From Common Dreams -- May 31, 2011
'Serious’ Republicans vs.‘Starry-Eyed’ Progressives
Beltway media scorn People’s Budget, hail Ryan hoax
By Peter Hart and Julie Hollar
The budget proposal released on April 5 by Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wisc.) includes tax cuts for the wealthy, tax hikes for the middle class, drastic cuts in social spending and a radical restructuring of Medicare that would shift most of the cost of healthcare to seniors. Its dubious claims of deficit reduction rely on fatally flawed assumptions and inexplicable projections.
Meanwhile, the 76-member Congres-sional Progressive Caucus unveiled its own “People’s Budget” proposal on April 13, which would eliminate the deficit in 10 years without eroding social services or raising taxes on the working class. Serious economists like Paul Krugman (New York Times, 4/25/11) and Jeffrey Sachs (Huffington Post, 4/8/11) have spoken out in favor of the People’s Budget as, in Krugman’s words, a “genuinely courageous” plan and “the only major budget proposal out there offering a plausible path to balancing the budget.”
Guess which one the Beltway media have embraced?
Much of the avalanche of corporate media coverage about the Ryan plan has presented it as a serious solution to long-term budget problems, or at least the starting point of a serious conversation about the topic.
In Time magazine (4/18/11), readers learned that Paul Ryan—described as having “jet black hair and a touch of Eagle Scout to him” has unveiled an ambitious package of huge budget cuts designed to dig the country out of its crippling debt crisis. For Ryan, reining in spending is nothing less than an act of patriotic valor.
The magazine also declared that he is “a PowerPoint fanatic with an almost unsettling fluency in the fine print of massive budget documents.”
Deep into the article, readers get this parenthetical warning:
(He’s also been criticized for peddling fuzzy math and rosy projections. A Washington Post factcheck deemed his budget full of “dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures.”)
So someone with “an almost unsettling fluency in the fine print of massive budget documents” has presented a budget plan filled with obvious problems. How can both things be true?
For too many media outlets, probing the details of Ryan’s plan was less important than telling an appealing political story: that finally someone has presented a “serious” budget proposal. Lacking evidence to demonstrate the plan’s seriousness, media cited Ryan’s biography in order to supply the necessary credibility.
Thus the Washington Post (4/6/11) explained that Ryan is “wonky” and “an unlikely revolutionary.” The Post added that “Ryan studied economics in college, and in Congress he has embraced the weedy issues of the federal budget.” The Post’s lead wondered if Ryan can “really manage the hardest sales job in U.S. politics.” The paper seemed to think so:
So far, the sales pitch appears to be classic Ryan. He will make his case with earnestness and a hope that a quiet explanation of budget math can swing the country in a way that previous politicians could not.
Ryan’s “budget math” relies on, among other things, wildly implausible estimates concerning unemployment and government spending. Krugman (Conscience of a Liberal, 4/6/11) explains that the plan asserts without explanation that unemployment will fall to its lowest level in 50 years, and that the entire federal budget, excluding Social Security and health programs, can be slashed by more than two-thirds via unspecified cuts. But as salesman to the corporate media, it seems Ryan is largely succeeding.
New York Times columnist David Brooks (4/5/11) called Ryan’s budget plan “the most comprehensive and most courageous budget reform proposal any of us have seen in our lifetimes...[which] will put all future arguments in the proper context.”
Even those who disagreed with Ryan’s plan found ways to praise it. In Time (4/7/11), Fareed Zakaria wrote that “Ryan’s plan is deeply flawed, but it is courageous.” Zakaria added that “Ryan makes magical assumptions about growth—and thus tax revenues,” and that other aspects are “highly unrealistic.” But still he concludes that it should be applauded as “a serious effort to tackle entitlement programs.”
And on NBC’s Chris Matthews Show (4/10/11), pundit Gloria Borger declared: “We have to give Paul Ryan an awful lot of credit because, as all of our august colleagues have said, yes, it does define the conversation for 2012.”
In a piece for Time.com (4/7/11), reporter Michael Grunwald noted the incongruity of such praise and wondered, “What’s so brave about fuzzy math in the service of Tea Party ideology”?
The Washington Post factcheck of the Ryan plan by Glenn Kessler (4/6/11)—the one cited in passing by Time—represented a genuine attempt to assess Ryan’s proposal. When Ryan claims that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found his plan would produce surpluses by 2040, most outlets report it as fact—like the April 6 Los Angeles Times, which explained that Ryan’s budget, according to the CBO, “would dramatically improve the nation’s overall fiscal picture, reducing deficits projected in President Obama’s budget and moving the federal government into surplus by 2040."
The Post’s Kessler, however, reports that this claim “seriously overstates the case,” since the CBO analysis “reflects the scenarios that Ryan has concocted. There are, for instance, no real revenue estimates, just an assumption that federal revenues will remain at about 19 percent of GDP.” The spending cuts imagined by Ryan are equally implausible—a “bare-bones government …not experienced since before the Great Depression.”
Kessler also noted that Ryan claims substantial savings—$1.4 trillion, in fact—from a repeal of the new healthcare law—without any explanation for why he rejects the CBO’s determination (CBO Director’s Blog, 1/6/11) that a repeal would actually cost hundreds of billions. The verdict was, as Time parenthetically noted, that the plan deemed brave and serious was based on “dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures.”
Meanwhile, the Beltway media reaction to the People’s Budget ranged from indifferent to scornful. Not a single hard news story on the proposal ran in the New York Times, Washington Post or USA Today. The Post’s Dana Milbank (4/14/11) covered the unveiling of the “far-left” budget only to mock it, spending much of his time making fun of the “starry-eyed” progressives’ press conference and attire. Milbank snidely commented on Caucus co-chair Raul Grijalva’s tie, which “hung loosely from his neck and ended five inches above his waistband,” and noted that
the lawmakers and staffers kept poking one another with their umbrellas, and they found themselves competing with the whine of a Capitol tractor. Their oft-repeated slogan, “The People’s Budget,” conveyed an unhelpful association with “the people’s republic” and other socialist undertakings.
Milbank snorted that the budget proposal
gives a sense of how things would be if liberals ran the world: no cuts in Social Security benefits, government-negotiated Medicare drug prices, and increased income and Social Security taxes for the wealthy. Corporations and investors would be hit with a variety of new fees and taxes. And the military would face a shock-and-awe accounting: a 22 percent cut in Army soldiers, 30 percent for the Marines, 20 percent for the Navy and 15 percent for the Air Force. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would end, and weapons programs would go begging.
Milbank treats these policies as self-evidently absurd—even though, unlike Ryan’s tax cuts for the rich and dismantling of Medicare, they’re actually quite popular with the public. Polls show large majorities favor taxing the wealthy to reduce the debt while strongly opposing cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security (ABC/Wash-ington Post, 4/14–17/11; Pew Research Center, 3/8–14/11). Opinions on cutting the military budget are more evenly split, but when asked to choose between cutting “defense spending,” Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security (Reuters/Ipsos, 3/3–6/11), 51 percent of respondents chose military spending, while only 28 percent chose Medicare/Medicaid and 18 percent chose Social Security.
The most coverage the People’s Budget received was on MSNBC from liberal hosts like Cenk Uygur and Rachel Maddow. Maddow (4/22/11) marvelled at the remarkable lack of interest by the rest of the corporate media:
The Beltway right now says that the deficit negotiations in Washington have to be between President Obama and the debt-exploding, super-unpopular Paul Ryan plan. Why shouldn’t it be between President Obama and the progressives? If this really is about fixing the deficit, why on Earth is the most fiscally responsible, comprehensive budget plan that’s been submitted...not even on the table?
Her guest, Washington Post columnist and Center for American Progress fellow Matt Miller, responded:
The basic mode of coverage, I think, is that the sort of establishment press act as stenographers to power. And you have the mainstream Democratic position obviously represented by the president, and you have the opposition represented by Paul Ryan. And that sort of defines what the boundaries of debate are going to be, because the media faithfully reflects those two poles of debate.... Because [the Progressive Caucus] are not the official spokesman of the party like the president is, they tend to get ignored.
It’s true that the Beltway media largely serve as stenographers to power, and the Progressive Caucus does not represent the “mainstream” of the Democratic party, as defined by the party’s center of gravity in Washington. But remember that Ryan’s plan had all of 13 Congressional supporters even months after he first formally introduced it in January 2010 (Washington Post, 8/2/10). That didn’t stop him from getting hundreds of media mentions and dozens of interviews throughout the year, including plenty of praise for his “political courage” (e.g., USA Today, 9/7/10), well before the midterm elections skewed the party further to the right and shifted Ryan’s plan to the GOP “mainstream.”
Don’t expect the People’s Budget to ever get that kind of coverage. The “mainstream” of the two parties will always get the most ink, but where the GOP fringe gets its own slice of the coverage, progressives regularly go home empty-handed. The Progressive Caucus isn’t ignored because they’re not the mainstream of the Democratic Party, they’re ignored because they threaten the vital interests of the most powerful people in Washington—people who knot their ties appropriately and hobnob with Beltway reporters on a regular basis.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Republican "Young Guns" Are So Off the Walls and Insane That They Are Changing Republicans Into Democrats and Turning Red Districts Blue
From Emily's List -- May 25, 2011:
What an incredible win! EMILY's List candidate Kathy Hochul achieved a spectacular victory last night in the special election in New York's 26th district. Despite conventional wisdom that the district was too Republican and unwinnable, we were there with her from the beginning until the last vote was counted and that once-Republican House seat was hers.
Between your support and Kathy's tireless campaigning, we now have a pro-choice Democratic woman in a House seat that once belonged to a GOP Young Gun. And, believe me, Republicans are petrified about what this means: that voters are saying NO to the GOP plan to gut Medicare, and NO to the Republican bait-and-switch agenda that ignores creating jobs and instead Wages War on Women.
What an incredible win! EMILY's List candidate Kathy Hochul achieved a spectacular victory last night in the special election in New York's 26th district. Despite conventional wisdom that the district was too Republican and unwinnable, we were there with her from the beginning until the last vote was counted and that once-Republican House seat was hers.
Between your support and Kathy's tireless campaigning, we now have a pro-choice Democratic woman in a House seat that once belonged to a GOP Young Gun. And, believe me, Republicans are petrified about what this means: that voters are saying NO to the GOP plan to gut Medicare, and NO to the Republican bait-and-switch agenda that ignores creating jobs and instead Wages War on Women.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Right-Wing Loons Falsely Accuse Obama of Being as Incompetent as Dubya -- The Righties are Still Looking for Obama's "Katrina"
From Media Matters for America -- May 23, 2011:
Right-Wing Media Predictably Attack Obama For Going To Europe After Tornadoes
Right-wing media have attacked President Obama for traveling to Europe following the tornadoes in Missouri. However, the administration's response to the tornadoes has continued during Obama's trip to Europe, and Missouri officials have praised the administration's response. This follows a long history of right-wing media attacking Obama for focusing on more than one issue at a time during crises and trying to label various crises "Obama's Katrina."
Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Going To Europe After Tornadoes
Fox's Bolling: "Obama Chugging 40's In IRE While Tornadoes Ravage MO." In a May 23 Twitter post, Fox Business host Eric Bolling accused Obama of "Chugging 40's in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO":
Linking Tornadoes To Hurricane Katrina, Doocy And Ingraham Complain About Lack Of Criticism Of Obama's Ireland Trip After Tornadoes. On the May 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham stated that, while she didn't "want to make too much of this," she wondered "what would the liberal press be saying if this were President Bush -- we had, let's say, another flood in New Orleans, you had people suffering, you had people dead, and yet President Bush was going over to Scotland or Ireland?" Co-host Steve Doocy responded by saying, "Are you talking about that crazy double standard thing in this country?" From Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: As we take a look at the president over in the U.K., we understand that he's not cutting his trip to Europe short. He will, however, at the conclusion of the visit to Europe, go back to Joplin, Missouri, to survey the damage.
INGRAHAM: Look, I don't want to make too much of this, because, look, presidents have to do a lot of things, right? They have to juggle a lot of balls. And, you know, the G-8 part of this trip was very important. I also, though, like to think of what would the liberal press be saying if this were President Bush -- we had, let's say, another flood in New Orleans, you had people suffering, you had people dead, and yet President Bush was going over to Scotland or Ireland?
DOOCY: Are you talking about that crazy double standard thing in this country?
INGRAHAM: Yeah, well, I think of that. And I do think of the disconnect and maybe the tone-deafness, if you will, of that devastation from Missouri -- heartbreaking pictures. And then President Obama lifting the glass of Guinness.
DOOCY: Bottoms up.
INGRAHAM: There is something about that that I think hits people in the gut -- and again, I'm not trying to make too much of it, but I think the Irish probably would have understood if the president delayed his trip a day or two. I think that would have been a really nice thing to do. But again, he has to do a lot of things, I understand that. But maybe the Irish part of the trip could have been put off to another day. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/24/11]
Ingraham: "If President Bush Was Drinking Pints In Ireland After A Natural Disaster, Do You Think The Mainstream Media Would Be So Silent?" From a May 24 Twitter post by Ingraham:
Hoft Attacks White House For Releasing Photo Of Obama Speaking By Phone From Ireland With MO Governor. In a May 23 blog post, Jim Hoft criticized the White House for releasing a photo of Obama speaking by phone with Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon while in Ireland. Hoft wrote: "The White House wanted to make sure you knew that Obama was on top of the disaster in Missouri. Michelle and Barack are going to a concert tonight in Dublin. They sure wouldn't want to show you what was really going on in Ireland." [Gateway Pundit, 5/23/11]
Administration Has Responded To Tornadoes While President Has Been In Europe
Obama Directed FEMA To Declare Jasper And Newton Counties In Missouri Disaster Areas. From a May 23 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) press release:
At the direction of President Obama, FEMA this morning added the two Missouri counties impacted by tornadoes, Jasper and Newton, to an ongoing disaster declaration the state received for recent storms, which means that tornado survivors in those counties can now apply for disaster assistance with FEMA.
FEMA has already deployed staff on the ground in Missouri to help state officials with coordination and other needs as they continue their response. Earlier this morning, President Obama and Secretary Napolitano both called Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to express that all of the families of Joplin affected by the severe tornadoes are in their thoughts and prayers and reiterate this administration's commitment to assisting the state and Missouri residents. [FEMA, 5/23/11]
Obama Issued Statement On May 23. In a May 23 statement, Obama expressed his "deepest condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in the tornadoes and severe weather that struck Joplin, Missouri as well as communities across the Midwest today":
Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in the tornadoes and severe weather that struck Joplin, Missouri as well as communities across the Midwest today. We commend the heroic efforts by those who have responded and who are working to help their friends and neighbors at this very difficult time. At my direction, FEMA is working with the affected areas' state and local officials to support response and recovery efforts, and the federal government stands ready to help our fellow Americans as needed. [White House, 5/23/11]
Obama Reportedly "Received Multiple Updates On The Tornado Damage Throughout The Course Of His Flight To Ireland." On May 23, CBS News reported that Obama "received multiple updates on the tornado damage throughout the course of his flight to Ireland, a White House official told reporters." From CBS News:
The president received multiple updates on the tornado damage throughout the course of his flight to Ireland, a White House official told reporters. He instructed his staff to keep him updated and to stay closely coordinated with state and local officials going forward.
Mr. Obama called Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon this morning "to personally extend his condolences and to express that all of the families of Joplin affected by the severe tornadoes are in his thoughts and prayers," according to White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro. "The president assured the governor that FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] will remain in close contact and coordination with state and local officials." [CBS News, 5/23/11]
Obama To Visit Missouri On May 29. From Obama's May 24 remarks on the Missouri tornadoes:
At my direction, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate and Deputy Administrator Rich Serino have traveled to Missouri to make sure our federal government is working hand in hand with state and local officials to give them the help that they need. And on Sunday, I myself will travel to Missouri to talk with folks who've been affected, to talk to local officials about our response effort and hopefully to pray with folks and give them whatever assurance and comfort I can that the entire country is going to be behind them. [White House, 5/24/11] .
FEMA Issues Timeline Of Administration's Response To Tornadoes. On May 23, FEMA released a timeline detailing the administration's response to the tornadoes:
Monday, May 23:
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calls Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to express her condolences for the lives lost and communities devastated by the storms. Secretary Napolitano offers the full support of FEMA and the federal family.
President Obama calls Governor Nixon to express that the entire administration stands behind Missouri and stands ready to support the state, as needed. President Obama announces that at his direction, FEMA Administrator Fugate will travel to Missouri to ensure the state has all the support needed as response efforts continue.
FEMA activates its Regional Response Coordination Center in Kansas City to Level II, which means that they are operating 24 hour schedule with the activation of select emergency support functions needed to support state operations.
FEMA Regional Administrator Beth Freeman traveled to Joplin, Missouri from the regional office in Kansas City to coordinate response and recovery efforts with state and local officials.
FEMA Deputy Administrator Rich Serino travels to Joplin, Missouri, where he will meet with state and local officials and tour the disaster affected area.
FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate travels to Joplin, Missouri, to meet with state and local officials and ensure they have what they need as response operations continue.
Administrator Fugate approves the addition of the two counties impacted by the tornadoes in Missouri, Jasper and Newton counties, for individual assistance and public assistance that includes debris removal and emergency protective measures, as part of a current federal disaster declaration the state received for recent storms. This means tornado survivors in those counties can begin applying for federal disaster aid, either by phone, online, or on their mobile phones. To register, survivors can call (800) 621-3362 / TTY (800) 462-7585, apply online at www.disasterassistance.gov or apply on their smartphones at m.fema.gov.
FEMA activates Emergency Support Function 3, which authorizes the federal family to provide technical advice and evaluation for debris removal to assist the state and local authorities in Missouri.
FEMA activates Emergency Support Function 10, which authorizes the federal government to provide support to the state for responding to actual or potential discharges of hazardous materials.
Sunday, May 22
A multi vortex tornado touches down in (Jasper County), Missouri. Local reports indicate 2,000 structures were destroyed, including residences, businesses, schools, apartment complexes and churches. St. John's Regional Medical Center was badly damaged and patients are being evacuated.
FEMA's regional office in Kansas City, begins constant coordination and communications with Missouri's emergency management team and local officials.
Missouri Governor Nixon declares a state of emergency for affected counties.
FEMA places personnel from the Kansas City regional office on alert and deploys staff to the Missouri Emergency Operations Center. Missouri residents are urged to continue to listen to instructions from their local leaders on protecting life and property as response efforts continue.
In anticipation of requests, FEMA deploys an Incident Management Assistance Team (IMAT) to Joplin to coordinate with state and local officials to identify needs and shortfalls impacting disaster response and recovery.
FEMA dispatches a Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) Team, including an Emergency Operations Vehicle, to Missouri to provide self-sustaining telecommunications, logistics, and operations support elements.
FEMA has commodities staged at locations throughout the state and throughout the country to supplement supplies of the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, and other voluntary agencies should their resources become depleted.
FEMA activates Emergency Support Function 8, which authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate hospital medical needs and patient evacuations, in support of the state, if necessary.
President Obama issues a statement on the tornado in Missouri and the severe storms across the Midwest, expressing condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives and directing FEMA to work with the affected areas' state and local officials to support response and recovery efforts.
Saturday, May 21:
A series of tornadoes touches down in the town of Reading, Kansas. FEMA, through its regional office in Kansas City, begins constant contact with the state's emergency management team. [FEMA, 5/23/11]
Missouri Officials Have Praised Administration's Response To Tornadoes
Missouri GOP Rep. Billy Long Praises FEMA's Efforts. Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) praised FEMA's response during the May 23 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:
LONG: FEMA has been great. The White House liaison called me first thing this morning and said -- the FEMA White House liaison said, "Whatever you need, you will have." And the FEMA's been here working, and we're just gonna fight back and help these people down here in any way possible. The governor's pledged that; the federal government has pledged that.
DAVID ASMAN (host): By the way, you mention FEMA, it doesn't involve your state, but I know that the governor of Virginia has asked for assistance from FEMA and has been denied that request. Do you know what that's about?
LONG: No, sir. I'm not apprised of that. We've got our own issues going here. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 5/23/11]
MO Governor Praises "Quick Federal Action [That] Will Help Provide The Resources To Assist Missouri Families With Their Recovery In The Tough Days Ahead." From a May 23 press release issued by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's office:
Gov. Jay Nixon today announced the Federal Emergency Management Agency has extended disaster assistance to individuals and families in Jasper and Newton counties, which bore the brunt of last night's devastating severe storms and tornadoes.
Under this declaration, individuals may be eligible for federal assistance to cover uninsured losses or expenses, such as temporary housing, home repair and replacement of household items.
"Missouri continues to respond with every available resource to the deadly storm that left so many residents in need of assistance," said Gov. Nixon. "Our priorities are search and rescue operations, providing medical care to the injured, and providing a safe environment for the affected communities. This quick federal action will help provide the resources to assist Missouri families with their recovery in the tough days ahead." [Nixon press release, 5/23/11, emphasis in the original]
Joplin Mayor: "[W]e Have Been Offered Assistance By Virtually Every Agency That Can Offer Assistance." On the May 23 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Joplin Mayor Mike Woolston stated: "The governor was in town today. And my understanding is, while he was here, he spoke with the White House, Vice President Biden. And so we have been offered assistance by virtually every agency that can offer assistance." From Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: What's the greatest need? And what's top of your priority right now?
WOOLSTON: Just carrying on our search-and-rescue functions. We have had about 40 agencies come in to help us, well over 400 people. That would -- those numbers are from early this morning.
We have got SEMA folks, FEMA folks in. The governor was in town today. And my understanding is, while he was here, he spoke with the White house, Vice President Biden. And so we have been offered assistance by virtually every agency that can offer assistance.
COOPER: The outpouring of people coming in to try to help is remarkable. And in a lot of neighborhoods, you already see that crews have been through there efficiently putting with -- putting X's on if nothing was found. [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 5/23/11]
Right-Wing Media Have Repeatedly Launched Unhinged Attacks On Obama For Golfing Amid Current Events
Hoft Attacked Obama For Golfing "After 45 Americans Are Killed In Tornadoes." In an April 17 post, Hoft attacked Obama for going golfing "after 45 Americans are killed in tornadoes." [Gateway Pundit, 4/17/11]
Fox & Friends Attacked Obama For Golfing After Japan Earthquake. On March 14, Fox & Friends attacked Obama for golfing after the Japan earthquake. During the segment, Fox News contributor Dana Perino stated that it "probably would be better" if aides told Obama to "[play] indoor basketball." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/14/11]
Limbaugh: Obama Is "A Gutless Wonder" Who "Was Playing Golf" When U.S. Went Into Libya. On the March 29 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated: "While we were actually going to war, where was Obama? Not last night, but nine days ago, 10 days ago. Where was he? He was playing golf. He was vacationing in Rio. He was doing everything he could to distance himself from what was going on Libya, just in case anything went terribly wrong." Limbaugh later called Obama a "gutless wonder." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/19/11]
Crowley Claimed Obama "Should Not Be Playing Golf When Men And Women In Uniform Are Still Getting Killed." On the October 27, 2009, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley stated that Obama "should not be playing golf when men and women in uniform are still getting killed in Afghanistan." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/27/09]
Right-Wing Attacked Obama For Supposedly Not Focusing On Crises In Japan And Libya
Right-Wing Media Were Aghast Obama Can Focus On More Than One Issue At A Time. In March, right-wing media attacked Obama for supposedly not focusing on crises in Japan and Libya by instead honoring women's history month, going golfing, and filling out NCAA tournament brackets. Yet, Obama had engaged on both issues by making numerous public addresses and ordering humanitarian relief efforts in Japan and the Middle East. [Media Matters, 3/16/11]
Media Have Also Repeatedly Tried To Label Various Crises As "Obama's Katrina"
Numerous Media Figures Dubbed Gulf Oil Spill "Obama's Katrina." Right-wing media, including Rush Limbaugh, the Fox Nation, the Drudge Report, and The Washington Times pushed the absurd claim that the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was "Obama's Katrina." This claim was undermined by a number of facts, including that BP reportedly led the Obama administration to believe that the spill was much less severe than it actually was. [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
Numerous Media Figures Suggested The H1N1 Flu Was "Obama's Katrina." On his November 3, 2009, radio show, Limbaugh stated that the H1N1 vaccine shortage "ought to be Obama's Katrina," but won't because "they have to protect the little man-child." An August 25, 2009, op-ed by Martin Schram for the Scripps-Howard News Service was headlined, "Schram: Swine flu could be Obama's Katrina." Kansas City Star blogger Bill Dalton wrote an October 15, 2009, post under the headline, "H1N1: Obama's Katrina?" On the May 3, 2009, edition of Washington, D.C., television station WJLA's Inside Washington, host Gordon Peterson and Newsweek's Evan Thomas discussed whether the H1N1 flu was "Obama's Katrina." [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
Human Events' Wooley: "Fort Hood Could Be Obama's Katrina." In a November 11, 2009, Human Events post titled "Fort Hood Could Be Obama's Katrina," radio host Lynn Wooley wrote: "As Hurricane Katrina zeroed in on New Orleans in 2005, government at all levels was lethargic, seemed unprepared, and to some, even uncaring. In the wake of last week's massacre at Fort Hood, we are learning that the United States Army knew quite a bit about Major Nadal Malik Hasan -- but did not act on the information. Fort Hood could become Barack Obama's Katrina." Wooley concluded: "The attitude of our Commander-in-Chief and others sworn to protect us is frighteningly reminiscent of what happened with Katrina. All we need from Obama is a hearty, 'Gen. Casey, you're doing a heck of a job.' " [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
WSJ Op-Ed On Haiti Earthquake: "Haiti: Obama's Katrina." In a January 25, 2010, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled, "Haiti: Obama's Katrina," Soumitra R. Eachempati, Dean Lorich, and David Helfet wrote: "Four years ago the initial medical response to Hurricane Katrina was ill equipped, understaffed, poorly coordinated and delayed. Criticism of the paltry federal efforts was immediate and fierce. Unfortunately, the response to the latest international disaster in Haiti has been no better, compounding the catastrophe." [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
Pajamas Media: "Is The Undiebomber Obama's Katrina?" A December 29, 2009, Pajamas Media blog post titled, "Is the Undiebomber Obama's Katrina?" asserted: "No doubt, Obama's poll numbers aren't going to be helped by this Jan-caused disaster. But I doubt if the fallout they'll face will be as severe as what the Bush administration went through due to Katrina, simply because the media will never gin up a news storm against the man they helped to elect that's anywhere near as powerful as the one they created to accompany Katrina." [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
Right-Wing Media Predictably Attack Obama For Going To Europe After Tornadoes
Right-wing media have attacked President Obama for traveling to Europe following the tornadoes in Missouri. However, the administration's response to the tornadoes has continued during Obama's trip to Europe, and Missouri officials have praised the administration's response. This follows a long history of right-wing media attacking Obama for focusing on more than one issue at a time during crises and trying to label various crises "Obama's Katrina."
Right-Wing Media Attack Obama For Going To Europe After Tornadoes
Fox's Bolling: "Obama Chugging 40's In IRE While Tornadoes Ravage MO." In a May 23 Twitter post, Fox Business host Eric Bolling accused Obama of "Chugging 40's in IRE while tornadoes ravage MO":
Linking Tornadoes To Hurricane Katrina, Doocy And Ingraham Complain About Lack Of Criticism Of Obama's Ireland Trip After Tornadoes. On the May 24 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham stated that, while she didn't "want to make too much of this," she wondered "what would the liberal press be saying if this were President Bush -- we had, let's say, another flood in New Orleans, you had people suffering, you had people dead, and yet President Bush was going over to Scotland or Ireland?" Co-host Steve Doocy responded by saying, "Are you talking about that crazy double standard thing in this country?" From Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: As we take a look at the president over in the U.K., we understand that he's not cutting his trip to Europe short. He will, however, at the conclusion of the visit to Europe, go back to Joplin, Missouri, to survey the damage.
INGRAHAM: Look, I don't want to make too much of this, because, look, presidents have to do a lot of things, right? They have to juggle a lot of balls. And, you know, the G-8 part of this trip was very important. I also, though, like to think of what would the liberal press be saying if this were President Bush -- we had, let's say, another flood in New Orleans, you had people suffering, you had people dead, and yet President Bush was going over to Scotland or Ireland?
DOOCY: Are you talking about that crazy double standard thing in this country?
INGRAHAM: Yeah, well, I think of that. And I do think of the disconnect and maybe the tone-deafness, if you will, of that devastation from Missouri -- heartbreaking pictures. And then President Obama lifting the glass of Guinness.
DOOCY: Bottoms up.
INGRAHAM: There is something about that that I think hits people in the gut -- and again, I'm not trying to make too much of it, but I think the Irish probably would have understood if the president delayed his trip a day or two. I think that would have been a really nice thing to do. But again, he has to do a lot of things, I understand that. But maybe the Irish part of the trip could have been put off to another day. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/24/11]
Ingraham: "If President Bush Was Drinking Pints In Ireland After A Natural Disaster, Do You Think The Mainstream Media Would Be So Silent?" From a May 24 Twitter post by Ingraham:
Hoft Attacks White House For Releasing Photo Of Obama Speaking By Phone From Ireland With MO Governor. In a May 23 blog post, Jim Hoft criticized the White House for releasing a photo of Obama speaking by phone with Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon while in Ireland. Hoft wrote: "The White House wanted to make sure you knew that Obama was on top of the disaster in Missouri. Michelle and Barack are going to a concert tonight in Dublin. They sure wouldn't want to show you what was really going on in Ireland." [Gateway Pundit, 5/23/11]
Administration Has Responded To Tornadoes While President Has Been In Europe
Obama Directed FEMA To Declare Jasper And Newton Counties In Missouri Disaster Areas. From a May 23 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) press release:
At the direction of President Obama, FEMA this morning added the two Missouri counties impacted by tornadoes, Jasper and Newton, to an ongoing disaster declaration the state received for recent storms, which means that tornado survivors in those counties can now apply for disaster assistance with FEMA.
FEMA has already deployed staff on the ground in Missouri to help state officials with coordination and other needs as they continue their response. Earlier this morning, President Obama and Secretary Napolitano both called Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to express that all of the families of Joplin affected by the severe tornadoes are in their thoughts and prayers and reiterate this administration's commitment to assisting the state and Missouri residents. [FEMA, 5/23/11]
Obama Issued Statement On May 23. In a May 23 statement, Obama expressed his "deepest condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in the tornadoes and severe weather that struck Joplin, Missouri as well as communities across the Midwest today":
Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives in the tornadoes and severe weather that struck Joplin, Missouri as well as communities across the Midwest today. We commend the heroic efforts by those who have responded and who are working to help their friends and neighbors at this very difficult time. At my direction, FEMA is working with the affected areas' state and local officials to support response and recovery efforts, and the federal government stands ready to help our fellow Americans as needed. [White House, 5/23/11]
Obama Reportedly "Received Multiple Updates On The Tornado Damage Throughout The Course Of His Flight To Ireland." On May 23, CBS News reported that Obama "received multiple updates on the tornado damage throughout the course of his flight to Ireland, a White House official told reporters." From CBS News:
The president received multiple updates on the tornado damage throughout the course of his flight to Ireland, a White House official told reporters. He instructed his staff to keep him updated and to stay closely coordinated with state and local officials going forward.
Mr. Obama called Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon this morning "to personally extend his condolences and to express that all of the families of Joplin affected by the severe tornadoes are in his thoughts and prayers," according to White House spokesman Nicholas Shapiro. "The president assured the governor that FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] will remain in close contact and coordination with state and local officials." [CBS News, 5/23/11]
Obama To Visit Missouri On May 29. From Obama's May 24 remarks on the Missouri tornadoes:
At my direction, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate and Deputy Administrator Rich Serino have traveled to Missouri to make sure our federal government is working hand in hand with state and local officials to give them the help that they need. And on Sunday, I myself will travel to Missouri to talk with folks who've been affected, to talk to local officials about our response effort and hopefully to pray with folks and give them whatever assurance and comfort I can that the entire country is going to be behind them. [White House, 5/24/11] .
FEMA Issues Timeline Of Administration's Response To Tornadoes. On May 23, FEMA released a timeline detailing the administration's response to the tornadoes:
Monday, May 23:
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calls Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to express her condolences for the lives lost and communities devastated by the storms. Secretary Napolitano offers the full support of FEMA and the federal family.
President Obama calls Governor Nixon to express that the entire administration stands behind Missouri and stands ready to support the state, as needed. President Obama announces that at his direction, FEMA Administrator Fugate will travel to Missouri to ensure the state has all the support needed as response efforts continue.
FEMA activates its Regional Response Coordination Center in Kansas City to Level II, which means that they are operating 24 hour schedule with the activation of select emergency support functions needed to support state operations.
FEMA Regional Administrator Beth Freeman traveled to Joplin, Missouri from the regional office in Kansas City to coordinate response and recovery efforts with state and local officials.
FEMA Deputy Administrator Rich Serino travels to Joplin, Missouri, where he will meet with state and local officials and tour the disaster affected area.
FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate travels to Joplin, Missouri, to meet with state and local officials and ensure they have what they need as response operations continue.
Administrator Fugate approves the addition of the two counties impacted by the tornadoes in Missouri, Jasper and Newton counties, for individual assistance and public assistance that includes debris removal and emergency protective measures, as part of a current federal disaster declaration the state received for recent storms. This means tornado survivors in those counties can begin applying for federal disaster aid, either by phone, online, or on their mobile phones. To register, survivors can call (800) 621-3362 / TTY (800) 462-7585, apply online at www.disasterassistance.gov or apply on their smartphones at m.fema.gov.
FEMA activates Emergency Support Function 3, which authorizes the federal family to provide technical advice and evaluation for debris removal to assist the state and local authorities in Missouri.
FEMA activates Emergency Support Function 10, which authorizes the federal government to provide support to the state for responding to actual or potential discharges of hazardous materials.
Sunday, May 22
A multi vortex tornado touches down in (Jasper County), Missouri. Local reports indicate 2,000 structures were destroyed, including residences, businesses, schools, apartment complexes and churches. St. John's Regional Medical Center was badly damaged and patients are being evacuated.
FEMA's regional office in Kansas City, begins constant coordination and communications with Missouri's emergency management team and local officials.
Missouri Governor Nixon declares a state of emergency for affected counties.
FEMA places personnel from the Kansas City regional office on alert and deploys staff to the Missouri Emergency Operations Center. Missouri residents are urged to continue to listen to instructions from their local leaders on protecting life and property as response efforts continue.
In anticipation of requests, FEMA deploys an Incident Management Assistance Team (IMAT) to Joplin to coordinate with state and local officials to identify needs and shortfalls impacting disaster response and recovery.
FEMA dispatches a Mobile Emergency Response Support (MERS) Team, including an Emergency Operations Vehicle, to Missouri to provide self-sustaining telecommunications, logistics, and operations support elements.
FEMA has commodities staged at locations throughout the state and throughout the country to supplement supplies of the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, and other voluntary agencies should their resources become depleted.
FEMA activates Emergency Support Function 8, which authorizes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to coordinate hospital medical needs and patient evacuations, in support of the state, if necessary.
President Obama issues a statement on the tornado in Missouri and the severe storms across the Midwest, expressing condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives and directing FEMA to work with the affected areas' state and local officials to support response and recovery efforts.
Saturday, May 21:
A series of tornadoes touches down in the town of Reading, Kansas. FEMA, through its regional office in Kansas City, begins constant contact with the state's emergency management team. [FEMA, 5/23/11]
Missouri Officials Have Praised Administration's Response To Tornadoes
Missouri GOP Rep. Billy Long Praises FEMA's Efforts. Rep. Billy Long (R-MO) praised FEMA's response during the May 23 edition of Fox Business' America's Nightly Scoreboard:
LONG: FEMA has been great. The White House liaison called me first thing this morning and said -- the FEMA White House liaison said, "Whatever you need, you will have." And the FEMA's been here working, and we're just gonna fight back and help these people down here in any way possible. The governor's pledged that; the federal government has pledged that.
DAVID ASMAN (host): By the way, you mention FEMA, it doesn't involve your state, but I know that the governor of Virginia has asked for assistance from FEMA and has been denied that request. Do you know what that's about?
LONG: No, sir. I'm not apprised of that. We've got our own issues going here. [Fox Business, America's Nightly Scoreboard, 5/23/11]
MO Governor Praises "Quick Federal Action [That] Will Help Provide The Resources To Assist Missouri Families With Their Recovery In The Tough Days Ahead." From a May 23 press release issued by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's office:
Gov. Jay Nixon today announced the Federal Emergency Management Agency has extended disaster assistance to individuals and families in Jasper and Newton counties, which bore the brunt of last night's devastating severe storms and tornadoes.
Under this declaration, individuals may be eligible for federal assistance to cover uninsured losses or expenses, such as temporary housing, home repair and replacement of household items.
"Missouri continues to respond with every available resource to the deadly storm that left so many residents in need of assistance," said Gov. Nixon. "Our priorities are search and rescue operations, providing medical care to the injured, and providing a safe environment for the affected communities. This quick federal action will help provide the resources to assist Missouri families with their recovery in the tough days ahead." [Nixon press release, 5/23/11, emphasis in the original]
Joplin Mayor: "[W]e Have Been Offered Assistance By Virtually Every Agency That Can Offer Assistance." On the May 23 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Joplin Mayor Mike Woolston stated: "The governor was in town today. And my understanding is, while he was here, he spoke with the White House, Vice President Biden. And so we have been offered assistance by virtually every agency that can offer assistance." From Anderson Cooper 360:
COOPER: What's the greatest need? And what's top of your priority right now?
WOOLSTON: Just carrying on our search-and-rescue functions. We have had about 40 agencies come in to help us, well over 400 people. That would -- those numbers are from early this morning.
We have got SEMA folks, FEMA folks in. The governor was in town today. And my understanding is, while he was here, he spoke with the White house, Vice President Biden. And so we have been offered assistance by virtually every agency that can offer assistance.
COOPER: The outpouring of people coming in to try to help is remarkable. And in a lot of neighborhoods, you already see that crews have been through there efficiently putting with -- putting X's on if nothing was found. [CNN, Anderson Cooper 360, 5/23/11]
Right-Wing Media Have Repeatedly Launched Unhinged Attacks On Obama For Golfing Amid Current Events
Hoft Attacked Obama For Golfing "After 45 Americans Are Killed In Tornadoes." In an April 17 post, Hoft attacked Obama for going golfing "after 45 Americans are killed in tornadoes." [Gateway Pundit, 4/17/11]
Fox & Friends Attacked Obama For Golfing After Japan Earthquake. On March 14, Fox & Friends attacked Obama for golfing after the Japan earthquake. During the segment, Fox News contributor Dana Perino stated that it "probably would be better" if aides told Obama to "[play] indoor basketball." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/14/11]
Limbaugh: Obama Is "A Gutless Wonder" Who "Was Playing Golf" When U.S. Went Into Libya. On the March 29 edition of his radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated: "While we were actually going to war, where was Obama? Not last night, but nine days ago, 10 days ago. Where was he? He was playing golf. He was vacationing in Rio. He was doing everything he could to distance himself from what was going on Libya, just in case anything went terribly wrong." Limbaugh later called Obama a "gutless wonder." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 3/19/11]
Crowley Claimed Obama "Should Not Be Playing Golf When Men And Women In Uniform Are Still Getting Killed." On the October 27, 2009, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Monica Crowley stated that Obama "should not be playing golf when men and women in uniform are still getting killed in Afghanistan." [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 10/27/09]
Right-Wing Attacked Obama For Supposedly Not Focusing On Crises In Japan And Libya
Right-Wing Media Were Aghast Obama Can Focus On More Than One Issue At A Time. In March, right-wing media attacked Obama for supposedly not focusing on crises in Japan and Libya by instead honoring women's history month, going golfing, and filling out NCAA tournament brackets. Yet, Obama had engaged on both issues by making numerous public addresses and ordering humanitarian relief efforts in Japan and the Middle East. [Media Matters, 3/16/11]
Media Have Also Repeatedly Tried To Label Various Crises As "Obama's Katrina"
Numerous Media Figures Dubbed Gulf Oil Spill "Obama's Katrina." Right-wing media, including Rush Limbaugh, the Fox Nation, the Drudge Report, and The Washington Times pushed the absurd claim that the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was "Obama's Katrina." This claim was undermined by a number of facts, including that BP reportedly led the Obama administration to believe that the spill was much less severe than it actually was. [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
Numerous Media Figures Suggested The H1N1 Flu Was "Obama's Katrina." On his November 3, 2009, radio show, Limbaugh stated that the H1N1 vaccine shortage "ought to be Obama's Katrina," but won't because "they have to protect the little man-child." An August 25, 2009, op-ed by Martin Schram for the Scripps-Howard News Service was headlined, "Schram: Swine flu could be Obama's Katrina." Kansas City Star blogger Bill Dalton wrote an October 15, 2009, post under the headline, "H1N1: Obama's Katrina?" On the May 3, 2009, edition of Washington, D.C., television station WJLA's Inside Washington, host Gordon Peterson and Newsweek's Evan Thomas discussed whether the H1N1 flu was "Obama's Katrina." [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
Human Events' Wooley: "Fort Hood Could Be Obama's Katrina." In a November 11, 2009, Human Events post titled "Fort Hood Could Be Obama's Katrina," radio host Lynn Wooley wrote: "As Hurricane Katrina zeroed in on New Orleans in 2005, government at all levels was lethargic, seemed unprepared, and to some, even uncaring. In the wake of last week's massacre at Fort Hood, we are learning that the United States Army knew quite a bit about Major Nadal Malik Hasan -- but did not act on the information. Fort Hood could become Barack Obama's Katrina." Wooley concluded: "The attitude of our Commander-in-Chief and others sworn to protect us is frighteningly reminiscent of what happened with Katrina. All we need from Obama is a hearty, 'Gen. Casey, you're doing a heck of a job.' " [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
WSJ Op-Ed On Haiti Earthquake: "Haiti: Obama's Katrina." In a January 25, 2010, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled, "Haiti: Obama's Katrina," Soumitra R. Eachempati, Dean Lorich, and David Helfet wrote: "Four years ago the initial medical response to Hurricane Katrina was ill equipped, understaffed, poorly coordinated and delayed. Criticism of the paltry federal efforts was immediate and fierce. Unfortunately, the response to the latest international disaster in Haiti has been no better, compounding the catastrophe." [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
Pajamas Media: "Is The Undiebomber Obama's Katrina?" A December 29, 2009, Pajamas Media blog post titled, "Is the Undiebomber Obama's Katrina?" asserted: "No doubt, Obama's poll numbers aren't going to be helped by this Jan-caused disaster. But I doubt if the fallout they'll face will be as severe as what the Bush administration went through due to Katrina, simply because the media will never gin up a news storm against the man they helped to elect that's anywhere near as powerful as the one they created to accompany Katrina." [Media Matters, 4/30/10]
More Right-Wing Lunatic Lies About President Obama
From Media Matters for America -- May 24, 2011:
Ailes And Beck Agree On Lunatic "Civilian National Security Force" Conspiracy Theory
As Media Matters has documented, Glenn Beck has repeatedly pushed the lunatic theory that, based on a 2008 campaign speech by President Obama calling for a "civilian national security force," Obama wants to create "his own army." It now turns out that Beck's current boss at Fox News, Roger Ailes, has reportedly pushed a similar theory, claiming that Obama proposed a "national police force."
In 2008, Obama Called For Expansion Of AmeriCorps And Other Programs
In Speech Calling For Expansion Of AmeriCorps, Foreign Service, And Other Programs, Obama Said Our "Civilian National Security Force" Must Be As Powerful As The Military. From a July 2, 2008, speech by Obama in Colorado Springs, Colorado:
Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.
And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.
So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. [YouTube, 7/2/08]
Roger Ailes Was Reportedly Concerned That Obama's Speech Meant He "Wanted To Create A National Police Force"
New York Magazine: Ailes "Was Concerned That Obama Wanted To Create A National Police Force." In a profile published by New York magazine on Ailes, the president of Fox News, author Gabriel Sherman reported that Ailes told Obama aide David Axelrod that he was "concerned that Obama wanted to create a national police force." From New York magazine:
For Fox, the war with the White House only stoked ratings. A Fox executive told Clemente that the White House's attacks were like "a hanging curveball" for Fox.
While Dunn and others publicly engaged Fox, David Axelrod worked back- channel diplomacy as the good cop. About a week before Dunn's CNN appearance, Axelrod secretly sat down with Ailes at the Palm in midtown. They met before the restaurant opened to avoid drawing attention. Axelrod told Ailes they should try to defuse things and work together.
Going back to the 2008 campaign, Axelrod had maintained an off-the- record dialogue with Ailes. He had faced off against Ailes in a U.S. Senate campaign in the early eighties and respected him as a fellow political warrior and shaper of narrative. But early on, Axelrod learned he couldn't change Ailes's outlook on Obama. In one meeting in 2008, Ailes told Axelrod that he was concerned that Obama wanted to create a national police force.
"You can't be serious," Axelrod replied. "What makes you think that?"
Ailes responded by e-mailing Axelrod a YouTube clip from a campaign speech Obama had given on national service, in which he called for the creation of a new civilian corps to work alongside the military on projects overseas.
Later, Axelrod related in a conversation that the exchange was the moment he realized Ailes truly believed what he was broadcasting. [New York magazine, 5/22/11]
Glenn Beck Repeatedly Pushed A Similar Myth, Claiming Obama Wanted To Create His "Own Army"
In September 2008, Beck Claimed Obama "Has Already Deployed An Army Of 2,200 Community Organizers." On September 5, 2008, Beck said:
BECK: This from Investors Business Daily: Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. You go to the website, Public Allies, and you are going to see that it's just a community organizer. That's all this is, just community organization. Barack Obama, founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. His wife became the executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Got it? Obama plans to use the nonprofit group which he features on his campaign website as the model for a national service corps.
We've heard about this national service corps, haven't we? Universal voluntary public service. When Michelle Obama said he'll never allow you to sit idly by again, he will never allow you to be unengaged. What does that mean? Universal voluntary public service, a national service corps. Quoting from the story: Our alumni from Public Allies are more than twice as likely as 18 34 year olds to engage in protest activities. Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "Justice and equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. Cincinnati recruit Amy Vinson said, "I get to practice being an activist and I get paid for it." The Obamas' plan is to herd American youth into government funded reeducation camps where they will be brainwashed into thinking that America is a racist, oppressive place in need of social change. The pitch Public Allies makes on its website doesn't seem that radical. It promises to place young adults 18 30 in a paid one year community leadership position with nonprofit or government agencies. They will also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
[...]
A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capital quoting of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege, end quote. By the way, your tax dollars now fund about half of Public Allies' expenses, through Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it to a national program some say will cost $500 billion.
Obama said, quote: We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the military. Public Allies, Chicago chapter. Founding, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama. Listen to the words in their speeches. It is all code language. It is all the language of the 1960s radicals. They have their they have their tentacles into an organization that does good things but also teaches that heterosexism is a byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege. Heterosexism! [GlennBeck.com, 9/5/08]
In July 2009, Beck Claimed Obama "Wants To Create A Civilian Army" Of "Community Organizers" "More Well-Funded Than The Military." During the July 27, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated:
BECK: Obama handles every issue like a community organizer would, and he wants to create a civilian army. Anybody remember this from the campaign? A civilian army in the form of community organizers more well -- I'm quoting him "more well-funded than the military." Last year he said, and I quote, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded." You got to be kidding me. If you want a government-funded civilian army of ACORNs, well you are going to be a happy camper very soon if America keeps sleeping. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 7/27/09, via Media Matters]
In August 2009, Beck Suggested A "Civilian National Security Force" Would Be Part Of Obama's "Thugocracy." During the August 27, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck claimed that Obama was creating a "civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful as the military." From Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: I believe, just so you know going in, that this is probably the most controversial show of the week, because you must understand the last three episodes of the show to be able to see and come to a place to where you can believe that these crazy things may actually be happening. I want you to know. I hope these things are not happening. I hope that there is some other explanation. But I needed you to see who is advising the president earlier this week and what they're doing and who they are before I could ask you to look at this phrase from Barack Obama and think that the president of the United States literally means this.
OBAMA [video clip]: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
[...]
BECK: I can't make this piece of the puzzle fit unless this piece is about building some kind of thugocracy. All week we have been asking tough questions. Tonight, I would just love to hear the answers for these questions and here are some: Mr. President why do we need a civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful as the military? Here's why I ask that question. Who are we fighting exactly? Who internally is threatening our security? It's clearly -- I've tried to piece this together, I've tried to come up with an answer, and please America, if I'm missing it please let me know.
It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border. Nobody in the government, this administration or the last, has a problem with what's going on in the border. And anyone who would say that there has been a problem has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called the Minute Men. And the attitude from this administration as well as the Bush administration was that they were vigilantes. So it's not for the border.
It can't be a national civilian -- a national security force against Islamic extremists. I say this honestly, because according to this administration, we're not even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration expecting us to believe that they're going to ask of the American people to profile and call in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So who are the enemies? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 8/27/09, via Media Matters]
In August 2009, Beck Said Obama's "National Security Force" Is "What Hitler Did With The SS." During the August 27, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck claimed that Obama was trying to create a "national security force" like "Hitler did with the SS." From Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Who is the enemy that we need a national security force inside? Who is the enemy? Can you come up with anybody?
DAVID BELLAVIA (vice chairman, Vets for Freedom): You. I really don't know, Glenn. You know what it comes down to though, and I want to make this comparison. I am not comparing my president to Saddam Hussein or to Hitler or anything else. I want your audience to understand something from a military point of view. When Saddam Hussein lost confidence in his army in '91, when they capitulated, when they quit, when they stopped following his orders, he created and he supported, re-supported what was called a Fedayeen -- a group of loyalists who weren't loyal to the country or the flag. They were loyal to the office of president and to the man who held that office. And what we're seeing now is a complete disconnect to the warrior class in America, to the military, and to the left. They never had a common denominator. They never had a way to understand us. So you know what? We don't need you.
If we have to enforce, let's say, I don't know, polling laws, we want to keep polling intimidation down in 2012, we'll send in our Civilian Corps. If we want to make sure the census is run correctly and the right people are counted, we'll bring in our Civilian Corps. If we want to, I don't know, take away the arms of radical militias in South Texas, bring these guys in. This is scary stuff.
BECK: But I mean, I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to because this is -- I mean look. You know, David what you just said is, you said "I'm not comparing," but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so, you are comparing that, and I mean, I think America would have a hard time getting their arms around that. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 8/27/09, via Media Matters]
In April 2010, Beck Revised His "Civilian Army" Theory: "It's Called The Unions." During the April 12, 2010, edition of his radio show, Beck claimed: "People say: 'Oh, Barack Obama's building a civilian defense force, a civilian army.' He has one. It's called the unions. The unions are his enforcers." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 4/12/10, via Media Matters]
In October 2010, Beck Stated That Hugo Chavez's "Idea" Of A "Civilian Militia" Is An Idea "From This [U.S.] President." During the October 4, 2010, edition of his radio show, Beck stated:
BECK: After the next election, I think your radicals on the left are going to gear up. Remember, what they do best is hurt people that are in power, cause tension, stir it up, antagonize, get into the streets. They're not good at ruling. They're good at causing trouble. Well that's what -- now it's time for that. And if you think that's crazy let me just tell you that Chavez has vowed to radicalize after the election. His election, they've just lost of -- he lost a lot of power and a lot of seats, and so he said, "Fine, we're going to turn up the heat." And they've gone more radical. I believe that's what's going to happen here. Chavez says there is a new civilian militia, a new civilian army that should be armed full-time. Well, I think I've heard that from the president of the United States -- that very idea from this president before the last election. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 10/4/10, via Media Matters]
In May 2011, Beck Offered Up "Civilian Defense Force" Theory As Evidence That Obama Hates The Police. From the May 11 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
STU BURGUIERE (producer): You know, there are some people who would say this is just stupid, it's stupid. But there's some people who say of all the stuff we talk about with the administration, and you know, sometimes you can't figure out Barack Obama, but rarely does he seem to do anything that would make you believe the opposite of that he really sees cops in the negative light. He really sees them --
BECK: Only when they act stupidly.
BURGUIERE: No, I --
PAT GRAY (co-host): What racist hater would say something like that, Stu?
BURGUIERE: Some people. We're getting calls from tea party members who are pointing out
GRAY: Oh no, hang right on up on those people.
BURGUIERE: that of all the things you say about this administration--
GRAY: Hang up on them.
BURGUIERE: man that one seems really to the core. That one seems really to the core. It seems like he's very consistent on coming out on the strange side of cop issues. Some tea party members are saying it.
BECK: They are the oppressors. They're the oppressors.
BURGUIERE: Exactly.
BECK: They're the oppressors, the cops. You know what we need?
BURGUIERE: What's that?
BECK: Is we need a civilian defense force that is just as well-funded. That's not my words. I'm not saying that. I wouldn't want that. You know? But if you think that the cops are all out of control.
GRAY: Then maybe --
OBAMA [video clip]: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
GRAY: Maybe Common could head that civilian force up.
BECK: No, I believe that will be headed up by Van Jones.
[
Ailes And Beck Agree On Lunatic "Civilian National Security Force" Conspiracy Theory
As Media Matters has documented, Glenn Beck has repeatedly pushed the lunatic theory that, based on a 2008 campaign speech by President Obama calling for a "civilian national security force," Obama wants to create "his own army." It now turns out that Beck's current boss at Fox News, Roger Ailes, has reportedly pushed a similar theory, claiming that Obama proposed a "national police force."
In 2008, Obama Called For Expansion Of AmeriCorps And Other Programs
In Speech Calling For Expansion Of AmeriCorps, Foreign Service, And Other Programs, Obama Said Our "Civilian National Security Force" Must Be As Powerful As The Military. From a July 2, 2008, speech by Obama in Colorado Springs, Colorado:
Today, AmeriCorps -- our nation's network of local, state, and national service programs -- has 75,000 slots. And I know firsthand the quality of these programs. My wife, Michelle, once left her job at a law firm and at City Hall to be a founding director of an AmeriCorps program in Chicago that trains young people for careers in public service. And these programs invest Americans in their communities and their country. They tap America's greatest resource -- our citizens.
And that's why as president, I will expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and make that increased service a vehicle to meet national goals like providing health care and education, saving our planet and restoring our standing in the world, so that citizens see their efforts connected to a common purpose. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve. Because when it comes to the challenges we face, the American people are not the problem -- they are the answer.
So we are going to send -- we're going to send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people. We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods all across the country. We will enlist our veterans to find jobs and support for other vets, and to be there for our military families. And we're going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.
We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. [YouTube, 7/2/08]
Roger Ailes Was Reportedly Concerned That Obama's Speech Meant He "Wanted To Create A National Police Force"
New York Magazine: Ailes "Was Concerned That Obama Wanted To Create A National Police Force." In a profile published by New York magazine on Ailes, the president of Fox News, author Gabriel Sherman reported that Ailes told Obama aide David Axelrod that he was "concerned that Obama wanted to create a national police force." From New York magazine:
For Fox, the war with the White House only stoked ratings. A Fox executive told Clemente that the White House's attacks were like "a hanging curveball" for Fox.
While Dunn and others publicly engaged Fox, David Axelrod worked back- channel diplomacy as the good cop. About a week before Dunn's CNN appearance, Axelrod secretly sat down with Ailes at the Palm in midtown. They met before the restaurant opened to avoid drawing attention. Axelrod told Ailes they should try to defuse things and work together.
Going back to the 2008 campaign, Axelrod had maintained an off-the- record dialogue with Ailes. He had faced off against Ailes in a U.S. Senate campaign in the early eighties and respected him as a fellow political warrior and shaper of narrative. But early on, Axelrod learned he couldn't change Ailes's outlook on Obama. In one meeting in 2008, Ailes told Axelrod that he was concerned that Obama wanted to create a national police force.
"You can't be serious," Axelrod replied. "What makes you think that?"
Ailes responded by e-mailing Axelrod a YouTube clip from a campaign speech Obama had given on national service, in which he called for the creation of a new civilian corps to work alongside the military on projects overseas.
Later, Axelrod related in a conversation that the exchange was the moment he realized Ailes truly believed what he was broadcasting. [New York magazine, 5/22/11]
Glenn Beck Repeatedly Pushed A Similar Myth, Claiming Obama Wanted To Create His "Own Army"
In September 2008, Beck Claimed Obama "Has Already Deployed An Army Of 2,200 Community Organizers." On September 5, 2008, Beck said:
BECK: This from Investors Business Daily: Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. You go to the website, Public Allies, and you are going to see that it's just a community organizer. That's all this is, just community organization. Barack Obama, founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992. His wife became the executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Got it? Obama plans to use the nonprofit group which he features on his campaign website as the model for a national service corps.
We've heard about this national service corps, haven't we? Universal voluntary public service. When Michelle Obama said he'll never allow you to sit idly by again, he will never allow you to be unengaged. What does that mean? Universal voluntary public service, a national service corps. Quoting from the story: Our alumni from Public Allies are more than twice as likely as 18 34 year olds to engage in protest activities. Public Allies boasts in a document found with its tax filings. It has already deployed an army of 2,200 community organizers like Obama to agitate for "Justice and equality" in his hometown of Chicago and other U.S. cities including Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Washington. Cincinnati recruit Amy Vinson said, "I get to practice being an activist and I get paid for it." The Obamas' plan is to herd American youth into government funded reeducation camps where they will be brainwashed into thinking that America is a racist, oppressive place in need of social change. The pitch Public Allies makes on its website doesn't seem that radical. It promises to place young adults 18 30 in a paid one year community leadership position with nonprofit or government agencies. They will also be required to attend weekly training workshops and three retreats.
[...]
A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capital quoting of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege, end quote. By the way, your tax dollars now fund about half of Public Allies' expenses, through Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it to a national program some say will cost $500 billion.
Obama said, quote: We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the military. Public Allies, Chicago chapter. Founding, founding member, Barack Obama. Executive director, Michelle Obama. Listen to the words in their speeches. It is all code language. It is all the language of the 1960s radicals. They have their they have their tentacles into an organization that does good things but also teaches that heterosexism is a byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege. Heterosexism! [GlennBeck.com, 9/5/08]
In July 2009, Beck Claimed Obama "Wants To Create A Civilian Army" Of "Community Organizers" "More Well-Funded Than The Military." During the July 27, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated:
BECK: Obama handles every issue like a community organizer would, and he wants to create a civilian army. Anybody remember this from the campaign? A civilian army in the form of community organizers more well -- I'm quoting him "more well-funded than the military." Last year he said, and I quote, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well-funded." You got to be kidding me. If you want a government-funded civilian army of ACORNs, well you are going to be a happy camper very soon if America keeps sleeping. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 7/27/09, via Media Matters]
In August 2009, Beck Suggested A "Civilian National Security Force" Would Be Part Of Obama's "Thugocracy." During the August 27, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck claimed that Obama was creating a "civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful as the military." From Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: I believe, just so you know going in, that this is probably the most controversial show of the week, because you must understand the last three episodes of the show to be able to see and come to a place to where you can believe that these crazy things may actually be happening. I want you to know. I hope these things are not happening. I hope that there is some other explanation. But I needed you to see who is advising the president earlier this week and what they're doing and who they are before I could ask you to look at this phrase from Barack Obama and think that the president of the United States literally means this.
OBAMA [video clip]: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
[...]
BECK: I can't make this piece of the puzzle fit unless this piece is about building some kind of thugocracy. All week we have been asking tough questions. Tonight, I would just love to hear the answers for these questions and here are some: Mr. President why do we need a civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful as the military? Here's why I ask that question. Who are we fighting exactly? Who internally is threatening our security? It's clearly -- I've tried to piece this together, I've tried to come up with an answer, and please America, if I'm missing it please let me know.
It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border. Nobody in the government, this administration or the last, has a problem with what's going on in the border. And anyone who would say that there has been a problem has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called the Minute Men. And the attitude from this administration as well as the Bush administration was that they were vigilantes. So it's not for the border.
It can't be a national civilian -- a national security force against Islamic extremists. I say this honestly, because according to this administration, we're not even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration expecting us to believe that they're going to ask of the American people to profile and call in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. So who are the enemies? [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 8/27/09, via Media Matters]
In August 2009, Beck Said Obama's "National Security Force" Is "What Hitler Did With The SS." During the August 27, 2009, edition of his Fox News show, Beck claimed that Obama was trying to create a "national security force" like "Hitler did with the SS." From Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Who is the enemy that we need a national security force inside? Who is the enemy? Can you come up with anybody?
DAVID BELLAVIA (vice chairman, Vets for Freedom): You. I really don't know, Glenn. You know what it comes down to though, and I want to make this comparison. I am not comparing my president to Saddam Hussein or to Hitler or anything else. I want your audience to understand something from a military point of view. When Saddam Hussein lost confidence in his army in '91, when they capitulated, when they quit, when they stopped following his orders, he created and he supported, re-supported what was called a Fedayeen -- a group of loyalists who weren't loyal to the country or the flag. They were loyal to the office of president and to the man who held that office. And what we're seeing now is a complete disconnect to the warrior class in America, to the military, and to the left. They never had a common denominator. They never had a way to understand us. So you know what? We don't need you.
If we have to enforce, let's say, I don't know, polling laws, we want to keep polling intimidation down in 2012, we'll send in our Civilian Corps. If we want to make sure the census is run correctly and the right people are counted, we'll bring in our Civilian Corps. If we want to, I don't know, take away the arms of radical militias in South Texas, bring these guys in. This is scary stuff.
BECK: But I mean, I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to because this is -- I mean look. You know, David what you just said is, you said "I'm not comparing," but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so, you are comparing that, and I mean, I think America would have a hard time getting their arms around that. [Fox News, Glenn Beck, 8/27/09, via Media Matters]
In April 2010, Beck Revised His "Civilian Army" Theory: "It's Called The Unions." During the April 12, 2010, edition of his radio show, Beck claimed: "People say: 'Oh, Barack Obama's building a civilian defense force, a civilian army.' He has one. It's called the unions. The unions are his enforcers." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 4/12/10, via Media Matters]
In October 2010, Beck Stated That Hugo Chavez's "Idea" Of A "Civilian Militia" Is An Idea "From This [U.S.] President." During the October 4, 2010, edition of his radio show, Beck stated:
BECK: After the next election, I think your radicals on the left are going to gear up. Remember, what they do best is hurt people that are in power, cause tension, stir it up, antagonize, get into the streets. They're not good at ruling. They're good at causing trouble. Well that's what -- now it's time for that. And if you think that's crazy let me just tell you that Chavez has vowed to radicalize after the election. His election, they've just lost of -- he lost a lot of power and a lot of seats, and so he said, "Fine, we're going to turn up the heat." And they've gone more radical. I believe that's what's going to happen here. Chavez says there is a new civilian militia, a new civilian army that should be armed full-time. Well, I think I've heard that from the president of the United States -- that very idea from this president before the last election. [Premiere Radio Networks, The Glenn Beck Program, 10/4/10, via Media Matters]
In May 2011, Beck Offered Up "Civilian Defense Force" Theory As Evidence That Obama Hates The Police. From the May 11 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
STU BURGUIERE (producer): You know, there are some people who would say this is just stupid, it's stupid. But there's some people who say of all the stuff we talk about with the administration, and you know, sometimes you can't figure out Barack Obama, but rarely does he seem to do anything that would make you believe the opposite of that he really sees cops in the negative light. He really sees them --
BECK: Only when they act stupidly.
BURGUIERE: No, I --
PAT GRAY (co-host): What racist hater would say something like that, Stu?
BURGUIERE: Some people. We're getting calls from tea party members who are pointing out
GRAY: Oh no, hang right on up on those people.
BURGUIERE: that of all the things you say about this administration--
GRAY: Hang up on them.
BURGUIERE: man that one seems really to the core. That one seems really to the core. It seems like he's very consistent on coming out on the strange side of cop issues. Some tea party members are saying it.
BECK: They are the oppressors. They're the oppressors.
BURGUIERE: Exactly.
BECK: They're the oppressors, the cops. You know what we need?
BURGUIERE: What's that?
BECK: Is we need a civilian defense force that is just as well-funded. That's not my words. I'm not saying that. I wouldn't want that. You know? But if you think that the cops are all out of control.
GRAY: Then maybe --
OBAMA [video clip]: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
GRAY: Maybe Common could head that civilian force up.
BECK: No, I believe that will be headed up by Van Jones.
[
Sunday, May 22, 2011
President Obama's Accomplishments
When Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the United States faced the worst recession since the Great Depression. Four million jobs had been lost in the prior six months, the financial system was on the verge of collapse, and the U. S. auto industry was about to be liquidated.
The stimulus plan and other programs which Obama and the Democrats passed saved the American economy. Now, things have turned around. Over the past 14 months, two million new jobs have been added by the private sector. The near-defunct auto industry is profitable and is now hiring new workers. The stock market has rebounded and is about 70% higher than it was when Obama took office. The financial system has stabilized, and taxpayers have already made a profit from the bank bailout.
Health care reform was a major accomplishment, providing health coverage to millions of people who did not have it before. "Obamacare" is an excellent name for this program, assuring that Obama will get full credit for this new health policy which will save millions of American lives.
Combat operations in Iraq were ended, and they will soon end in Afghanistan, too.
On the other side, you have the Republicans battling to cut education funding by 25 percent, transportation funding by 30 percent, and investments in clean energy by 70%. Republicans want to repeal Medicare and increase costs for seniors in order to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires.
The only thing that has prevented our economy from truly booming now is that Republicans blocked the economic stimulus from being even greater, as it should have been, in order to fund a full, swift and complete economic recovery. Such a full recovery, had the Republicans allowed it, would have increased tax revenues substantially and by itself have reduced our current budget deficit.
Republicans also want to impose their narrow social and "religious" views on everyone else, by denying Gays the right to marry and denying women their freedom of choice. Republicans are truly the "Us Against Them" Party, demonizing minorities in order to smokescreen the fact that their only real goal is to re-distribute more of America's wealth to its wealthiest families.
Considering that he is up against this army of plutocrats, it's amazing that Obama has accomplished as much as he has. Hopefully, America will wake up and repudiate all these Billionaire's Representatives in the next election.
The stimulus plan and other programs which Obama and the Democrats passed saved the American economy. Now, things have turned around. Over the past 14 months, two million new jobs have been added by the private sector. The near-defunct auto industry is profitable and is now hiring new workers. The stock market has rebounded and is about 70% higher than it was when Obama took office. The financial system has stabilized, and taxpayers have already made a profit from the bank bailout.
Health care reform was a major accomplishment, providing health coverage to millions of people who did not have it before. "Obamacare" is an excellent name for this program, assuring that Obama will get full credit for this new health policy which will save millions of American lives.
Combat operations in Iraq were ended, and they will soon end in Afghanistan, too.
On the other side, you have the Republicans battling to cut education funding by 25 percent, transportation funding by 30 percent, and investments in clean energy by 70%. Republicans want to repeal Medicare and increase costs for seniors in order to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires.
The only thing that has prevented our economy from truly booming now is that Republicans blocked the economic stimulus from being even greater, as it should have been, in order to fund a full, swift and complete economic recovery. Such a full recovery, had the Republicans allowed it, would have increased tax revenues substantially and by itself have reduced our current budget deficit.
Republicans also want to impose their narrow social and "religious" views on everyone else, by denying Gays the right to marry and denying women their freedom of choice. Republicans are truly the "Us Against Them" Party, demonizing minorities in order to smokescreen the fact that their only real goal is to re-distribute more of America's wealth to its wealthiest families.
Considering that he is up against this army of plutocrats, it's amazing that Obama has accomplished as much as he has. Hopefully, America will wake up and repudiate all these Billionaire's Representatives in the next election.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
The Supreme Court's Conservative "Gang Of Five" Is Turning America Into a Nation of Serfs Enslaved by their Corporate Masters
From The Huffington Post -- May 15, 2011:
By Joseph A. Palermo, Associate Professor of American History, California State University, Sacramento
The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)
Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T's favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous.
When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five -- John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the "founders" intended.
It's kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the "little guy" denouncing "elites" who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the "little guy."
The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to "the law," not to "the Constitution," not to "calling balls and strikes," but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige.
The serfs toiling on the corporate plantation can only continue to pay Chase and Bank of America for their underwater mortgages, ExxonMobil and Chevron for their $4 a gallon gas, and AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and the rest for the privilege of communicating in a modern society. And if the serfs seek redress the High Court will slap them down before they can get anything substantial off the ground. With Citizens United placing a stranglehold of corporate power over our state, local, and federal system of elections, we cannot turn to our political "leaders" for redress, we can't turn to the courts, and we certainly can't turn to trying to morally persuade sociopathic non-human entities called corporations -- so where does that leave us?
In the current context of unrestrained corporate dominance it's unconscionable that the Obama administration has not done more to blunt its disastrous effects. The Justice and Treasury Departments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, etc. could be doing a hell of a lot more in bringing balance to the equation of corporations versus people. The administration's lagging performance in holding Wall Street accountable is well known, but it won't even lift a finger to block grotesque mergers like the one between Comcast and NBC Universal, and AT&T and T Mobile. In all these mergers and acquisitions it's always the consumers and the employees who lose, while the CEOs and a select few of shareholders and financiers make out like the bandits they are.
Nothing illustrates the corruption rampant in Washington more than the recent resignation of Federal Communications Commission member, Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican who Obama appointed to show how "bipartisan" he can be, who is now going to work as a lavishly paid shill for the very industry she was supposedly "regulating." Ms. Baker will now make the big bucks serving Comcast/NBC Universal after she voted for the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Sweet. And few in the Beltway see anything unsavory about it.
Our political leaders, our Supreme Court, our captains of industry and finance, are so out of touch it's going to be a long, long time before ordinary working people see any relief. All of our institutions, political, economic, even religious, social, and cultural, all of them, are failing the people miserably in pursuit of the Almighty Buck. The cunning game of appointing young ideologues to the bench has paid off handsomely for the corporate power structure. Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the "founders" that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.
By Joseph A. Palermo, Associate Professor of American History, California State University, Sacramento
The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)
Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T's favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous.
When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five -- John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the "founders" intended.
It's kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the "little guy" denouncing "elites" who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the "little guy."
The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to "the law," not to "the Constitution," not to "calling balls and strikes," but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige.
The serfs toiling on the corporate plantation can only continue to pay Chase and Bank of America for their underwater mortgages, ExxonMobil and Chevron for their $4 a gallon gas, and AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and the rest for the privilege of communicating in a modern society. And if the serfs seek redress the High Court will slap them down before they can get anything substantial off the ground. With Citizens United placing a stranglehold of corporate power over our state, local, and federal system of elections, we cannot turn to our political "leaders" for redress, we can't turn to the courts, and we certainly can't turn to trying to morally persuade sociopathic non-human entities called corporations -- so where does that leave us?
In the current context of unrestrained corporate dominance it's unconscionable that the Obama administration has not done more to blunt its disastrous effects. The Justice and Treasury Departments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, etc. could be doing a hell of a lot more in bringing balance to the equation of corporations versus people. The administration's lagging performance in holding Wall Street accountable is well known, but it won't even lift a finger to block grotesque mergers like the one between Comcast and NBC Universal, and AT&T and T Mobile. In all these mergers and acquisitions it's always the consumers and the employees who lose, while the CEOs and a select few of shareholders and financiers make out like the bandits they are.
Nothing illustrates the corruption rampant in Washington more than the recent resignation of Federal Communications Commission member, Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican who Obama appointed to show how "bipartisan" he can be, who is now going to work as a lavishly paid shill for the very industry she was supposedly "regulating." Ms. Baker will now make the big bucks serving Comcast/NBC Universal after she voted for the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Sweet. And few in the Beltway see anything unsavory about it.
Our political leaders, our Supreme Court, our captains of industry and finance, are so out of touch it's going to be a long, long time before ordinary working people see any relief. All of our institutions, political, economic, even religious, social, and cultural, all of them, are failing the people miserably in pursuit of the Almighty Buck. The cunning game of appointing young ideologues to the bench has paid off handsomely for the corporate power structure. Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the "founders" that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Right-Wing Media Ignore Donald Trump's Moronic Embrace of "Birtherism" as Prime Reason for his Campaign's Implosion
From Media Matters for America -- May 17, 2011:
Right-Wing Media Largely Ignore Birtherism To Blame Media "Attacks" For Trump's Dropping Out
Following reports that Donald Trump will not be running for president, the right-wing media absurdly blamed "the media" for "attacking" Trump, largely ignoring Trump's embrace of birtherism.
Right-Wing Media Rush To Blame Media For End Of Trump's Presidential Candidacy
Doocy: "The Mainstream Media Went After Him With The Long Knives." On the May 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reacted to Donald Trump's announcement by claiming that "[t]he mainstream media went after him with the long knives." Co-host Gretchen Carlson agreed, saying, "That's what they do to any candidate, specifically, mostly Republicans when they decide to run for this office. That's one of the main problems about good people ultimately deciding not to run for office, because that's the kind of attacks that you encounter." Doocy then noted that Trump "brought up the whole birther issue," which Carlson and co-host Brian Kilmeade agreed was a "mistake." Doocy responded: "You know, ultimately, [Trump] was right, though. He said the president could answer a lot of his critics if he simply would release the birth certificate, and the president did, and those questions have, for the most part, vanished." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/11]
Kilmeade: "The Mainstream Media Attacked" Trump And "He Didn't Have" An Opportunity To Respond. In a later Fox & Friends segment, Kilmeade complained that "the mainstream media" attacked Trump and that "he didn't have a chance to answer because he wasn't in the news cycle." Carlson mentioned "the birth certificate thing" as one possible reason Trump "tanked in the polls in the last couple of weeks," and later said "I don't think he got out because the media was too harsh on him." Kilmeade maintained that "I don't think any candidate...would have been able to withstand the attack he has gotten." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/11]
Doocy: "The Mainstream Media Was Really Attacking" Trump Because "He Represented A Threat To...Barack Obama." Doocy also claimed "the mainstream media was really attacking him and they didn't really go after him until he was number one in the polls. And as soon as, suddenly, he represented a threat to, perhaps, Barack Obama, and the mainstream media went right in after him." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/11]
Big Journalism: "As We Saw With ... Attacks On Donald Trump, "Obama's MSM Palace Guards Intend To" Destroy "Any Potential Threat To Their Precious President." In a May 17 post on Andrew Breitbart's blog Big Journalism, blogger John Nolte wrote:
As we saw with the dishonest racer attacks on Donald Trump, Obama's MSM Palace Guards intend to Alisnky [sic] any potential threat to their precious President with coordinated journ-o-list narratives designed to take these individual threats down one-by-one with phony charges of racism. This tactic is also designed to silence and chill criticism of the President through the use of racial McCarthyism. David Gregory knows that the record number of people on food stamps under this failed president is a devastating narrative and so, as one of Obama's Chief Palace Guards, his job is to make sure that narrative doesn't take hold. His problem, however, is that facts are facts, so all he can do is holler racism. [Big Journalism, 5/17/11]
In Doing So, The Right Trivialized Trump's Embrace Of Birtherism -- Which They Repeatedly Promoted
Hannity: "Can't They Just Produce [Obama's Birth Certificate], And We Move On?" On the March 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity played a clip of Trump speaking on ABC's The View and then discussed his comments with a panel of guests. At one point, Hannity said, "Can't they just produce [Obama's birth certificate] and move on?" Neither he nor his guests noted that the Obama campaign released Obama's certificate of live birth in June 2008. [Fox News, Hannity, 3/23/11]
Hannity Says "Don't Bring Up Race," Then Suggests Birtherism Is OK Because Obama Lived "In Indonesia As A Kid." During the panel discussion, guest and television host Jerry Springer began asking Hannity why "of all our 43 presidents" was it only Obama who faced questions about his birthplace. Hannity responded: "Don't bring up race. Do not bring up race. Do not bring up race. It is a constitutional requirement." After Springer responded, Hannity suggested that calls for Obama's birth certificate are OK because "[Obama] lived in Indonesia as a kid." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/24/11]
Fox Nation Promotes USA Today Article On "'The View' Erupt[ing] After Trump Demands Obama's Birth Certificate." On March 23, Fox News' blog Fox Nation posted a video clip of Trump speaking on The View along with a few quotes from a USA Today article about the interview. [Fox Nation, 3/23/11; USA Today, 3/23/11]
Van Susteren Uses Trump's Comments To Promote The Idea That "There Are Too Many Missing Pieces" Surrounding Obama's Birth Certificate. On the March 23 edition of Fox News' On the Record, host Greta Van Susteren introduced a segment on Trump's View comments by saying, "Is Donald Trump a birther? Donald Trump is putting President Obama on the spot, telling him, 'Show the birth certificate.' But why is Trump doing that? Well, he tells the ladies on The View there are too many missing pieces." After playing a clip of Trump's comments, Van Susteren said, "Barbara Walters tried to change the subject, but as you saw, it didn't quite work," before moving on to the next story. Van Susteren did not question Trump's comments and failed to mention the June 2008 release of Obama's birth certificate. [Fox News, On the Record, 3/23/11]
Hannity Asked, "Why Can't They Just Release The Birth Certificate?" On the March 25 edition of his show, Hannity stated, "Donald Trump brought up the issue of the birth certificate, and it's getting huge buzz around the country," and later asked, "Why can't they just release the birth certificate, you know, and just move on?" [Fox News, Hannity, 3/25/11]
Hannity Wondered Why Trump's Birtherism Is "So Toxic," Asks Panel For Their Birth Certificates. On the April 18 edition of Hannity, during a discussion about Trump's birther claims, Hannity asked why it's "so toxic to bring up" the birth certificate issue. He then asked his panelists for their birth certificates. [Fox News, Hannity, 4/18/11]
Hannity Promotes Trump: His "Popularity" Is Due To Taking On "Controversial Issues," Is A "Lesson" For Republicans. On the April 15 edition of his show, Hannity claimed that Trump's "popularity" provides "a lesson, here, for Republican candidates: Fight, fight -- take on controversial issues, don't back down, and battle." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/15/11]
Hannity Jumped Aboard "Trump 2012" -- Birtherism And All. During the April 15 edition of his show, Hannity helped to promote Trump's birther claims, later airing a graphic promoting a "Trump 2012" presidential run. [Fox News, Hannity, 4/15/11]
Palin On Trump Allegedly Sending Researchers To Hawaii To Investigate Obama's Birth: "More Power To Him." On the April 9 edition of Fox News' Justice with Judge Jeanine, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin said of Trump's claim that he sent researchers to Hawaii to investigate Obama's birth certificate: "More power to him." Palin later stated, "I think that [Obama] was born in Hawaii, because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper, but obviously, if there's something there that the president doesn't want people to see on that birth certificate, that he [seems to] be going to great lengths to make sure that it isn't shown, and that's kind of perplexing for a lot of people." [Fox News, Justice with Judge Jeanine, 4/9/11]
Doocy: Birth Certificate Produced By Obama's Campaign "Is Not The Exact Birth Certificate."After airing Trump's birther claims from an appearance on ABC's The View, Doocy stated during the March 24 edition of Fox & Friends that the Obama campaign "did produce -- before the election -- something called a certificate of live birth, which is not the exact birth certificate, but something that the state says indicates that he was born there." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/24/11]
Fox's Morris Reportedly Said Trump's Birther Claims Are "Within The Foul Lines." In an April 3 article about Trump, the New York Post reported that Fox News contributor Dick Morris said that Trump's recent "birther talk" is "within the foul lines," while "everyone else who spoke with The Post [sic] thinks it's a major tactical mistake." [New York Post, 4/3/11]
Trump Told Unquestioning Fox & Friends Hosts, "I'm Starting To Wonder ... Whether Or Not [Obama] Was Born In This Country." On March 28, Fox & Friends hosted Trump, who stated, "I'm starting to wonder myself whether or not he was born in this country." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/28/11]
Ratcheting Up Birtherism, Fox Hosted Trump To Call Birthers "Great Americans." During the March 28 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Greta Van Susteren hosted Trump, who advanced his birther conspiracy theories. Van Susteren pointed out that Obama has a passport and one would need to submit a copy of their birth certificate in order to obtain a passport. Trump did not address this point, instead referring to birthers as "great Americans." [Fox News, On The Record, 3/28/11]
Fox Nation Again Celebrated Trump's Birther Claims By Saying He "Thump[ed] MSNBC Hosts On Obama's Birth Certificate." An April 1 Fox Nation headline read, "Trump Thumps MSNBC Hosts on Obama's Birth Certificate." Fox Nation linked to a video of Trump's appearance on MSNBC, in which Trump said, "I feel that there is certainly a chance [Obama] was not born in this country." [Fox Nation, 4/1/11]
After Hosting Trump Birther Theories, Fox & Friends Increases Promotion Of Trump's Weekly Fox & Friends Appearances. Following Trump's then-newly announced birther theories, Fox News began to increase their promotion of Trump's regular weekly segment on Fox & Friends. [Media Matters, 4/3/11]
Fox Nation Continues To Promote Trump Birtherism: "Investigators ... Cannot Believe What They're Finding." An April 7 Fox Nation headline stated, "Trump: I have Investigators in Hawaii... 'They Cannot Believe What They're Finding.' " [Fox Nation, 4/7/11]
Van Susteren Gave Trump Free Reign To Repeat Birther Theories. During the April 11 of her Fox News program, Van Susteren gave Trump the opportunity and airtime to push his birther conspiracies and discuss his efforts in Hawaii to look into Obama's citizenship. [Fox News, On the Record, 4/11/11]
Right-Wing Media Largely Ignore Birtherism To Blame Media "Attacks" For Trump's Dropping Out
Following reports that Donald Trump will not be running for president, the right-wing media absurdly blamed "the media" for "attacking" Trump, largely ignoring Trump's embrace of birtherism.
Right-Wing Media Rush To Blame Media For End Of Trump's Presidential Candidacy
Doocy: "The Mainstream Media Went After Him With The Long Knives." On the May 17 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reacted to Donald Trump's announcement by claiming that "[t]he mainstream media went after him with the long knives." Co-host Gretchen Carlson agreed, saying, "That's what they do to any candidate, specifically, mostly Republicans when they decide to run for this office. That's one of the main problems about good people ultimately deciding not to run for office, because that's the kind of attacks that you encounter." Doocy then noted that Trump "brought up the whole birther issue," which Carlson and co-host Brian Kilmeade agreed was a "mistake." Doocy responded: "You know, ultimately, [Trump] was right, though. He said the president could answer a lot of his critics if he simply would release the birth certificate, and the president did, and those questions have, for the most part, vanished." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/11]
Kilmeade: "The Mainstream Media Attacked" Trump And "He Didn't Have" An Opportunity To Respond. In a later Fox & Friends segment, Kilmeade complained that "the mainstream media" attacked Trump and that "he didn't have a chance to answer because he wasn't in the news cycle." Carlson mentioned "the birth certificate thing" as one possible reason Trump "tanked in the polls in the last couple of weeks," and later said "I don't think he got out because the media was too harsh on him." Kilmeade maintained that "I don't think any candidate...would have been able to withstand the attack he has gotten." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/11]
Doocy: "The Mainstream Media Was Really Attacking" Trump Because "He Represented A Threat To...Barack Obama." Doocy also claimed "the mainstream media was really attacking him and they didn't really go after him until he was number one in the polls. And as soon as, suddenly, he represented a threat to, perhaps, Barack Obama, and the mainstream media went right in after him." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/17/11]
Big Journalism: "As We Saw With ... Attacks On Donald Trump, "Obama's MSM Palace Guards Intend To" Destroy "Any Potential Threat To Their Precious President." In a May 17 post on Andrew Breitbart's blog Big Journalism, blogger John Nolte wrote:
As we saw with the dishonest racer attacks on Donald Trump, Obama's MSM Palace Guards intend to Alisnky [sic] any potential threat to their precious President with coordinated journ-o-list narratives designed to take these individual threats down one-by-one with phony charges of racism. This tactic is also designed to silence and chill criticism of the President through the use of racial McCarthyism. David Gregory knows that the record number of people on food stamps under this failed president is a devastating narrative and so, as one of Obama's Chief Palace Guards, his job is to make sure that narrative doesn't take hold. His problem, however, is that facts are facts, so all he can do is holler racism. [Big Journalism, 5/17/11]
In Doing So, The Right Trivialized Trump's Embrace Of Birtherism -- Which They Repeatedly Promoted
Hannity: "Can't They Just Produce [Obama's Birth Certificate], And We Move On?" On the March 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity played a clip of Trump speaking on ABC's The View and then discussed his comments with a panel of guests. At one point, Hannity said, "Can't they just produce [Obama's birth certificate] and move on?" Neither he nor his guests noted that the Obama campaign released Obama's certificate of live birth in June 2008. [Fox News, Hannity, 3/23/11]
Hannity Says "Don't Bring Up Race," Then Suggests Birtherism Is OK Because Obama Lived "In Indonesia As A Kid." During the panel discussion, guest and television host Jerry Springer began asking Hannity why "of all our 43 presidents" was it only Obama who faced questions about his birthplace. Hannity responded: "Don't bring up race. Do not bring up race. Do not bring up race. It is a constitutional requirement." After Springer responded, Hannity suggested that calls for Obama's birth certificate are OK because "[Obama] lived in Indonesia as a kid." [Fox News, Hannity, 3/24/11]
Fox Nation Promotes USA Today Article On "'The View' Erupt[ing] After Trump Demands Obama's Birth Certificate." On March 23, Fox News' blog Fox Nation posted a video clip of Trump speaking on The View along with a few quotes from a USA Today article about the interview. [Fox Nation, 3/23/11; USA Today, 3/23/11]
Van Susteren Uses Trump's Comments To Promote The Idea That "There Are Too Many Missing Pieces" Surrounding Obama's Birth Certificate. On the March 23 edition of Fox News' On the Record, host Greta Van Susteren introduced a segment on Trump's View comments by saying, "Is Donald Trump a birther? Donald Trump is putting President Obama on the spot, telling him, 'Show the birth certificate.' But why is Trump doing that? Well, he tells the ladies on The View there are too many missing pieces." After playing a clip of Trump's comments, Van Susteren said, "Barbara Walters tried to change the subject, but as you saw, it didn't quite work," before moving on to the next story. Van Susteren did not question Trump's comments and failed to mention the June 2008 release of Obama's birth certificate. [Fox News, On the Record, 3/23/11]
Hannity Asked, "Why Can't They Just Release The Birth Certificate?" On the March 25 edition of his show, Hannity stated, "Donald Trump brought up the issue of the birth certificate, and it's getting huge buzz around the country," and later asked, "Why can't they just release the birth certificate, you know, and just move on?" [Fox News, Hannity, 3/25/11]
Hannity Wondered Why Trump's Birtherism Is "So Toxic," Asks Panel For Their Birth Certificates. On the April 18 edition of Hannity, during a discussion about Trump's birther claims, Hannity asked why it's "so toxic to bring up" the birth certificate issue. He then asked his panelists for their birth certificates. [Fox News, Hannity, 4/18/11]
Hannity Promotes Trump: His "Popularity" Is Due To Taking On "Controversial Issues," Is A "Lesson" For Republicans. On the April 15 edition of his show, Hannity claimed that Trump's "popularity" provides "a lesson, here, for Republican candidates: Fight, fight -- take on controversial issues, don't back down, and battle." [Fox News, Hannity, 4/15/11]
Hannity Jumped Aboard "Trump 2012" -- Birtherism And All. During the April 15 edition of his show, Hannity helped to promote Trump's birther claims, later airing a graphic promoting a "Trump 2012" presidential run. [Fox News, Hannity, 4/15/11]
Palin On Trump Allegedly Sending Researchers To Hawaii To Investigate Obama's Birth: "More Power To Him." On the April 9 edition of Fox News' Justice with Judge Jeanine, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin said of Trump's claim that he sent researchers to Hawaii to investigate Obama's birth certificate: "More power to him." Palin later stated, "I think that [Obama] was born in Hawaii, because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper, but obviously, if there's something there that the president doesn't want people to see on that birth certificate, that he [seems to] be going to great lengths to make sure that it isn't shown, and that's kind of perplexing for a lot of people." [Fox News, Justice with Judge Jeanine, 4/9/11]
Doocy: Birth Certificate Produced By Obama's Campaign "Is Not The Exact Birth Certificate."After airing Trump's birther claims from an appearance on ABC's The View, Doocy stated during the March 24 edition of Fox & Friends that the Obama campaign "did produce -- before the election -- something called a certificate of live birth, which is not the exact birth certificate, but something that the state says indicates that he was born there." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/24/11]
Fox's Morris Reportedly Said Trump's Birther Claims Are "Within The Foul Lines." In an April 3 article about Trump, the New York Post reported that Fox News contributor Dick Morris said that Trump's recent "birther talk" is "within the foul lines," while "everyone else who spoke with The Post [sic] thinks it's a major tactical mistake." [New York Post, 4/3/11]
Trump Told Unquestioning Fox & Friends Hosts, "I'm Starting To Wonder ... Whether Or Not [Obama] Was Born In This Country." On March 28, Fox & Friends hosted Trump, who stated, "I'm starting to wonder myself whether or not he was born in this country." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 3/28/11]
Ratcheting Up Birtherism, Fox Hosted Trump To Call Birthers "Great Americans." During the March 28 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Greta Van Susteren hosted Trump, who advanced his birther conspiracy theories. Van Susteren pointed out that Obama has a passport and one would need to submit a copy of their birth certificate in order to obtain a passport. Trump did not address this point, instead referring to birthers as "great Americans." [Fox News, On The Record, 3/28/11]
Fox Nation Again Celebrated Trump's Birther Claims By Saying He "Thump[ed] MSNBC Hosts On Obama's Birth Certificate." An April 1 Fox Nation headline read, "Trump Thumps MSNBC Hosts on Obama's Birth Certificate." Fox Nation linked to a video of Trump's appearance on MSNBC, in which Trump said, "I feel that there is certainly a chance [Obama] was not born in this country." [Fox Nation, 4/1/11]
After Hosting Trump Birther Theories, Fox & Friends Increases Promotion Of Trump's Weekly Fox & Friends Appearances. Following Trump's then-newly announced birther theories, Fox News began to increase their promotion of Trump's regular weekly segment on Fox & Friends. [Media Matters, 4/3/11]
Fox Nation Continues To Promote Trump Birtherism: "Investigators ... Cannot Believe What They're Finding." An April 7 Fox Nation headline stated, "Trump: I have Investigators in Hawaii... 'They Cannot Believe What They're Finding.' " [Fox Nation, 4/7/11]
Van Susteren Gave Trump Free Reign To Repeat Birther Theories. During the April 11 of her Fox News program, Van Susteren gave Trump the opportunity and airtime to push his birther conspiracies and discuss his efforts in Hawaii to look into Obama's citizenship. [Fox News, On the Record, 4/11/11]
Obama Is Smashing the Republicans Before They Even Leave the Starting Gate
From The Washington Post -- May 17, 2011:
West Wing Briefing: Obama complicates 2012 campaign for Republicans
By Perry Bacon Jr.
The Republican presidential primary season was expected to provide a months-long Obama-bashing session, with the winner being the man or woman who best combined attacks on President Obama with a cogent argument for how he or she could defeat him in November 2012.
That might still happen. But for now, Obama’s influence has been felt in a different way: through complicating the race for several potential Republican candidates.
By releasing his birth certificate and then mocking Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner a few days later for igniting the controversy in the first place, the president effectively ended the real estate mogul’s brief flirtation with running.
Other Republicans have suffered from an Obama problem too. The president’s aides last week enthusiastically linked the health care plan then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed in 2006 with the federal one adopted four years later, while Romney devoted a speech to trying to separate the two.
The president himself has openly suggested Jon Huntsman’s service in the administration as ambassador to China could complicate the former Utah governor’s presidential aspirations.
Sharp attacks by the White House have put Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), one of the GOP’s rising stars, on the defensive about his plan to reform Medicare.
In his campaign fundraisers, Obama constantly argues that he is focused on governing now, leaving the campaigning to his Chicago-based reelection operation. White House press secretary Jay Carney recently told reporters that he had not been in any meeting with the president in which the 2012 GOP field was discussed.
But little Obama says happens by accident. His diatribe against Trump at the White House dinner was in a carefully written speech. A series of administration officials and allies have linked the health care law Romney adopted with “Obamacare.”
The strategy could pay major dividends for the president. If Trump had run, he would have had almost no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But his comments, from his obsession with discussing falsehoods about the president’s birth to criticizing Obama for playing basketball, would have been covered extensively in the press and forced the White House to respond.
The comments about Romney and Huntsman may be more important. If Obama and other Democrats can spread a message that the pair are too centrist, and thereby encourage Republicans to nominate other contenders, it would eliminate two of the GOP’s strongest potential candidates.
In some ways, this approach has already worked: Romney has distanced himself from a bipartisan achievement (the Massachusetts health care law) that could have been an asset in a general election.
Ryan, meanwhile, was unlikely to run for president or be tapped as vice-president in any event. But the aggressive attacks on his ideas by Democrats have turned him from a highly regarded “Young Gun” in the GOP to a more controversial figure. Another 2012 Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, slammed Ryan’s ideas on Sunday.
West Wing Briefing: Obama complicates 2012 campaign for Republicans
By Perry Bacon Jr.
The Republican presidential primary season was expected to provide a months-long Obama-bashing session, with the winner being the man or woman who best combined attacks on President Obama with a cogent argument for how he or she could defeat him in November 2012.
That might still happen. But for now, Obama’s influence has been felt in a different way: through complicating the race for several potential Republican candidates.
By releasing his birth certificate and then mocking Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner a few days later for igniting the controversy in the first place, the president effectively ended the real estate mogul’s brief flirtation with running.
Other Republicans have suffered from an Obama problem too. The president’s aides last week enthusiastically linked the health care plan then-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney signed in 2006 with the federal one adopted four years later, while Romney devoted a speech to trying to separate the two.
The president himself has openly suggested Jon Huntsman’s service in the administration as ambassador to China could complicate the former Utah governor’s presidential aspirations.
Sharp attacks by the White House have put Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), one of the GOP’s rising stars, on the defensive about his plan to reform Medicare.
In his campaign fundraisers, Obama constantly argues that he is focused on governing now, leaving the campaigning to his Chicago-based reelection operation. White House press secretary Jay Carney recently told reporters that he had not been in any meeting with the president in which the 2012 GOP field was discussed.
But little Obama says happens by accident. His diatribe against Trump at the White House dinner was in a carefully written speech. A series of administration officials and allies have linked the health care law Romney adopted with “Obamacare.”
The strategy could pay major dividends for the president. If Trump had run, he would have had almost no chance of winning the GOP nomination. But his comments, from his obsession with discussing falsehoods about the president’s birth to criticizing Obama for playing basketball, would have been covered extensively in the press and forced the White House to respond.
The comments about Romney and Huntsman may be more important. If Obama and other Democrats can spread a message that the pair are too centrist, and thereby encourage Republicans to nominate other contenders, it would eliminate two of the GOP’s strongest potential candidates.
In some ways, this approach has already worked: Romney has distanced himself from a bipartisan achievement (the Massachusetts health care law) that could have been an asset in a general election.
Ryan, meanwhile, was unlikely to run for president or be tapped as vice-president in any event. But the aggressive attacks on his ideas by Democrats have turned him from a highly regarded “Young Gun” in the GOP to a more controversial figure. Another 2012 Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, slammed Ryan’s ideas on Sunday.
A Brilliant Article by Michael Moore on the Death of Osama Bin Laden
Some Final Thoughts on the Death of Osama bin Laden
By Michael Moore -- Oscar and Emmy-winning director
Posted: 05/12/11
"The Nazis killed tens of MILLIONS. They got a trial. Why? Because we're not like them. We're Americans. We roll different." – Me in an interview last week
Last week, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise and killed Osama bin Laden. Well he didn't actually do the killing himself. It was carried out by a very brave and excellent team of Navy SEALs. Not only does Mr. Obama have the overwhelming support of the country, I think there are millions who gladly wish it could have been their finger on the gun that took out bin Laden.
When I heard the news a week ago Sunday, I immediately felt great. I felt relief. I thought of those who lost a loved one on 9/11. And I was glad we finally had a President who got something done. This is what I had to say on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet in that first hour or two:
I want to point out that Barack Obama took two years to do what Bush couldn't do in over seven. That's the difference between STUPID in charge and SMART in charge. STUPID pursues two reckless wars, lets OBL escape from Tora Bora, keeps looking for him in caves and invades the wrong country. He bankrupts us to the tune of $1.2 trillion for the Iraq War (it will eventually actually be over $3 trillion), and worse, he cost us the lives of almost 5,000 of our troops, not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan – and, after all that, he STILL couldn't bring the perp to justice. In fact, in 2005, Bush closed down the CIA station that was devoted to looking for bin Laden! What does SMART do? He sends in a small elite strike force, no troops are killed, and the perpetrator is stopped for good.
I was thrilled that the Osama bin Laden era was over. There was now an end to the madness.
Being near Ground Zero that night, I decided to head over there and join with others who saw this event as a chance to have some closure. On 9/11, Bill Weems, a good and decent man I knew and worked with (we had just recently completed a shoot together in Boston), was on the plane that was flown into the Twin Towers. I dedicated Fahrenheit 9/11, in part, to him.
But before leaving to go to the former World Trade Center site, I turned on the TV, and what I saw down at Ground Zero was not quiet relief and gratification that the culprit had been caught. Rather, I witnessed a frat boy-style party going on, complete with the shaking and spraying of champagne bottles over the crowd. I can completely understand people wanting to celebrate – like I said, I, too, was happy – but something didn't feel right. It's one thing to be happy that a criminal has been captured and dealt with. It's another thing to throw a kegger celebrating his death at the site where the remains of his victims are still occasionally found. Is that who we are? Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what Jefferson would do? I was reminded of the tale told to me as a kid, of God's angels singing with glee as the Red Sea came crashing back down on the Egyptians chasing the Israelites, drowning all of them. God rebuked them, saying, "The work of My hands is drowning in that sea – and you want to friggin' sing?" (or something like that).
I remember my parents telling me how, on the day it was announced that Hitler was dead, there was no rejoicing in the streets, just private relief and satisfaction. The real celebration came six days later at the announcement that the war in Europe was over. THAT'S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing.
When the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, people didn't pour into the streets to whoop it up. Yes, people were happy that it might help end the war, but there was not a public display of "Yippee! A hundred thousand Japs have been fried!" If they had done that, well, who could have blamed them after so many tens of thousands of their sons and fathers had been lost in the war (including my uncle, a paratrooper, killed by a sniper near Manila). But the sailor kissing the girl in Times Square was on August 14th, 1945, when the Japanese surrendered and the war was officially over. That's when America went crazy with joy – not over a killing, but over an announcement of peace.
We are a different people now, aren't we? Well, sorta. There was no bloodlust euphoria on the day Timothy McVeigh was executed. We were silent. The families of the Oklahoma City dead were silent, relieved. What is the difference between McVeigh and bin Laden, other than the number they slaughtered? I wonder. I think we know the answer.
Though bin Laden is dead, we are told that Orwell's Permanent War – the "War on Terror" – must continue! Not allowed to have our V-J day and run into Times Square with exhilaration! No, there could be terrorists there. So all we're left with is to cheer the death of one evil man, and that is supposed to make us feel powerful and good. There can be no celebration for the end of the Afghanistan War because the war isn't ending. The war must continue! Even though our own CIA tells us there are no more than a few dozen al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. We still have 100,000 troops there fighting a few dozen crazies? We say we're fighting the Taliban, too, but the Taliban are Afghan citizens, not an invading force, and, for better or worse, they seem to enjoy the support of many of the common people throughout Afghanistan. (If you don't believe that, ask any soldier who has served there and seen it. Every day is like Apocalypse Now. Poppies, anyone?)
Meanwhile, we – me, included – get lost in the weeds of how this one madman was killed. The official story from the Pentagon changed four times in the first four days! It went from OBL firing on the troops with one hand and using his wife as a human shield with the other, to, by the fourth day, not single person in the main house, including bin Laden, being armed when killed. Instantly, this created a lot of suspicion about what really happened, which itself was a distraction.
Here's my take: I know a number of Navy SEALs. In fact (and this is something I don't like to talk about publicly, for all the obvious reasons), I hire only ex-SEALs and ex-Special Forces guys to handle my own security (I'll let you pause a moment to appreciate that irony). These SEALs are trained to follow orders. I don't know what their orders were that night in Abbottabad, but it certainly looks like a job (and this is backed up in a piece in The Atlantic) where they were told to not bring bin Laden back alive. The SEALs are pros at what they do and they instantly took out every adult male (every potential threat) within a few minutes – but they also took care to not harm a single one of the nine children who were present. Pretty amazing. This wasn't some Rambo-style operation where they just went in guns blazing, spraying bullets. They acted swiftly and with expert precision. I'm telling you, these guys are so smart and so lethal, they could take you out with a piece of dental floss. (And in fact, one of my ex-SEAL guys showed me how to do that one night. Whoa.)
In a perfect world (yes, I would like to reside there someday, or at least next door to it, in Slightly Imperfect World), I would like the evildoers to be forced to stand trial in front of that world. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang 'em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. "They're guilty, off with their heads!" Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system. I don't like their system. I like ours. And I don't want to be like them. In fact, the reason I like a good trial is that I like to show these bastards this is how it's done in a free country that believes in civilized justice. It's good for the rest of the world to see that, too. Sets a good example.
The other thing a trial does is, it establishes a very public and permanent historic record of the crimes against humanity. This is why we put the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg. We didn't do it for them. We did it for ourselves and for our grandchildren so that they would never forget these horrors and how they were committed. And we did it for the German people so they could see the evidence of what their elected leaders had done. Very helpful. Very necessary. Very powerful.
And for those who wanted blood back then – well, the majority of the Nazis all hanged in the end. So, it doesn't mean the bad guys get away – they still swing from the highest tree.
My own spiritual beliefs do not allow for capital punishment, and I was raised in the state (Michigan) that in the 1840s was the first government in the English-speaking world to outlaw it. So, I'm just not inclined that way. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye." I know the old book said that, but I like its sequel better (a rare case in which the sequel – like Godfather II, Star Trek II, Terminator II – is better than the original). If you don't believe the way I believe (it's also the official position of the Catholic Church, for whatever that's worth these days), then that's your right, and I understand.
Perhaps there was no way to bring him back alive – I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in that dark house trying to make that snap decision. But if the execution was ordered in advance, then I say we should be told that now, and we can like it or not.
For nine years, I wrote and I said that Osama bin Laden was not hiding in a cave. I'm not a cave expert, I was just using my common sense. He was a multimillionaire crime boss (using religion as his cover), and those guys just don't live in caves. He had people killed under the guise of religion, and not many in the media bothered to explain that every time Osama referenced Islam, he wasn't really quoting Islam. Just because Osama said he was a "Muslim" didn't make it so. Yet he was called a Muslim by everyone. If a crazy person started running around mass-killing people, and he did so while wearing a Wal-Mart blazer and praising Wal-Mart, we wouldn't automatically call him a Wal-Mart leader or say that Wal-Mart was the philosophy behind his killings, would we?
Yet, we began to fear Muslims and round them up. We profiled people from Muslim nations at airports. We didn't profile multi-millionaires (in fact, they now have their own fast-track line to easily get through security, an oddity considering every murderer on 9/11 flew in first class). We didn't run headlines that said "Multi-Millionaire Behind the Mass Murder of 3,000" (although every word in that headline is true). You can say his wealth had nothing to do with 9/11, but the truth is, there is no way he could have kept Al Qaeda in business without having the millions he had.
Some believe that this was a "war" we were in with al Qaeda – and you don't do trials during war. It's thinking like this that makes me fear that, while bin Laden may be dead, he may have "won" the bigger battle. Let's be clear: There is no "war with al Qaeda." Wars are between nations. Al Qaeda was an organization of fanatics who committed crimes. That we elevated them to nation status – they loved it! It was great for their recruiting drive.
We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama. You had our number. You somehow knew we would eagerly give up our constitutional rights and become more like the authoritarian state you dreamed of. You knew we would exhaust our military and willingly go into more debt in eight years than we had accumulated in the previous 200 years combined.
Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War. Only, when the killing stopped, the trained killer, our "Frankenstein," couldn't. The monster, you, would soon turn on us.
If we really want to send bin Laden not just to his death, but also to his defeat, may I suggest that we reverse all of that right now. End the wars, bring the troops home, make the rich pay for this mess, and restore our privacy and due process rights that used to distinguish us from any other country. Right now, our democracy looks like Singapore and our economy has gone desperately Greek.
I know it will be hard to turn the clock back to before 9/11 when all we had to worry about were candidates stealing elections. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around "homeland security" and the terror wars. These war profiteers will not want to give up their booty so easily. They will want to keep us in fear so they can keep raking it in. We will have to stop them. But first we must stop believing them.
Hideki Tojo killed my uncle and millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and a hundred thousand other Americans. He was the head of Japan, the Emperor's henchman, the man who was the architect of Pearl Harbor. When the American soldiers went to arrest him, he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the chest. The soldiers immediately worked on stopping his bleeding and rushed him to an army hospital where he was saved by our army doctors. He then had his day in court. It was a powerful exercise for the world to see. And on December 23, 1948, after he was found guilty, we hanged him. A killer of millions was forced to stand trial. A killer of 4,000 (counting the African embassies and USS Cole bombings) got double-tapped in his pajamas. Assuming it was possible to take him alive, I think his victims, the future, and the restoration of the American Way deserved better. That's all I'm saying.
Good riddance Osama.
Come back to your ways, my good ol' USA.
By Michael Moore -- Oscar and Emmy-winning director
Posted: 05/12/11
"The Nazis killed tens of MILLIONS. They got a trial. Why? Because we're not like them. We're Americans. We roll different." – Me in an interview last week
Last week, President Obama fulfilled a campaign promise and killed Osama bin Laden. Well he didn't actually do the killing himself. It was carried out by a very brave and excellent team of Navy SEALs. Not only does Mr. Obama have the overwhelming support of the country, I think there are millions who gladly wish it could have been their finger on the gun that took out bin Laden.
When I heard the news a week ago Sunday, I immediately felt great. I felt relief. I thought of those who lost a loved one on 9/11. And I was glad we finally had a President who got something done. This is what I had to say on Twitter and elsewhere on the internet in that first hour or two:
I want to point out that Barack Obama took two years to do what Bush couldn't do in over seven. That's the difference between STUPID in charge and SMART in charge. STUPID pursues two reckless wars, lets OBL escape from Tora Bora, keeps looking for him in caves and invades the wrong country. He bankrupts us to the tune of $1.2 trillion for the Iraq War (it will eventually actually be over $3 trillion), and worse, he cost us the lives of almost 5,000 of our troops, not to mention hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan – and, after all that, he STILL couldn't bring the perp to justice. In fact, in 2005, Bush closed down the CIA station that was devoted to looking for bin Laden! What does SMART do? He sends in a small elite strike force, no troops are killed, and the perpetrator is stopped for good.
I was thrilled that the Osama bin Laden era was over. There was now an end to the madness.
Being near Ground Zero that night, I decided to head over there and join with others who saw this event as a chance to have some closure. On 9/11, Bill Weems, a good and decent man I knew and worked with (we had just recently completed a shoot together in Boston), was on the plane that was flown into the Twin Towers. I dedicated Fahrenheit 9/11, in part, to him.
But before leaving to go to the former World Trade Center site, I turned on the TV, and what I saw down at Ground Zero was not quiet relief and gratification that the culprit had been caught. Rather, I witnessed a frat boy-style party going on, complete with the shaking and spraying of champagne bottles over the crowd. I can completely understand people wanting to celebrate – like I said, I, too, was happy – but something didn't feel right. It's one thing to be happy that a criminal has been captured and dealt with. It's another thing to throw a kegger celebrating his death at the site where the remains of his victims are still occasionally found. Is that who we are? Is that what Jesus would do? Is that what Jefferson would do? I was reminded of the tale told to me as a kid, of God's angels singing with glee as the Red Sea came crashing back down on the Egyptians chasing the Israelites, drowning all of them. God rebuked them, saying, "The work of My hands is drowning in that sea – and you want to friggin' sing?" (or something like that).
I remember my parents telling me how, on the day it was announced that Hitler was dead, there was no rejoicing in the streets, just private relief and satisfaction. The real celebration came six days later at the announcement that the war in Europe was over. THAT'S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing.
When the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, people didn't pour into the streets to whoop it up. Yes, people were happy that it might help end the war, but there was not a public display of "Yippee! A hundred thousand Japs have been fried!" If they had done that, well, who could have blamed them after so many tens of thousands of their sons and fathers had been lost in the war (including my uncle, a paratrooper, killed by a sniper near Manila). But the sailor kissing the girl in Times Square was on August 14th, 1945, when the Japanese surrendered and the war was officially over. That's when America went crazy with joy – not over a killing, but over an announcement of peace.
We are a different people now, aren't we? Well, sorta. There was no bloodlust euphoria on the day Timothy McVeigh was executed. We were silent. The families of the Oklahoma City dead were silent, relieved. What is the difference between McVeigh and bin Laden, other than the number they slaughtered? I wonder. I think we know the answer.
Though bin Laden is dead, we are told that Orwell's Permanent War – the "War on Terror" – must continue! Not allowed to have our V-J day and run into Times Square with exhilaration! No, there could be terrorists there. So all we're left with is to cheer the death of one evil man, and that is supposed to make us feel powerful and good. There can be no celebration for the end of the Afghanistan War because the war isn't ending. The war must continue! Even though our own CIA tells us there are no more than a few dozen al Qaeda left in Afghanistan. We still have 100,000 troops there fighting a few dozen crazies? We say we're fighting the Taliban, too, but the Taliban are Afghan citizens, not an invading force, and, for better or worse, they seem to enjoy the support of many of the common people throughout Afghanistan. (If you don't believe that, ask any soldier who has served there and seen it. Every day is like Apocalypse Now. Poppies, anyone?)
Meanwhile, we – me, included – get lost in the weeds of how this one madman was killed. The official story from the Pentagon changed four times in the first four days! It went from OBL firing on the troops with one hand and using his wife as a human shield with the other, to, by the fourth day, not single person in the main house, including bin Laden, being armed when killed. Instantly, this created a lot of suspicion about what really happened, which itself was a distraction.
Here's my take: I know a number of Navy SEALs. In fact (and this is something I don't like to talk about publicly, for all the obvious reasons), I hire only ex-SEALs and ex-Special Forces guys to handle my own security (I'll let you pause a moment to appreciate that irony). These SEALs are trained to follow orders. I don't know what their orders were that night in Abbottabad, but it certainly looks like a job (and this is backed up in a piece in The Atlantic) where they were told to not bring bin Laden back alive. The SEALs are pros at what they do and they instantly took out every adult male (every potential threat) within a few minutes – but they also took care to not harm a single one of the nine children who were present. Pretty amazing. This wasn't some Rambo-style operation where they just went in guns blazing, spraying bullets. They acted swiftly and with expert precision. I'm telling you, these guys are so smart and so lethal, they could take you out with a piece of dental floss. (And in fact, one of my ex-SEAL guys showed me how to do that one night. Whoa.)
In a perfect world (yes, I would like to reside there someday, or at least next door to it, in Slightly Imperfect World), I would like the evildoers to be forced to stand trial in front of that world. I know a lot of people see no need for a trial for these bad guys (just hang 'em from the nearest tree!), and think trials are for sissies. "They're guilty, off with their heads!" Well, you see, that is the exact description of the Taliban/al Qaeda/Nazi justice system. I don't like their system. I like ours. And I don't want to be like them. In fact, the reason I like a good trial is that I like to show these bastards this is how it's done in a free country that believes in civilized justice. It's good for the rest of the world to see that, too. Sets a good example.
The other thing a trial does is, it establishes a very public and permanent historic record of the crimes against humanity. This is why we put the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg. We didn't do it for them. We did it for ourselves and for our grandchildren so that they would never forget these horrors and how they were committed. And we did it for the German people so they could see the evidence of what their elected leaders had done. Very helpful. Very necessary. Very powerful.
And for those who wanted blood back then – well, the majority of the Nazis all hanged in the end. So, it doesn't mean the bad guys get away – they still swing from the highest tree.
My own spiritual beliefs do not allow for capital punishment, and I was raised in the state (Michigan) that in the 1840s was the first government in the English-speaking world to outlaw it. So, I'm just not inclined that way. I don't believe in "an eye for an eye." I know the old book said that, but I like its sequel better (a rare case in which the sequel – like Godfather II, Star Trek II, Terminator II – is better than the original). If you don't believe the way I believe (it's also the official position of the Catholic Church, for whatever that's worth these days), then that's your right, and I understand.
Perhaps there was no way to bring him back alive – I sure as hell wouldn't want to be in that dark house trying to make that snap decision. But if the execution was ordered in advance, then I say we should be told that now, and we can like it or not.
For nine years, I wrote and I said that Osama bin Laden was not hiding in a cave. I'm not a cave expert, I was just using my common sense. He was a multimillionaire crime boss (using religion as his cover), and those guys just don't live in caves. He had people killed under the guise of religion, and not many in the media bothered to explain that every time Osama referenced Islam, he wasn't really quoting Islam. Just because Osama said he was a "Muslim" didn't make it so. Yet he was called a Muslim by everyone. If a crazy person started running around mass-killing people, and he did so while wearing a Wal-Mart blazer and praising Wal-Mart, we wouldn't automatically call him a Wal-Mart leader or say that Wal-Mart was the philosophy behind his killings, would we?
Yet, we began to fear Muslims and round them up. We profiled people from Muslim nations at airports. We didn't profile multi-millionaires (in fact, they now have their own fast-track line to easily get through security, an oddity considering every murderer on 9/11 flew in first class). We didn't run headlines that said "Multi-Millionaire Behind the Mass Murder of 3,000" (although every word in that headline is true). You can say his wealth had nothing to do with 9/11, but the truth is, there is no way he could have kept Al Qaeda in business without having the millions he had.
Some believe that this was a "war" we were in with al Qaeda – and you don't do trials during war. It's thinking like this that makes me fear that, while bin Laden may be dead, he may have "won" the bigger battle. Let's be clear: There is no "war with al Qaeda." Wars are between nations. Al Qaeda was an organization of fanatics who committed crimes. That we elevated them to nation status – they loved it! It was great for their recruiting drive.
We did exactly what bin Laden said he wanted us to do: Give up our freedoms (like the freedom to be assumed innocent until proven guilty), engage our military in Muslim countries so that we will be hated by Muslims, and wipe ourselves out financially in doing so. Done, done and done, Osama. You had our number. You somehow knew we would eagerly give up our constitutional rights and become more like the authoritarian state you dreamed of. You knew we would exhaust our military and willingly go into more debt in eight years than we had accumulated in the previous 200 years combined.
Maybe you knew us so well because you were once one of our mercenaries, funded and armed by us via our friends in Pakistan to fight the other Evil Empire in the last battle of the Cold War. Only, when the killing stopped, the trained killer, our "Frankenstein," couldn't. The monster, you, would soon turn on us.
If we really want to send bin Laden not just to his death, but also to his defeat, may I suggest that we reverse all of that right now. End the wars, bring the troops home, make the rich pay for this mess, and restore our privacy and due process rights that used to distinguish us from any other country. Right now, our democracy looks like Singapore and our economy has gone desperately Greek.
I know it will be hard to turn the clock back to before 9/11 when all we had to worry about were candidates stealing elections. A multi-billion dollar industry has grown up around "homeland security" and the terror wars. These war profiteers will not want to give up their booty so easily. They will want to keep us in fear so they can keep raking it in. We will have to stop them. But first we must stop believing them.
Hideki Tojo killed my uncle and millions of Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and a hundred thousand other Americans. He was the head of Japan, the Emperor's henchman, the man who was the architect of Pearl Harbor. When the American soldiers went to arrest him, he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the chest. The soldiers immediately worked on stopping his bleeding and rushed him to an army hospital where he was saved by our army doctors. He then had his day in court. It was a powerful exercise for the world to see. And on December 23, 1948, after he was found guilty, we hanged him. A killer of millions was forced to stand trial. A killer of 4,000 (counting the African embassies and USS Cole bombings) got double-tapped in his pajamas. Assuming it was possible to take him alive, I think his victims, the future, and the restoration of the American Way deserved better. That's all I'm saying.
Good riddance Osama.
Come back to your ways, my good ol' USA.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
An Excellent Internet Posting
Here's am Excellent Posting I recently saw on the Internet:
"What should be articulated in any Democrat campaign is the vast difference between Democrat and Republican Parties: Republican -- No increase in taxes for the very rich, all of whom have so many tax shelters they pay little or none; bleed the middle class into the economic poor, and the poor into poverty. Democrat -- No tolerance for poverty and bring the poor into the middle class."
That sums up the difference between the two parties very succinctly.
One more difference: "A Democratic Candidate with Brains vs. a Republican Puppet with Strings".
"What should be articulated in any Democrat campaign is the vast difference between Democrat and Republican Parties: Republican -- No increase in taxes for the very rich, all of whom have so many tax shelters they pay little or none; bleed the middle class into the economic poor, and the poor into poverty. Democrat -- No tolerance for poverty and bring the poor into the middle class."
That sums up the difference between the two parties very succinctly.
One more difference: "A Democratic Candidate with Brains vs. a Republican Puppet with Strings".
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Why America Finally Came to Its Senses and Repealed Prohibition -- When Will America Finally Come to its Senses and Legalize Marijuana?
From The Wikipedia Enclyclopedia:
The proponents of Prohibition had believed that banning alcoholic beverages would reduce or even eliminate many social problems, particularly drunkenness, crime, mental illness, and poverty. Journalist H.L. Mencken asserted in 1925 that respect for law diminished rather than increased during Prohibition, and drunkenness, crime, insanity, and resentment towards the federal government had all increased.[citation needed]Some supporters of Prohibition, such as Rev. Charles Stelzle in his 1918 book Why Prohibition!, also believed that Prohibition would eventually lead to reductions in taxes, since drinking "produced half the business" for institutions supported by tax dollars such as courts, jails, hospitals, almshouses, and insane asylums.
In reality, however, alcohol consumption and the incidence of alcohol-related domestic violence were decreasing before the 18th Amendment was passed. Furthermore, reformers "were dismayed to find that child neglect and violence against children actually increased during the Prohibition era."
During Prohibition, people continued to produce and drink alcohol, and bootlegging helped foster a massive industry completely under the control of organized crime. Drinking in speakeasies became increasingly fashionable, and many mothers worried about the allure that alcohol and other illegal activities associated with bootlegging would have over their children.
Prohibitionists argued that Prohibition would be more effective if enforcement were increased. However, increased efforts to enforce Prohibition simply resulted in the government spending more money, rather than less. The economic cost of Prohibition became especially pronounced during the Great Depression. According to Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) and Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR) literature, an estimated $861 million dollars was lost in federal tax revenue from untaxed liquor; $40 million dollars was spent annually on Prohibition enforcement.
The AAPA also released a pamphlet claiming that $11,000,000,000 was lost in federal liquor-tax revenue and $310,000,000 was spent on Prohibition enforcement from 1920 to 1931. This lack of potential funding during a period of economic strife became a crucial part of the campaign for repeal.
The proponents of Prohibition had believed that banning alcoholic beverages would reduce or even eliminate many social problems, particularly drunkenness, crime, mental illness, and poverty. Journalist H.L. Mencken asserted in 1925 that respect for law diminished rather than increased during Prohibition, and drunkenness, crime, insanity, and resentment towards the federal government had all increased.[citation needed]Some supporters of Prohibition, such as Rev. Charles Stelzle in his 1918 book Why Prohibition!, also believed that Prohibition would eventually lead to reductions in taxes, since drinking "produced half the business" for institutions supported by tax dollars such as courts, jails, hospitals, almshouses, and insane asylums.
In reality, however, alcohol consumption and the incidence of alcohol-related domestic violence were decreasing before the 18th Amendment was passed. Furthermore, reformers "were dismayed to find that child neglect and violence against children actually increased during the Prohibition era."
During Prohibition, people continued to produce and drink alcohol, and bootlegging helped foster a massive industry completely under the control of organized crime. Drinking in speakeasies became increasingly fashionable, and many mothers worried about the allure that alcohol and other illegal activities associated with bootlegging would have over their children.
Prohibitionists argued that Prohibition would be more effective if enforcement were increased. However, increased efforts to enforce Prohibition simply resulted in the government spending more money, rather than less. The economic cost of Prohibition became especially pronounced during the Great Depression. According to Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA) and Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR) literature, an estimated $861 million dollars was lost in federal tax revenue from untaxed liquor; $40 million dollars was spent annually on Prohibition enforcement.
The AAPA also released a pamphlet claiming that $11,000,000,000 was lost in federal liquor-tax revenue and $310,000,000 was spent on Prohibition enforcement from 1920 to 1931. This lack of potential funding during a period of economic strife became a crucial part of the campaign for repeal.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Republicans' Budget: Redistribute America's Wealth Further Upward to the Wealthiest and Wreck the Poor, Working and Middle Classes
From The Progress Report -- May 11, 2011:
The Senate Republicans' Budget
Yesterday, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), along with fellow Tea Party-affiliated Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ron Johnson (R-WI), rolled out a budget proposal to slash spending to 18.5 percent of GDP and purportedly eliminate the federal deficit within a decade. In many ways, Toomey's plan mimics the House Republicans' budget which aims to reduce spending to just under 20 percent of GDP. On the revenue side, Toomey's budget reduces the brackets for the personal income tax and reduces the rates for both income and corporate taxes, as well as committing itself (at least in the abstract) to clearing out the tax code's panoply of expenditures and provisions. On the spending side, the budget copies Ryan's deep cuts to Medicaid and his re-working of the program into a block-grant system, while comm itting itself to profoundly deep cuts in non-military discretionary spending in order to reach its stated goal of reducing government services. There is, however, one politically noteworthy difference between the House Republicans' budget and Toomey's new proposal: Toomey completely abandons the House Republicans' highly controversial transformation of Medicare, and instead opts to leave the entitlement program effectively untouched. The word "politically" is important, as this is a patently strategic feint rather than a substance policy disagreement between Senate and House Republicans; Toomey and his cohorts have already declared they would vote for the House's gutting of Medicare.
STILL REDISTRIBUTING UPWARDS: Digging into the specifics of Toomey's alterations to the tax system, it consolidates the income tax system into fewer brackets (though where Ryan leaves the final number unspecified, Toomey settles on three brackets) while lowering marginal tax rates. For corporations, it cuts their tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, while instituting a territorial approach to taxation, that exempts corporations from paying taxes on overseas profits. And while the initial text of Toomey's budget does not specify a cut in the top income tax rates, The Enquirer reported this morning that it does indeed follow Ryan's model and hold all marginal tax rates to a maximum of 25 percent. And like Ryan, Toomey's commitment to making up much of the revenue lost to rate reductions by eliminating "special-interest tax loopholes and deductions" comes with no substantive numbers or specifics. When Republicans were given the opportunity to reduce oil subsidies and tax loopholes, the party declined to do so. Not once, but twice. As the Center for American Progress' Michael Linden pointed out in response to the Ryan budget, without greater specifics as to what the rates will be and what tax expenditures will be closed, the structure of the proposal effectively requires a massive tax hike on the middle class. When cuts to tax expenditures that benefit both the middle class and the wealthy are used to pay for massive rate cuts exclusively for those at the top, the math becomes unavoidable. Toomey's budget has the same problem, and is yet another example of conservatives' growing conviction that the rich pay too much, and everyone else pays too little. Their solution is even more redistribution of wealth up the income ladder.
TARGETING THE MIDDLE AND THE POOR: Like the budget proposal engineered by House Republicans, a large amount of Toomey's cuts comes from block-granting Medicaid. Under current law, the federal government pays a fixed percentage of the states' Medicaid expenses. But under Toomey's proposal, that contribution is transformed into a fixed annual dollar amount. As with the House Republicans' budget, the combination of the block grants plus the reduction in overall Medicaid spending will most likely force states to make drastic cuts in support for Medicaid recipients -- a group which included one-fifth of all American children in 2003, as well as one-third of all childbirths. Meanwhile, as of 2007, the disabled made up 42 percent of the program's enrollees, and the elderly made up another 25 percent. In reviewing the House Republicans' budget, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the proposal would require "severe reductions " in health-care for children and the disabled, while also curtailing long-term care for seniors. On top of that the CBPP also found that nearly two-thirds of Ryan's cuts -- $2.9 trillion in all -- would impact low-income Americans. More recently, The Kaiser Foundation found that carrying out this scheme would kick between 31 and 44 million Americans off the Medicaid roles by 2021, leaving them without any other readily affordable options for coverage. Given the Toomey budget's equivalent plan for Medicaid, and its determination to reduce government spending to 18.5 percent of GDP while leaving Social Security, Medicare, and Pentagon spending virtually untouched, it seems inescapable that it would inflict an equally crushing hardship on the American poor and working class, not to mention gutting everything from education funding to technological development, infrastructure investment, and public health and safety -- all of which would decimate the standard of living for the American middle-class.
The Senate Republicans' Budget
Yesterday, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), along with fellow Tea Party-affiliated Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ron Johnson (R-WI), rolled out a budget proposal to slash spending to 18.5 percent of GDP and purportedly eliminate the federal deficit within a decade. In many ways, Toomey's plan mimics the House Republicans' budget which aims to reduce spending to just under 20 percent of GDP. On the revenue side, Toomey's budget reduces the brackets for the personal income tax and reduces the rates for both income and corporate taxes, as well as committing itself (at least in the abstract) to clearing out the tax code's panoply of expenditures and provisions. On the spending side, the budget copies Ryan's deep cuts to Medicaid and his re-working of the program into a block-grant system, while comm itting itself to profoundly deep cuts in non-military discretionary spending in order to reach its stated goal of reducing government services. There is, however, one politically noteworthy difference between the House Republicans' budget and Toomey's new proposal: Toomey completely abandons the House Republicans' highly controversial transformation of Medicare, and instead opts to leave the entitlement program effectively untouched. The word "politically" is important, as this is a patently strategic feint rather than a substance policy disagreement between Senate and House Republicans; Toomey and his cohorts have already declared they would vote for the House's gutting of Medicare.
STILL REDISTRIBUTING UPWARDS: Digging into the specifics of Toomey's alterations to the tax system, it consolidates the income tax system into fewer brackets (though where Ryan leaves the final number unspecified, Toomey settles on three brackets) while lowering marginal tax rates. For corporations, it cuts their tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, while instituting a territorial approach to taxation, that exempts corporations from paying taxes on overseas profits. And while the initial text of Toomey's budget does not specify a cut in the top income tax rates, The Enquirer reported this morning that it does indeed follow Ryan's model and hold all marginal tax rates to a maximum of 25 percent. And like Ryan, Toomey's commitment to making up much of the revenue lost to rate reductions by eliminating "special-interest tax loopholes and deductions" comes with no substantive numbers or specifics. When Republicans were given the opportunity to reduce oil subsidies and tax loopholes, the party declined to do so. Not once, but twice. As the Center for American Progress' Michael Linden pointed out in response to the Ryan budget, without greater specifics as to what the rates will be and what tax expenditures will be closed, the structure of the proposal effectively requires a massive tax hike on the middle class. When cuts to tax expenditures that benefit both the middle class and the wealthy are used to pay for massive rate cuts exclusively for those at the top, the math becomes unavoidable. Toomey's budget has the same problem, and is yet another example of conservatives' growing conviction that the rich pay too much, and everyone else pays too little. Their solution is even more redistribution of wealth up the income ladder.
TARGETING THE MIDDLE AND THE POOR: Like the budget proposal engineered by House Republicans, a large amount of Toomey's cuts comes from block-granting Medicaid. Under current law, the federal government pays a fixed percentage of the states' Medicaid expenses. But under Toomey's proposal, that contribution is transformed into a fixed annual dollar amount. As with the House Republicans' budget, the combination of the block grants plus the reduction in overall Medicaid spending will most likely force states to make drastic cuts in support for Medicaid recipients -- a group which included one-fifth of all American children in 2003, as well as one-third of all childbirths. Meanwhile, as of 2007, the disabled made up 42 percent of the program's enrollees, and the elderly made up another 25 percent. In reviewing the House Republicans' budget, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded that the proposal would require "severe reductions " in health-care for children and the disabled, while also curtailing long-term care for seniors. On top of that the CBPP also found that nearly two-thirds of Ryan's cuts -- $2.9 trillion in all -- would impact low-income Americans. More recently, The Kaiser Foundation found that carrying out this scheme would kick between 31 and 44 million Americans off the Medicaid roles by 2021, leaving them without any other readily affordable options for coverage. Given the Toomey budget's equivalent plan for Medicaid, and its determination to reduce government spending to 18.5 percent of GDP while leaving Social Security, Medicare, and Pentagon spending virtually untouched, it seems inescapable that it would inflict an equally crushing hardship on the American poor and working class, not to mention gutting everything from education funding to technological development, infrastructure investment, and public health and safety -- all of which would decimate the standard of living for the American middle-class.
Republicans: Read This and Weep!
From the Associated Press -- May 11, 2011:
AP-Gfk poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Hits Highest Point in 2 Years
By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, May 11, 3:17 AM
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit its highest point in two years — 60 percent — and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll taken after U.S. forces killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
In worrisome signs for Republicans, the president’s standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy, and independent Americans — a key voting bloc in the November 2012 presidential election — caused the overall uptick in support by sliding back to Obama after fleeing for much of the past two years.
Comfortable majorities of the public now call Obama a strong leader who will keep America safe. Nearly three-fourths — 73 percent — also now say they are confident that Obama can effectively handle terrorist threats. And he improved his standing on Afghanistan, Iraq and the United States’ relationships with other countries.
Despite a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, 52 percent of Americans now approve of Obama’s stewardship of the economy, giving him his best rating on that issue since the early days of his presidency; 52 percent also now like how he’s handling the nation’s stubbornly high 9 percent unemployment.
The economy remains Americans’ top issue.
Impressions of the nation’s fiscal outlook have improved following last Friday’s positive jobs report, which showed American companies are on a hiring spree. More people now say that the economy got better in the past month and that it’s likely to continue doing so in the coming year.
Also, more Americans — 45 percent, up from 35 percent in March — say the country is headed in the right direction. Still, about half — 52 percent — say it’s on the wrong track, meaning Obama still has work to do to convince a restive public to stay with the status quo.
Some have seen enough to know they’ll stick with him.
“I was happy about bin Laden,” says Brenda Veckov, 42, of Hollidaysburg, Pa. “I put my fists in the air. To me, it was just a little bit of closure for the United States.”
“The president made the right decisions on this one. And I will vote for him again.”
Not everyone has such an optimistic view of Obama.
“I’m very concerned” about the country, says Susan Demarest in Snellville, Ga., 56, who didn’t support the Democrat last time and won’t this time. “I’m in my 50s and I worry that I’m not going to be able to retire at a reasonable age and enjoy the end of my life because of Medicare and Social Security and the debt of the country.” Still, she says Obama doesn’t carry all of the blame.
Obama’s overall political boost comes at an important time. He is embarking on his re-election campaign and is in the early days of a debate with Republicans who control the House over raising the country’s debt limit. But it’s unclear how long Obama’s strengthened standing will last in the aftermath of bin Laden’s death.
Americans say they overwhelmingly approve of the military’s handling of the risky nighttime mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan. But it hasn’t changed public opinion on the war in Afghanistan; most still are opposed to it, and a big majority favors Obama’s plan to withdraw all combat troops by 2014.
Overall, Obama’s approval rating is up from 53 percent in March and a 47 percent low point following last fall’s midterm congressional elections, in which Republicans won control of the House and gained seats in the Senate. It was 64 percent in May 2009, just months after he was sworn into office.
Also, 53 percent now say he deserves to be re-elected; 43 percent say he should be fired, making it the first time in an AP-GfK poll that more people say he should get a second term than not.
“I have the impression that Barack Obama works really hard for Americans and that I see his leadership as something that should be continued,” says independent voter Allison Kaplan, 25, in Austin, Texas, who voted for him in 2008. She praises the administration for handling bin Laden’s raid well — “the way that it happened was the correct way” — and it reinforced her support of the president.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans who call themselves political independents now approve of him; only about half did in March. They were critical to his 2008 victory but many had fled as his administration increased government spending and passed a sweeping health care overhaul. They could just as easily turn away again between now and next fall.
Bryan Noonan, 23, of Hampstead, N.H., is one of those independents. He backed Obama in 2008 and is likely to vote for the president again, given the other options.
“I haven’t been real impressed by the Republicans,” he says. He doesn’t hold Obama accountable for the sluggish economy or rising gas prices, issues Noonan says seem “out of his hands. It’s not like there’s a magic solution.”
Noonan likes Obama’s foreign policies and applauds the killing of bin Laden, saying: “I was pretty much relieved, happy to hear that we got him. The president absolutely deserves credit.”
Among the poll’s other findings:
— Sixty-nine percent say Obama will keep America safe, up from 61 percent in March; 65 percent call him a “strong leader,” up from 57 percent.
— Sixty-three percent say Obama cares about people like them; 63 percent also say that he understands the problems of ordinary Americans.
— Sixty-three percent view Obama favorably, up from 59 percent in March.
AP-Gfk poll: Obama’s Approval Rating Hits Highest Point in 2 Years
By Associated Press, Updated: Wednesday, May 11, 3:17 AM
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit its highest point in two years — 60 percent — and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll taken after U.S. forces killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
In worrisome signs for Republicans, the president’s standing improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy, and independent Americans — a key voting bloc in the November 2012 presidential election — caused the overall uptick in support by sliding back to Obama after fleeing for much of the past two years.
Comfortable majorities of the public now call Obama a strong leader who will keep America safe. Nearly three-fourths — 73 percent — also now say they are confident that Obama can effectively handle terrorist threats. And he improved his standing on Afghanistan, Iraq and the United States’ relationships with other countries.
Despite a sluggish recovery from the Great Recession, 52 percent of Americans now approve of Obama’s stewardship of the economy, giving him his best rating on that issue since the early days of his presidency; 52 percent also now like how he’s handling the nation’s stubbornly high 9 percent unemployment.
The economy remains Americans’ top issue.
Impressions of the nation’s fiscal outlook have improved following last Friday’s positive jobs report, which showed American companies are on a hiring spree. More people now say that the economy got better in the past month and that it’s likely to continue doing so in the coming year.
Also, more Americans — 45 percent, up from 35 percent in March — say the country is headed in the right direction. Still, about half — 52 percent — say it’s on the wrong track, meaning Obama still has work to do to convince a restive public to stay with the status quo.
Some have seen enough to know they’ll stick with him.
“I was happy about bin Laden,” says Brenda Veckov, 42, of Hollidaysburg, Pa. “I put my fists in the air. To me, it was just a little bit of closure for the United States.”
“The president made the right decisions on this one. And I will vote for him again.”
Not everyone has such an optimistic view of Obama.
“I’m very concerned” about the country, says Susan Demarest in Snellville, Ga., 56, who didn’t support the Democrat last time and won’t this time. “I’m in my 50s and I worry that I’m not going to be able to retire at a reasonable age and enjoy the end of my life because of Medicare and Social Security and the debt of the country.” Still, she says Obama doesn’t carry all of the blame.
Obama’s overall political boost comes at an important time. He is embarking on his re-election campaign and is in the early days of a debate with Republicans who control the House over raising the country’s debt limit. But it’s unclear how long Obama’s strengthened standing will last in the aftermath of bin Laden’s death.
Americans say they overwhelmingly approve of the military’s handling of the risky nighttime mission in Abbottabad, Pakistan. But it hasn’t changed public opinion on the war in Afghanistan; most still are opposed to it, and a big majority favors Obama’s plan to withdraw all combat troops by 2014.
Overall, Obama’s approval rating is up from 53 percent in March and a 47 percent low point following last fall’s midterm congressional elections, in which Republicans won control of the House and gained seats in the Senate. It was 64 percent in May 2009, just months after he was sworn into office.
Also, 53 percent now say he deserves to be re-elected; 43 percent say he should be fired, making it the first time in an AP-GfK poll that more people say he should get a second term than not.
“I have the impression that Barack Obama works really hard for Americans and that I see his leadership as something that should be continued,” says independent voter Allison Kaplan, 25, in Austin, Texas, who voted for him in 2008. She praises the administration for handling bin Laden’s raid well — “the way that it happened was the correct way” — and it reinforced her support of the president.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans who call themselves political independents now approve of him; only about half did in March. They were critical to his 2008 victory but many had fled as his administration increased government spending and passed a sweeping health care overhaul. They could just as easily turn away again between now and next fall.
Bryan Noonan, 23, of Hampstead, N.H., is one of those independents. He backed Obama in 2008 and is likely to vote for the president again, given the other options.
“I haven’t been real impressed by the Republicans,” he says. He doesn’t hold Obama accountable for the sluggish economy or rising gas prices, issues Noonan says seem “out of his hands. It’s not like there’s a magic solution.”
Noonan likes Obama’s foreign policies and applauds the killing of bin Laden, saying: “I was pretty much relieved, happy to hear that we got him. The president absolutely deserves credit.”
Among the poll’s other findings:
— Sixty-nine percent say Obama will keep America safe, up from 61 percent in March; 65 percent call him a “strong leader,” up from 57 percent.
— Sixty-three percent say Obama cares about people like them; 63 percent also say that he understands the problems of ordinary Americans.
— Sixty-three percent view Obama favorably, up from 59 percent in March.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
