it fails. While us poor saps can do nothing but watch our corrupt government in action, now led by the most radical leftist in American history who even within his first few days has proven his intent to move us as far left as possible and seemingly under the blessings and approval of the Federal Reserve. 
  13. President Obama is now taking on Rush Limbaugh….What? From the highest office in the free world? The President of the United Sates is worried about one private citizen’s influence because he can’t defeat his ideas (Saul Alinsky-Rules for Radicals)…Ridiculous, but no surprises there either, it’s classic Alyinsky! How small does that make the office of the Presidency? Pretty small…and petty!  I believe the “Fairness Doctrine” could be just around the corner….?
  14. The “stimulus bill” (“Porkulous bill”), which was formulated without any Republicans, announcing the closing of Gitmo and a tax cheat Treasury Sec Geithner’s appointment begins showing who President Obama is! Maybe that’s why his approvals have dropped over 15% in his first week…

…Keep-the-Faith, our God is bigger than the power mongers with their little god-complex’s, who we see before us today…Including the “false messiah President Obama”. Notice big (G) little (g)? Therein lies the big differences! No one is intended to set themselves up as a god.

John

p.s…Milton Freedman said, “The Fed [Fed Reserve] was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 … Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government.”  http://carriedaway.blogs.com/carried_away/2003/10/us_government_s.html

Obama the Great Unifier? Yeah, Right

Thursday, January 29th, 2009

Rush Limbaugh fires back at Obama criticism

By Jessica Heslam  |   Monday, January 26, 2009  

Photo

Photo by AP

Right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh took aim today at President Barack Obama’s warning to top Republicans that they need to quit listening to the conservative talker if they want to get along.

“Now this is the great unifier,” Limbaugh told listeners just after noon today. “This is the man who’s going to unify everybody and usher in a new era of bi-partisanship and love.”

According to the New York Post, Obama told top Republican leaders on Friday that they need to stop listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration. Obama’s comments came during a White House meeting to discuss his $1 trillion stimulus package, the newspaper reported.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” Obama told top GOP leaders, according to the Post.

According to Limbaugh, Obama “basically told them stop listening to me. That’s not how things get done in Washington. We can’t let Rush Limbaugh stall the stimulus plan.”

Limbaugh, heard locally on WRKO-AM (680), said today that Obama’s more frightened of him than Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

“He’s obviously more frightened of me than he is Mitch McConnell. He’s more frightened of me, then he is of say, John Boehner, which doesn’t say much about our party,” Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh today planned to unveil his own bipartisan plan to “resolve the fight over the stimulus package.”

“I think Obama wants me to fail,” Limbaugh said. “President Obama, by telling you and the elected Republicans in Washington to not listen to me because I am not how things get done in Washington, he has said that he wants me to fail.”

Limbaugh has said that he wants Obama’s socialist policies to fail.

“I would be honored if the drive-by media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody’s gotta say it,” Limbaugh said during his Jan. 16 show, according to a transcript on his Web site.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1147919