Archive for the ‘Obama's Broken Promises’ Category

“Here’s Ya A Sign…” *Open Thread*

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Actually, here are a number of signs, in fact. Allegedly, these are real signs on Northbound I-5 in Washington State, below Seattle (and I wish I knew who to credit for these). With so much going on right now, there is nothing like a little humor to deal with it all, right (even if some of the words are misspelled)? Enjoy:http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=49609#edit_timestamp



And for some “News You Can Use,” there is this tidbit – guess who else owes back taxes (you know, besides Charlie Rangel, and Timmy Geithner before he became the head of the IRS)? That would be the developers of the mosque near Ground Zero:

The mosque developers are tax deadbeats.

Sharif El-Gamal, the leading organizer behind the mosque and community center near Ground Zero, owes $224,270.77 in back property tax on the site, city records show. (Emphasis mine.)

El-Gamal’s company, 45 Park Place Partners, failed to pay its half-yearly bills in January and July, according to the city Finance Department.

The delinquency is a possible violation of El-Gamal’s lease with Con Edison, which owns half of the proposed building site on Park Place. El-Gamal owns the other half but must pay taxes on the entire parcel. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Oops. So, after all of this brouhaha around this developer building a mosque so close to Ground Zero (for its proximity to that hallowed ground), all of the angst this has caused so many people may very well have been for nothing. Are you kidding me? Sure seems that way since this massive delinquency this could violate their lease.

Um, no one thought to check the tax records before? What a mess, and getting messier by the day.

Oh, and here is another good one from the Dallas News about Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Dallas:

Longtime Dallas congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has awarded thousands of dollars in college scholarships to four relatives and a top aide’s two children since 2005, using foundation funds set aside for black lawmakers’ causes.

The recipients were ineligible under anti-nepotism rules of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which provided the money. And all of the awards violated a foundation requirement that scholarship winners live or study in a caucus member’s district.

Johnson, a Democrat, denied any favoritism when asked about the scholarships last week. Two days later, she acknowledged in a statement released by her office that she had violated the rules but said she had done so “unknowingly” and would work with the foundation to “rectify the financial situation.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

As Rev. Jeremiah Wright said, “Americans chickens are coming home to roost…” Amen to that, brother, but I bet this isn’t what he meant by it. Still, truth will out, at least sometimes.

Just ask the drivers on Northbound I-5…

The Race Card Hoists the Obama Administration on its Own Petard

Sunday, July 25th, 2010

Leave it to Maureen Dowd to miss the forest for the trees in her argument that

“The Obama White House is too white.”

In Dowd’s latest NYT column, You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing, she discusses the Shirley Sherrod incident, and writes that “unlike Bill Clinton, who never needed help fathoming Southern black culture,” the Obama white house just doesn’t get the “central African-American experience.”

Dowd contends the Obama administration had better shape up otherwise…

“…[T]his administration will keep tripping over race rather than inspiring on race.”

and

“We may not have a “nation of cowards” on race, as Attorney General Eric Holder contended, but we may have a West Wing of cowards on race.”

They are cowards. Period. Yet they use the Rovian tactic of blaming others for sins of which they themselves are guilty.

While Dowd understands that Barack Obama’s exotic background and upbringing in Hawaii may be a contributing factor to his seeming lack of understanding, she cannot admit that White House insensitivity on racial issues is due to much more than his being surrounded by “smart-ass white boys” as she puts it. The real problem stems from something far worse. His administration’s actions are governed by branding, political expediency and preserving Obama’s popularity.

When polling rather than conscience drives your actions, the Shirley Sherrod firing fiasco is the result.

Dowd then resorts to the typical “let’s attack FOX News for the hell of it” gambit:

“The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce…”

Dowd does not clarify what Glenn Beck “pouncing” actually meant – Glenn Beck pounced on the White House, not Sherrod. Beck felt they had unjustly fired her. But Dowd could not possibly admit that Beck took Sherrod’s side. Sherrod could not either from the looks of it and wanted to continue to paint FOX News as the bad guy when the network held off on covering the story until they got all the facts – unlike President Obama. Sherrod was forced to resign before FOX did any “pouncing.”

And what of the NAACP? They were the ones with the entire tape – why didn’t they speak on her behalf, if indeed they had the basis to do so?

Perhaps Andrew Breitbart was wrong to show the edited tape of Sherrod’s remarks. It is up to you to decide whether you believe he did so less to slam Sherrod and more to slam the audience at the NAACP dinner who reacted appreciatively to what he felt were reverse racist sentiments on her part.

Dowd also complains…

“At some level, [Obama] acts like the election was enough; he shouldn’t have to deal with race further. But he does.”

…“Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official.

Um. I did. So did a lot of other folks on this blog.

In May of 2008, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson penned a piece entitled The Card Clinton Is Playing – accusing Hillary Clinton of playing the race card to advance her candidacy while ignoring the fact that the Obama campaign had been playing that card daily and with impunity. I responded to Mr. Robinson’s accusations. In pertinent part, I wrote:

…The few like Tavis Smiley, who criticized Sen. Obama for skipping the State of the Black Union, and I believe [Senator Obama] also decided not to speak at MLK’s anniversary event, raise an interesting point. Senator Obama is, perhaps of necessity, courting the white vote and taking for granted the African American community who vote for him in droves. I believe, if he were to be elected, aside from the great symbolic value of having him in office, which I grant you is no small thing, the AA community may suffer because the white liberal elite in the party pushing to elect him will feel they’ve put a band aid over the racial divide in this country, while in actuality doing little to heal it.

Apparently Dowd agrees, complaining that Obama is “light years” behind Bush on developmental help to Africa and wouldn’t let Muslim women in head scarves appear behing him at a rally because Obama staffers were afraid he would be painted “as a radical/Muslim/socialist.” She accuses his staffers of insensitivity — as if Obama were somehow not involved in these decisions. Isn’t he the President?

Ms. Dowd – it is not “insensitivity.” It is Obama’s ‘you are a notch on my bedpost, I use you for my own purposes and otherwise you can get lost attitude.’ This White House is run by a bunch of arrogant frat boys. What do you expect?

Dowd also reported:

“I don’t think a single black person was consulted before Shirley Sherrod was fired — I mean c’mon, “ said Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. [snip]

“The president’s getting hurt real bad,” Clyburn told me. “He needs some black people around him.” He said Obama’s inner circle keeps “screwing up” on race.

A laughable comment to be sure. I don’t know whether President Obama needs “some black people around him” as much as he needs to grow some genuine leadership ability and the willingness to do his homework before making a judgment on an issue of which he knows nothing.

A disproportionately high number in the black community have been adversely affected by high unemployment, something NYT columnist Bob Herbert has pointed out many times. He too, is wondering why the President is “screwing up on race.”

Perhaps Rep. Clyburn and others are now regretting having played the race card on the Clintons during the primaries, who have done more for the African American community than Obama ever has.

President Obama had never in his career exhibited compassion or understanding of these issues, certainly not to the point of taking action on them. How did Dowd, Herbert, Robinson, Clyburn or anyone else assume he would be magically transformed once elected?

President Obama’s administration only uses the race card as a defensive tool and a shield against criticism of his inane policies and actions. That has officially backfired. It backfired in Massachusetts with his “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” remark, as it has once again with Shirley Sherrod.

More is required than different advisors.

The White House has a horrible habit of working reactively, resorting to a “don’t blame me — it’s the other guys fault” mantra. That is not genuine leadership, which, of course, has been the problem all along. Every time one of these incidents gets played out before the American people, it is further evidence that those in charge have not done their homework and cannot grow beyond making pathetic excuses for the same. Slowly but surely, the country is getting a glimpse into the real character of this administration.

What Is Going On At The DOJ?

Monday, July 12th, 2010

/ Bumped up + stay tuned for more from the Reverend later today /

And what does it mean for our foundational rights as a country?

Recently, J. Christian Adams, former DOJ attorney, made some serious accusations about how the DOJ is doing business under Obama. Adams’ initial comments had to do with the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) about which I wrote recently, and the refusal of the DOJ to pursue a case against the NBPP despite irrefutable evidence of voter intimidation. Those charged with this issue flat out refused to even read the memoranda on the NBPP’s actions. Consequently, for this and other reasons related to this case, Adams resigned his position at the DOJ.

Here is Mr. Adams describing the situation at the DOJ to Megyn Kelly, also an attorney:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

But wait, there is more. Mr. Adams is no longer holding back, and has exposed another issue related to the DMV and Voter Registration law at the DOJ in this piece:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

This is beyond the pale.

So, let me see. NBPP 1, Voters 0. Dead People voting 1, fair elections, 0. Lawlessness in the DOJ 1, true justice, 0.

Mr. Adams testified before the U.S.Commission on Civil Rights about this very issue this past week, stating:

“We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens,” he later testified.

That is a staggering claim. Just think about that for a few minutes. This is the DOJ, after all.

One more quote from this article should also give you pause (and thanks to Ani for highlighting this):

But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered “indications” that the Black Panther Party was doing the “same thing” to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.

We knew that, of course, but now we have a DOJ whistleblower confirming it. Wow.

That Obama, fulfilling his campaign promise of bringing change to America. He surely is, just not good change. Now, despite the protests by the NBPP to the contrary, voter intimidation is permitted by the DOJ, depending on who is doing it, of course.

This is a sad, sad time in our country, when voter intimidation is not just allowed, but protected, by the Department of Justice. When the DOJ states it won’t be bothered with enforcement of the law against voter rolls being padded with the names of dead people, and those who are ineligible to vote.

This is our fundamental right as Americans, the right to vote, free of intimidation and threats. It is our duty to have our votes counted, and to have the process as clean as possible. It is clear that Obama’s DOJ has zero interest in making that happen.

And that cannot stand.

Hillary to the Rescue? Again?

Sunday, June 20th, 2010

Can you hear it in the wind?

Suddenly, this is the word on everyone’s lips — Hillary!

Sally Quinn of WaPo, the grande dame of all that is socially correct, who called Hillary ‘a tortured person who doesn’t know what she wants,’ who accused her of all manner of evil over the years, now wants Hillary and Biden to change places. Quinn says “Hillary Clinton should be Obama’s vice president” and opines…

She is cheerful, thoughtful, serious and diligent. There are no horror stories about her coming out of the State Department. Most notable, though, is that Bill Clinton has not been the problem that so many anticipated. He has been supportive of her and of Obama, and he has stayed out of the limelight and been discreet about his own life.

In short, the arguments against Hillary Clinton being Obama’s vice president have pretty much evaporated.

So Ms. Quinn thinks that she is cheerful — like a puppy, who will be happy to be of service yet again and hold the incompetent in chief up — helping him to win a second term. Once again — they want Mommy to save him. It’s so tiresome, it almost doesn’t deserve comment. Peggy Noonan is talking about all eyes turning to Hillary for President in 2012 and Dems admitting they made a mistake and that Hillary would have been better. No kidding. Leslie Gelb is talking about her taking over SecDef. All are teeing her up for 2016 — after spending the last years raining down all manner of insults on her head.

They just can’t admit she should have had the top job all along. They keep figuring out ways to “use her” to save the Emperor. I’m so glad all these people have figured out what Hillary’s career path ought to be. How generous!

The BP disaster woke up a lot of people, I guess.

Speculation notwithstanding, I thought I’d share the musings of the always entertaining conservative Mark Steyn. These words concluded his latest column, taking President Obama to task…

Chris Matthews and the other leg-tinglers invented an Obama that doesn’t exist. Unfortunately, they’re stuck with the one that does, and it will be interesting to see whether he’s capable of plugging the leak in his own support. If not, who knows what the tide might wash up?

Memo to Secretary Rodham Clinton: Do you find yourself of a quiet evening with a strange craving for chicken dinners and county fairs in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe next summer? Need one of those relaunch books to explain why you’re getting back in the game in your country’s hour of need?

“It Takes a Spillage.”

Aah. I can dream, can’t I?

Look Who’s Complaining About The Financial Reform Bill…

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

Having long ago been chased away from the Huffington Post, disgusted by their ceaseless Hillary bashing during the 2008 primaries, I have ventured back a little bit of late, if for no other reason than to see if their messiah-worship is as strong as ever. Imagine my surprise to discover the blog’s owner, Arianna Huffington, had penned an article entitled Financial Reform: A Win for Wall Street, A Cold Shoulder for Main Street.

In attitude and methodology, Ms. Huffington most closely resembles Bill Maher. She does her best, as he does, to get ahead of a change in the political currents, so as to ride the wave in an effort to stay relevant. That can be the only explanation for the populist tone in her article, condemning Washington for a financial reform bill that does little to help the American people and pays no more than lip service to reforming the destructive mechanisms of those inflicting their ponzi schemes on the rest of us. She never mentions, though that Dems have been in control of Congress since 2006, and Obama has had a super majority, or near it, since his election. Odd, eh? Who does she think is passing this legislation? The tooth fairy?

One can google the title to read the article in its entirety. I have included some choice paragraphs here:

It’s mission accomplished for financial reform.

Unfortunately, it’s more of a Bush 43 “mission accomplished” than an Apollo 13 “mission accomplished.” That’s because the financial reform bill passed by the Senate last week, like Bush’s ship deck ceremony, is more notable for what it has left to still be done.

The Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 will do no such thing. First, it doesn’t do enough to rein in Wall Street. It doesn’t end “too big to fail” banks, doesn’t create a Glass-Steagall style firewall between commercial and investment banking, keeps taxpayers on the hook for future bailouts, and leaves open dangerous loopholes in the regulation of derivatives. And we can expect more loopholes to be inserted as the bill heads to conference committee. In D.C., crafting a bill without them would be like baking bread without yeast. Though you can’t see them, they’re what makes a Washington bill rise.

There’s a reason a longtime investment banker, speaking to the New York Times, said of his colleagues’ reaction to the new bill, “If you talk to anyone privately, there’s a sigh of relief.”

Don’t expect a similar reaction on Main Street. Despite its name, this bill will not be restoring financial stability to the tens of millions of hardworking Americans whose lives have been turned upside down by the economic crisis.

On nearly every front in the real economy — from jobs to consumer spending to foreclosures — we’ve made virtually no progress at all. While Washington and the media have been consumed with the titanic debate over this reform bill, talk of the actual suffering by actual people in the actual economy is virtually a taboo subject, at least judging by how rarely it makes the front pages or leads the TV news.

She points out that millions of Americans have an unfortunate new perspective: “Now the American Dream is to try to not fall, or do all you can to slow your rate of decline.” She states the “average jobless stint for those unemployed who are 55 and over was around 43 weeks” and college grads entering the…“job market with their expensive degrees will be confronting a youth unemployment rate of almost 20 percent — the highest rate since the Labor Department started tracking youth unemployment in 1948.”

She mentions that those keeping their jobs have had to make due with lower wages and less benefits, paying more of their health care costs. Further:

Adding insult to injury, a growing number of working mothers are having to give up their jobs and rely on welfare because states are cutting back on child care services that allowed them to keep working. And kids across the country are scrambling to find something to do this summer as a number of states make deep cuts to summer school programs.

And where the rumored “green shoots” are concerned

…Turns out, there was a surge in spending — but almost exclusively by the rich. As the LA Times’ Don Lee put it, the “little-noticed reality” behind the “encouraging numbers” was that “much of the new spending has come not from America’s broad middle class but from a small slice of affluent people at the top.”

As the Washington Post reported last week, “lavish fringe benefits” are back at the top end of corporate America, including “country club dues, chauffeured drivers, personal financial planning services, home security systems and parking.” Of the 29 biggest public companies that took taxpayer money, around one in three decided to funnel some of it to its chief executive. As the Post’s Tomoeh Murakami Tse dryly put it: “Those raises contrast with the belt-tightening that many Americans have experienced during the recession.” Nell Minow, co-founder of the Corporate Library, put it more directly: “Marie Antoinette could fit into this crowd without missing a beat.”

Consumer lending is likewise dismal, but as Ms. Huffington reports “the Wall Street economy is happy to accept massive transfusions of cash from the fading middle class.”

She further laments:

This isn’t to say that there were no provisions that would help Main Street considered as part the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. There were plenty — it’s just that almost all of them were either voted down or taken out and never even put up for a vote. Even something as simple and sensible as putting a cap on credit card interest rates. Sheldon Whitehouse’s amendment to do just that was voted down 60 to 35. So much for “financial stability.” Though I suppose it depends on whose financial stability you care about — the banks’ or the taxpayers’.

By the way, 21 Democratic Senators voted to kill the bill that would have capped usury rates by credit card companies.

And I believe President Obama promised not to hire lobbyists…

…[t]he line between Senator, staffer and lobbyist is pretty blurry these days. A joint report released by SEIU, the Campaign for America’s Future, and the Public Accountability Initiative found that the finance industry has 70 former members of Congress and 940 former federal employees on its lobbying payroll. This includes 33 chiefs of staff, 54 staffers of the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee (or of a current member of those committees), and 28 legislative directors. Five of Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd’s former staffers are now working as banking lobbyists, as are eight former staffers for Banking Committee powerhouses Richard Shelby and Chuck Schumer.

And the revolving door spins both ways. As Arthur Delaney reported on HuffPost, 18 percent of current House Financial Services committee staffers used to work on K Street. All told, the financial industry has spent nearly $600 million on lobbying since the collapse of Bear Stearns in March of 2008 — almost a million dollars a day.

Huffington discusses the Merkley-Levin amendment “that would have forced big banks to get rid of their speculative proprietary trading activities, a version of the Volcker rule” which likewise wound up on the cutting room floor.

While Huffington makes a stab at blaming Republicans in her piece, Democrats have to shoulder plenty of blame as well, particularly since they have shielded the practices of Fannie and Freddie at every turn, a fact Huffington conveniently omits even as she complains of the institution itself:

Another reform completely left out of the bill was any reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This despite the fact that in just the last quarter Freddie — one half of what the New York Times’ Gretchen Morgenson calls “the elephant in the bailout” — reported a loss of $6.7 billion.

Serious delinquencies on Freddie’s single-family conventional loan portfolio are at 4.13 percent, up from 2.41 percent for the same period last year. And the number of foreclosed units Freddie controls stands at nearly 54,000, up from 29,145 at the end of March 2009.

“I don’t understand why people are not talking about it,” says Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It seems to me the most fundamental question is, have they on an ongoing basis been paying too much for loans even since they went into conservatorship?”

And why would they do that? It’s part of what Morgenson calls a “backdoor bailout of the banks.” In other words, an under-the-radar way to continue shoveling money from struggling taxpayers over to the richest Americans.

But Ms. Huffington saves this damning bit for last –

We’ve been told time and time again over the last two years that right after Washington deals with what’s on its plate, “jobs is next.” Well, it’s been “next” for quite some time now, but it never seems to come to the floor. And now that a financial reform bill has passed, the talk on the Hill is that climate control or immigration will be tackled next. Or that members will just go off for the summer and campaign, flush with all the donations many of them just pocketed from the banks in this latest effort.

I often have a nightmare — a common sort — in which I’m stuck in a forest and I can’t find my way out. I have a friend whose version is that her feet are stuck to the ground and she can’t move. Not a bad description of our leaders’ approach to the massive suffering that’s going on across America.

Our leader? Doesn’t he have a name, Ms. Huffington? Why be so dainty about it? She never pussyfooted around when she trashed anyone else.

I did a word search in Arianna’s lengthy article and nowhere were the words “President” or “Obama” mentioned. The man who Huffington touted as great and gifted now has his feet stuck in the mud and cannot move – or are his feet stuck in miles of BP oil sludge that has washed ashore? Hard to tell.

Since Mr. Obama received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and has done nothing but compromise, make back room deals and talk about change without offering up much that is effective thus far, it can be no surprise to Ms. Huffington that this legislation is more of the same. He gets to check the “done” box and those of us out here on the ground get laughed at by those in power while we continue to struggle. She has suddenly noticed that the President along with Pelosi and Reid could give a fig about putting Americans back to work? Where has she been?

My sense is that she is seeing the writing on the wall and fears an upcoming bloodbath and sea change in November and wants to get ahead of it. I am not convinced she has had a sudden attack of conscience. Still, I was glad to see Ms. Huffington point out the facts of the situation – even though she seems to have had a memory lapse when it comes to naming those in charge.

Chris Matthews Admits “The President Scares Me,” James Carville Laments Obama’s “Lackadaisical” Response and Kevin Costner to the Rescue on the BP Oil Spill

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010

The Huffington Post, of all places, carried two surprising news items critical of The One. The first as reported by Danny Shea tells us Chris Matthews…

The MSNBC anchor, once so enamored with Barack Obama that he admitted a campaign speech sent a thrill up his leg, has now told Jay Leno that Obama scares him.

“The President scares me,” Matthews said of Obama’s response to the Gulf oil spill disaster. “He’s been acting a little like a Vatican Observer here. When is he actually going to do something? And I worry; I know he doesn’t want to take ownership of it. I know politics. He said the minute he says, ‘I’m in charge,’ he takes the blame, but somebody has to. It’s in our interest.”

Mr. Matthews described the BP oil spill as “the scariest thing I’ve ever seen.” He likewise lambasted Rush Limbaugh and former VP Dick Cheney, as he lamented years of various administrations looking the other way on safety precautions for off shore drilling. But no matter how much he spread the insults around, the fact remains that the bloom is off the rose between him and his Prez.

Matthews was forthright in condemning our backdoor deals with oil companies and no oversight re drilling – but the Dems have been the majority in Congress since 2006 and Obama has been President for 16 months – could safeguards not have been put back in place before the BP disaster? Matthews does not mention that Obama received large campaign contributions from BP.

And while Chris figures out he is scared of a man who leads from the rear, or leads by waiting, that is to say, not at all, we figured this out 2-1/2 years ago. I will admit to being likewise scared of someone who constantly says “I didn’t know” to inconvenient truths about his associates and dances quickly away from responsibility. I am also worried by someone slow to act on this oil spill but quick to jump down the throats of Arizonans, passing immigration law in desperation when the federal government was and is a no show. Our President is quick to race bait and pander to the Hispanic vote for his own benefit. Taking charge on the oil spill… not so much.

Laura Bassett of HuffPo reports that James Carville, a democratic stalwart, finally voices his frustration, too:

“He’s ‘Risking Everything’ With ‘Go Along With BP Strategy’”

Carville, the famously outspoken Louisianian who was a chief political aide to Bill and Hillary Clinton, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Thursday that the administration’s response to the spill has been “lackadaisical” and that Obama was “naive” to trust BP to manage the massive clean-up effort.

“I think they actually believe that BP has some kind of a good motivation here,” he said. “They’re naive! BP is trying to save money, save everything they can… They won’t tell us anything, and oddly enough, the government seems to be going along with it! Somebody has got to, like shake them and say, ‘These people don’t wish you well! They’re going to take you down!’”…

“I’m as good a Democrat as most people, and I think this administration has done some good things. They are risking everything by this ‘go along with BP’ strategy they have that seems like, lackadaisical on this, and Doug is right, they seem like they’re inconvenienced by this, this is some giant thing getting in their way and somehow or another, if you let BP handle it, it’ll all go away. It’s not going away. It’s growing out there. It is a disaster of the first magnitude, and they’ve got to go to Plan B.”

Most damning is this little tidbit…

Not until yesterday, critics note, a full 30 days after the oil rig explosion, did federal officials establish a technical team to measure the full extent of the spill.

Until now, the vast bulk of clean-up responsibilities have been left to BP, which isn’t much closer to capping the oil leak now than it was weeks ago. The oil has already affected nearly 50 miles of sensitive marshlands on the Louisiana coastline, according to estimates by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and federal authorities have increased the no-fishing zone to 45,728 square miles in the Gulf of Mexico.

BP has consistently downplayed the severity of the spill despite growing evidence that suggests otherwise, and their strategy to clean up the spill has involved the use of a toxic chemical dispersant that EPA officials warn may cause lasting damage to coastal ecosystems.

The EPA has now given BP 24 hours to begin using a less toxic dispersant, but Carville says the government’s primary failure was trusting BP to handle the clean-up in the first place.

“Right now I wouldn’t trust BP to do anything,” he said. “And nobody does”

So much for ready on day one. It would have cost BP all of $5 million dollars to install the safety equipment to prevent this disaster. This Administration had plenty of time these past 16 months to put such safety precautions back in place.

The Administration may have been slow to act, but here’s a bit of news that may surprise you. Guy Adams of The Indpendent/UK reports that BP calls in Costner’s $26m vacuum cleaners to mop up huge oil spill.

[Mr. Costner] has spent 15 years developing device to separate oil from sea water and it is now being put to work.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. So with hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil still spewing into the Gulf of Mexico each day, and its corporate image starting to resemble the tar-covered sea creatures now washing on to Louisiana’s fragile shoreline, BP has called on Kevin Costner to help stave off environmental Armageddon.

The Hollywood star has been bobbing around the Mississippi Delta helping representatives of the British oil firm and US coastguard test-drive a stainless steel device called the Ocean Therapy. In a claim which sounds as unlikely as the plot premise of Waterworld, he says it can quickly and efficiently clean oil from tainted sea water.

Bizarrely, Costner may be on to something. The actor has spent 15 years and roughly $26million of his personal fortune developing the patented machine with the help of his elder brother Dan, a scientist. It works like a giant vacuum cleaner, sucking up dirty liquid and then using a high-speed centrifuge to separate it into oil, and heavier water.

When he allowed the local media to see Ocean Therapy in action – albeit on dry land – it appeared to work as advertised. Yesterday, six of the devices were attached to boats and floated into the Gulf, so the organisers of the clean-up operation could see whether they might also be capable of functioning on the high seas.

“This is a technology that we know works, and has worked for a long time,” Costner said, adding that 26 of the machines are now in Louisiana ready to be put into action. “I’m just really happy that the light of day has come to this, and I’m very sad about why it is. But this is why it was developed, and like anything that we all face, as a group, we face it together.”

Costner, 55, has quietly been developing Ocean Therapy since the mid-1990s when he founded the Costner Industries Nevada Corporation, a company which funded eco-friendly research by his brother and a team of scientists. Aside from the water cleaning device, the firm has also invented a non-chemical battery.

Each of the 26 Heath Robinson-style machines now in Louisiana waiting to be deployed can clean between 5 and 200 gallons of water a minute, depending on its size, said Costner’s lawyer and business partner, John Houghtaling, which means they could in theory mop up oil at the rate it is currently gushing into the Gulf. Polluted sea water which passes through them comes out 97 per cent clean.

“Kevin saw the Exxon Valdez spill, and as a fisherman and an environmentalist, it just stuck in his craw, the fact that we didn’t have separation technology,” said Houghtaling. “Kevin wrote all the checks for this project. This was one man’s vision. Sometimes it takes a star to come in with their money and time to make a difference.”

I appreciate someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is and hope Mr. Costner’s invention will be of assistance in this horrid situation. Odd however, that we might have to pin our hopes on a private citizen rather than our Government or the oil company that caused this disaster in the first place.

The LA Times also reports on Costner’s invention:

If all goes according to plan, he said, “We could have as many as 26 machines dispatched throughout the gulf. Our largest machine is 112 inches high, weighs 2 ½ tons and cleans 210,000 gallons a day of oily water. We are hoping to have 10 machines that size out there — meaning we could potentially clean 2 million gallons of oil water a day.”

Godspeed.

So, um, what’s the Administration doing?

This Is Some Stand-Up White House – Not

Saturday, May 22nd, 2010

During the Primary and Election campaigns, many of us felt that the Obama Campaign was getting Google to do its bidding for specific searches. Evidently, it wasn’t just a wild conspiracy theory, according to this article by Ken Boehm, White House Staffer Who Did Favors For Google Must Resign:

In a letter today to President Obama, I asked for the resignation of White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin.

Last week, McLaughlin was officially reprimanded for violating its ethics policies. A White House investigation found that McLaughlin, a former senior executive at Google, had repeatedly circumvented both the letter and spirit of White House ethics rules by communicating with former colleagues about Administration policies affecting the company.

The White House confirmed that Mr. McLaughlin used his personal Gmail account when discussing White House business, possibly violating federal archiving rules.

From web privacy to Net neutrality to China’s Internet policies, McLaughlin actively engaged Google’s lobbying team and at least one top company official, in at least one case contradicting the Administration’s public stance.

Well, that last sentence is no surprise to anyone who has really been paying attention. The one area in which Obama has been consistent is saying one thing, and doing another. Back to the article:

In that instance, the Administration was publicly stating that it was fairly and dispassionately evaluating a Court decision that had the potential to materially affect Google. Yet McLaughlin simultaneously leaked highly sensitive material and inside information to a senior Google official via a confidential email that the policy would not change.

President Obama has repeatedly claimed that his Administration would have no tolerance for unethical ‘revolving door’ behavior by officials who are supposed to be working for the taxpayers but instead are granting special access and favors to their former employers. The situation with McLaughlin is a test of President Obama’s ethics commitment.

If the Obama Administration is truly committed to the idea of strict ethical standards McLaughlin’s tenure as a senior official of the Obama White House must end.

So there is that piece – the Obama flunkies using a major search engine as their own personal ad campaign (a bit of hyperbolic license, I admit), but there is yet another, far more serious, infraction by the Obama White House that is clawing its way to the light.

And that would be this, Gibbs Mum On Sestak Job Offer. At first blush, that might not seem like a lot, but in actuality, it is a federal crime:

Don’t ask the White House if Obama aides tried to force Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate primary by offering him a job. They are keeping mum on the controversy.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs deflected a barrage of questions about reports – stoked by Sestak himself – that he was offered a top position, perhaps Navy Secretary, in exchange for sitting out the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania.

Sestak didn’t – and upended incumbent Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter on Tuesday night.

“I don’t have anything to add today,” said Gibbs, who was forced to repeat that line several more times under intense questioning during his daily briefing.

Gee, I wonder why Gibbs won’t say anything. First of all, Obama was backing Specter. But it would seem Obama feared the potential loss by Specter to Sestak so much that he offered him a job in the White House if he would back out. The only problems is, though, that’s a felony (actually, three counts for bribery and corruption). And of course, now, Obama has changed his tune:

Sestak, who now has Obama’s support, told a Philadelphia radio station on Wednesday, “Let me just say that both here in Pennsylvania, and down there (Washington), I was called quite a few times… And all I said is look, ‘I felt when a deal is made that it was hurting the Democratic process.’”

Gibbs did say Obama called Specter the night of his loss and left a message. The two finally connected today, but Gibbs didn’t provide details of the conversation.

He said that Obama will continue to back Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) in her upcoming Democratic primary runoff against Bill Halter, but declined to say what form that support would take.

Oh, boy – the possibilities for THAT one just boggles the mind, doesn’t it? Feel free to list all of the ways you think Obama will “support” Sen. Lincoln. Does that mean he’s going to stump for her? If so, she better start sending out resumes today, and hope her time as a US Senator will actually help her get a job outside of DC. Just saying.

Back to Sestak: just in case the White House tries to eradicate any trace of Sestak’s claim of this job offer, there is this:

Just to be clear, this is what Rep. Sestak claimed:

The allegation is that the White House offered Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a job to abandon his primary challenge against Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa. The allegation first surfaced in an interview in February with Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane.

Sestak told Kane that he was offered a federal job to exit the race. When Kane asked if the White House offered the position, Sestak replied, “Yes.”

Three felony counts – and that is just with Sestak. Now, is Mr. Transparency going to be held accountable to US Federal Law or not? Judging by his support of a foreign leader trashing our laws here, clearly he could care less about them. But WE should. And we should make damn sure the President of the United States does.

Enough equivocating, Mr. Gibbs. And enough dissembling. If Obama and his Cronies violated Federal law numerous times, they, he, MUST be held to account. This is no small thing. The Press must press on until we get to the bottom of this, and so must Congress. Rep. Issa called for a Special Probe back in March, thinking at the time there was a good chance a prosecutor assigned. Huh. Wonder if he still feels that way.

We need answers. The sooner the better. Answer the damn question already, Gibbs!

White House Provides “Interview” With SCOTUS Nominee Kagan **UPDATED**

Saturday, May 15th, 2010

Oh, this is rich, In yet another breach of protocol, the White House has crafted an interview with SCOTUS Nominee, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, as this article highlights, Kagan’s Video on White House Blog.

What’s wrong with that, one might ask? Well, this:

White Houses usually keep their Supreme Court nominees under wraps, shunning all interviews. With Elena Kagan, the Obama White House made an exception.

It interviewed her, itself. And in keeping with its habit of using online tools to talk about various policy matters, the White House staff posted her remarks on the official in-house blog.


And here it is, if you care to watch it:

The article continues:

Not surprisingly, there were no questions about her views on abortion, or executive power, or affirmative action, or any of the other hot-button issues that conservatives and liberals alike would love to hear her address. Rather, the video is a bland, overly scripted take on a woman who, by all accounts, is warm, funny and engaging.

Ms. Kagan did allow one bit of humor to slip in, though. In describing her current job, as solicitor general, she said, “Nobody knows quite what that means. Some people think it’s the people who put the labels on the cigarette packages.’’

In fact, the solicitor general argues cases on behalf of the government before the Supreme Court. Ms. Kagan will be continue to hold the title, but from here on out she will focus exclusively on getting confirmed. That begins Wednesday, when she will go to Capitol Hill for her first round of meetings with senators, who will ultimately decide whether she gets the job.

Say, whaaaa? There were no tough questions from some White House staffer, someone who makes videos. Well, color me so surprised at that. I imagine had they wanted real questions asked of Solicitor General Kagan, they would have allowed real journalists (okay, what passes for them these days) to interview her. Except that would have been breaking with protocol, which this White House never does (that was snark).

All of that is to say, there is much we don’t know about SG Kagan yet. That’s exactly why there are hearings for positions of this magnitude. From what I have seen of her resume, it is impressive indeed. I am withholding further judgment until I know more about her. And while her resume is impressive, it is a resume. And a resume is not the same as a paper trail or a judicial record. The latter is a concern for many, as this poll indicates, Polls: Judicial Experience Matters:

If the Senate confirms Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, there will be three female justices on the court for the the first time, no Protestant justices on the court for the first time, and, for the first time in nearly four decades, a justice would join the court with no experience as a judge.

How will Americans react?

Recent polls indicate that Ms. Kagan’s gender and religion will have little effect on Americans’ support for her nomination. In polls by Gallup, ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News, broad majorities of Americans said that the next justice’s gender or religion did not matter to them.

Her lack of experience as a judge, however, could prove problematic in the court of public opinion.

In the ABC/Post poll, 70 percent said experience as a judge would be a factor in favoring a Supreme Court nominee, including 52 percent who said it was a strong factor. And in the Fox News poll, 76 percent of voters said that when selecting a new justice, whether he or she has served as a judge should be a factor, including 20 percent who said it should be the single most important factor.

While it is not a requirement that a nominee for the Supreme Court has served as a judge, it is helpful to have access to decisions rendered. (Click Here to read the rest of the article, and HERE to see the full results of the poll.)

And now, the White House has put the kabosh on SG Kagan’s family being interviewed, too, Want to Talk to Kagan’s Family? Permission Denied. Such a big ol’ surprise from the Obama team. I mean, really – they gave everyone that cute little video to watch? Why the heck would they need to talk to Kagan’s family, too, right? Oh, sure:

White Houses traditionally put a muzzle on their Supreme Court nominees, to keep them from saying anything that might jeopardize Senate confirmation. But the Obama White House has taken it one step further. It is limiting, if not blocking, access to the nominee’s family.

The New York Times received permission on Tuesday from Hunter College High School in Manhattan, Elena Kagan’s alma mater, to observe a constitutional law class there taught by her brother Irving. We thought it would be intriguing to watch the give and take between Mr. Kagan, who is known as a passionate and interactive educator, and his students on his first day back after witnessing his sister’s nomination in Washington.

Mr. Kagan, who is also a Hunter alumnus, did not have a problem with the idea, a school spokeswoman said, but she added that all media requests now had to be given final approval by the White House. The times were tentatively set: there was either an 8:52 a.m. class or a 9:36 a.m. class on Wednesday. “I thought it would have been great,” said the spokeswoman, Meredith Halpern.

But when presented with the idea, the White House balked.

Wait, is the author (Sharon Otterman)trying to claim that the “Most Transparent Administration In The Universe” would be trying to keep information away from the people? I think the answer to that is a resounding YES:

Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman, said that the administration was “uncomfortable with the idea at this time.” The White House called Hunter, and Ms. Halpern said later Tuesday it could not permit the class observation. A formal proposal has been submitted to the White House, which the administration requested. They asked that it outline the intent and goal of the article in significant detail.

A cousin of Ms. Kagan, Gail Katz-James of Minneapolis, was quoted in a profile in The Times the day after the president announced the nomination. She described the “verbal sparring” around the dinner table in the Kagans’ Upper West Side apartment, saying that the family “just really enjoyed debating and discussing everything.”

But two days after the article appeared, when contacted again by the same reporter from The Times, Ms. Katz-James said: “I’m sorry. I’m not able to talk to you.” She was asked if the White House had directed her not to talk to the press. “Nope,” she said, and hung up the phone.

Golly gee – not to be the suspicious type or anything, but isn’t that just a tad curious? They give us this slow pitch softball interview, then refuse to even allow family members to be asked about their experience of SG Kagan? Wowie zowie.

Remind me of the definition of “transparent” again, would you? I’m sure the White House would be happy to give me their version, but I’m thinking that might not match reality…

**UPDATED** Since I wrote this post, new information has come out about SG Kagan. One is her college thesis which discussed her thoughts on Socialism, and the other is a paper she wrote in 1996 entitled (h/t SFIndie), “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role Of Governmental Motive In First Amendment Doctrine. It has some interesting passages in it, that’s for sure.

But get this. Wanna guess whose transcripts from Law School are available?? That’s right, Kagan’s. You cannot see Obama’s, mind you, even though every other president has had to make their records public, but you can see hers!! I guess that’s something…

Left vs. Right? Whose Fiscal Policies Are Correct? We Can’t Even Find Out…*Open Thread*

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

Scrolling through a number of blogs the other day, I came across this comment to a story in The Confluence. Many thanks to WMCB for posting it:

… I have a family member who is as conservative as it gets. We disagree a lot on how much the federal govt should do. But we wholeheartedly agree on this. He said to me last week,

“Until we can get the govt and the corporations out of bed with each other, we can’t even have a national conversation on how much or how little we want the govt to do. Until we end this rigged cronyism, we are ALL f*cked, Left, Right, and Center.”

Crony capitalism was a problem before this administration took power and that problem seems only to be increasing. Special interests, backroom deals, big corporations getting special exemptions — BP comes to mind. The corporate-owned media running interference and soft pedaling or ignoring stories until well past the expiration date of their effectiveness is likewise devastating.

Even Dan Froomkin, nee of the Washington Post, who now writes for Huffington Post, penned an article complaining that President Obama’s new fiscal deficit commission will be holding its meeting out of the public eye — contrary to the “transparency” repeatedly promised by this administration:

Members of President Obama’s deficit commission huddled behind closed doors Wednesday despite pleas from the left and right that they hold all their meetings in public.

The move only heightens suspicion that rather than forging a national consensus on future spending priorities, the commission’s work will consist of backroom dealings in which members of the Washington aristocracy find high-minded excuses for cutting the social safety net.

Bruce Reed, the commission’s executive director, assured the Huffington Post there is nothing sinister about holding working group meetings like today’s in private. But he had no good reason why they shouldn’t be held in public, either.

Froomkin’s article is entitled “Obama’s Fiscal Commission — What’s Going On In There?” if you would like to google and read it in its entirety.

Clearly, both sides are unhappy with this corporate cronyism — and we have seen all too many examples of it over the last ten years.

What’s the solution?

This is an open thread.

Bill Maher Thinks the President “Should Get More S**t” for This Oil Spill

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

One year ago, I wrote an open letter to Bill Maher taking him to task for his horrid insults to the Tea Party movement, then in its infancy. He self-righteously, and wrongly, claimed that what was at the root of this movement was racism. He also claimed that this was strictly a Republican movement. These are some of the original statements he made in his op-ed in the LA Times:

It’s been a week now, and I still don’t know what those “tea bag” protests were about. I saw signs protesting abortion, illegal immigrants, the bank bailout and that gay guy who’s going to win “American Idol.” But it wasn’t tax day that made them crazy; it was election day. Because that’s when Republicans became what they fear most: a minority.

…“the conservative base is absolutely apoplectic because, because … well, nobody knows. They’re mad as hell, and they’re not going to take it anymore. Even though they’re not quite sure what “it” is.”

Let us fast forward to his show on April 30, 2010 where he said the following in reference to the tea partiers:

“…well, you know they always say they feel like neither Party represents them. That’s how I feel this week.”

What a difference a year makes.

While his surrounding verbiage was typically tasteless, the sentiment was all too clear. The people he said he could never agree with he found a reason to agree with. Why – our horrific Gulf Coast Oil Spill:

And for those of you who can’t bear to watch him on video, Noel Sheppard provides the transcript of Maher’s remarks — sitting with none other than Mr. Leg Tingle, Chris Matthews himself:

BILL MAHER: Okay, so I mentioned in the monologue I’m a little mad this week. I usually try to hide that, but, you know, when the Teabaggers say that they feel like they have no…

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC: I love the way you say that.

MAHER: What?

ROSS DOUTHAT, NEW YORK TIMES: Just trips off the tongue.

MATTHEWS: The Teabaggers.

MAHER: The Teabag, well, you know they always say they feel like neither Party represents them. That’s how I feel this week. So Teabaggers, you’re not alone. And the reason why is because yes, I’m mad at the oil company who didn’t obviously build their rig well enough. I’m mad at America in general because we should have gotten off the oil tit starting in the ’70s. I’m mad at the people who go, “Drill, baby, drill.” And by the way, they should turn up on the Gulf Coast and start cleaning up the birds with their “Drill, baby, drill” t-shirts. But I’ll tell you who I’m really mad at which is Barack Obama. Couple of weeks ago, the President, our President said, “It turns out the oil rigs today generally don’t cause oil spills. They are technologically very advanced.” Now if, if I was quoting George Bush, this crowd would be laughing in hysterics.

LAURA TYSON, ECONOMIST AND FORMER CLINTON ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes they would.

MAHER: So, why isn’t Barack Obama getting more sh*t for this? I think he should.

(Applause.)

Yes. The audience applauded.

Bill Maher is taking our President to task on something? He dipped his little toe into these waters a few months ago, but ever so gently. Not sounding so gentle now, however.

Then again, a friend called to tell me Maher defended Hillary on his show several weeks back. I’ll have to take his word for it because I will never watch Maher’s show again. This is what Maher had to say about Hillary two short years ago (one among many lovely remarks):

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s c*nt.”

Gee, Bill, next time perhaps you’ll think before disrespecting one candidate while fawning over another or condemning a movement before you take five minutes of your time to understand who they are or what they are about.

Even though Maher still insists on insulting them with the homophobic “tea baggers” slur, it is clear he does understand what they are railing against. Or does this mean Bill is a racist now, too?

H/T to LisaB for alerting us to former Congressman Mickey Edwards’ piece in The Atlantic offering a polite but succinct takedown on Maher. Edwards was in Congress for 16 years and also taught at Princeton and Harvard. Apparently, This Week in ABC thought to elevate Maher to sitting at the round table with George Will, Al Sharpton. Katrina Van Den Heuvel and Matthew Dowd as they discussed the controversial new AZ immigration law. Edwards contended that both sides managed to discuss the difficult choice between necessary security and the profiling issue with civility — except…:

Then there was Mr. Bill Maher, whose three principal contributions were to hail Brazil’s having stopped its use of oil as an energy source for vehicles (incorrect), his observation that Republicans are racists, and his subsequent refinement of that observation: he only meant to say that if you’re a racist, you’re probably a Republican.

I had actually been watching something else on television (a tribute to Ella Fitzgerald), but switched in time to watch Mr. Maher’s performance. I’m glad I did. Had I not done so, I would have continued to be among those blissfully unaware of what a dolt he is, of how hateful and venomous and destructive of civility and intelligent discourse he is.

And so the villain of this piece is? Not Mr. Maher: he is, sadly, what he is, and that is all he is, and (my heart goes out to him) that is probably all he will ever be; one can only do one’s best with whatever limited capacities one has. But George Will, Matthew Dowd, Al Sharpton, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, agree with them or not, have a proper place at the grown-up table; one can only wonder what the producers at ABC were thinking when they moved this character to a table at which the likes of George Stephanopoulos, Cokie Roberts, Cokie Roberts, and Sam Donaldson once sat.

It is good to draw attention to Maher if only to point out that his show is what passes on certain fronts as educated political discourse. It is often far less than that.

This serves as yet one more example that contempt prior to examination is not a good thing. Whether one agrees with the new AZ law or not, it is clear that serious solutions are required by the federal government, notably AWOL on this issue in this and the last Administration.

Likewise, whether one agrees with the agenda of the Tea Party movement, it is clear that the rank and file are not being represented by those in power.

It was Maher who years ago complained that the vertical ownership of Uber-corporations was strangling this country — their deep pockets holding enormous influence over our elected officials — ensuring that neither Party is doing the peoples’ business. He was right. Tea Party anger over that very situation is one of the forces driving this movement.

How odd that Maher never realized the very sentiments he voiced were at the root of the movement he saw fit to condemn this past year.

Though he purports to be a comedian, he clearly fancies himself as more than that. Still, Maher is like 90% of the pundits out there — trying to stay ahead of the curve and keep themselves relevant by insulting those it seems cool to insult. By trading whatever common sense he might have to offer on a given subject for the easy takedown, preferring to stay au courant rather than honest — he lowers the level of discourse rather than elevating it. He also see to it that his audience — and he does have a bully pulpit of his own — does not get both sides of the story, only more demagoguery.

Imagine what might have happened if Maher and people like him had stopped to understand the true grievances of tea party activists last year. Such a pulpit might have brought both sides together to fight a health care bill that causes more harm than good, sending Congress back to the drawing board until they had effective health care reform to offer, rather than insurance payoffs. By Maher employing the typical, and hateful, “us vs. them” attitude to get ratings and please his flock he becomes part of the very problem he spends his show railing against. He also ensures that our President (any president, regardless of Party) will never get sh*t when they deserve it because we are too distracted fighting each other to hold our elected officials accountable.