Tag Archives: Barack Obama

NYT’s Cooper: Obama Becomes Jimmy Carter If He Doesn’t Get Control Of Oil Spill

Barack Obama’s presidency goes the way of Jimmy Carter’s if he doesn’t get control of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. So said New York Times White House correspondent Helene Cooper on the most recent installment of “The Chris Matthews Show.” As the opening segment’s discussion concerning the spill moved to a close, the host surprisingly asked his panel if  Obama can continue to “blame the previous administration, the oil patch guys, Bush and Cheney” for the disaster. Readers will likely find the answers quite surprising (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Bottom line politically, he can no longer, can he longer blame the previous administration, the oil patch guys, Bush and Cheney, or does he have to move on and take the heat? JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I think he has to move on. He has to move on largely because forgetting about what caused the spill, there’s now a disaster that’s going to play out over months in terms of how do we keep the oil off our shores, how do we get it out of the mashes, keep it off the marshes, how do we limit the impact now. So that is his challenge. And this is not going to be Bush’s or Cheney’s challenge. That’s on his front door. MATTHEWS: Present danger. Let me ask you this, everybody, right around here. We’re going to end with this: will he get on top of this whole oil mess in the Gulf, get on top of it? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: I think they would argue that they are on top of it. I think his… MATTHEWS: What would an objective observer say right now? Are they on top of this? Will they get on top of it? GUTHRIE: Well, I don’t think we can say until the leak is capped. RICK STENGEL, TIME: I think they will use the crisis as an opportunity and he will build it into something that can be a national campaign. MATTHEWS: And he will look better after this is over than he did before? STENGEL: Well, he will look better than he did at the beginning. MATTHEWS: Okay. Helene? HELENE COOPER, NEW YORK TIMES: He has to. If he doesn’t, I think his presidency is, will go the way of Jimmy Carter’s. HEILEMANN: I think, I think, I’m with Helene. I think he has to. And I think if he doesn’t it will really cost him. Are media after more than seven weeks of watching a pathetic response to this disaster finally turning on the President they helped get elected, or is this just a moment of frustration? Stay tuned. 

Continue reading here:
NYT’s Cooper: Obama Becomes Jimmy Carter If He Doesn’t Get Control Of Oil Spill

Rabbi Who Outed Helen Thomas is ‘Liberal’ Who Opposed Iraq War, ‘Reevaluating’ His Views

During an interview on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, Rabbi David Nesenoff, known for exposing Helen Thomas’s anti-Semitic views, informed viewers that, up until now, he has has considered himself to be a liberal Democrat – who even opposed the Iraq War and supported Barack Obama – but now asserts that ” I have to really reevaluate liberal and conservative and really find out where I stand because I think I’ve been a little blind.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, June 13, Reliable Sources on CNN: HOWARD KURTZ: Did you have any idea when you took out that video camera and asked Helen Thomas that question that she was hostile toward Israel? RABBI DAVID NESENOFF, RABBILIVE.COM: I didn’t approach her thinking that. Now that I see a lot of things in the news, I certainly can review and see that she’s had a lot of different thoughts, but, of course, there might be anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. That’s very different than anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish and wanting to cleanse a piece of land, so, up until this point, this is just an individual who is pro-Palestinian. People should look out for the Palestinian rights. Everybody should look out for everybody’s rights, and there’s nothing wrong with that. KURTZ: As you know, Helen Thomas has been a longtime institution here in the capital, she’s been a heroine to many female journalists, and some people are blaming you for ending her career. NESENOFF: Yeah, you know, I received about 25,000 hate mail, you know, emails, and, more shocking than even that, is the hate media I’m beginning to learn about – you know, from TV and newspapers and blogs and talk shows and entertainers, and they’re accusing me of being some right-wing ambusher, and it really rocked my world because I have to reevaluate my life and my standing in the agendas because, yeah, I’m a New York Democrat Jewish liberal supporter of Obama, donated to his candidacy for a year, said give him a chance, give him a chance, defended, watched all these liberal media, and now I have to reevaluate, I have to speak, I have to now speak to people with all different agendas because if I was part of a team where their agenda was that Israel and the Jewish people don’t have a connection – which is exactly what Helen Thomas said – there’s no connection, why are they even there- KURTZ: Well, let me interrupt you. What do you mean when you say “hate media”? I mean, obviously, you find yourself in the middle of this firestorm. Do you feel that journalists, programs, commentators have been personally unfair to you? And can you explain how? NESENOFF: You know, I find that people that don’t cover the story or people that cover the story are so upset that they don’t know what to do, so they have to attack me, maybe we’ll say he did something on purpose or he filmed it a certain way, or we’ll find out what he did in his past. I mean, they don’t know what to do with it, but why don’t they actually ask me and find out maybe I liked Helen Thomas and I was actually for the fact that she went ahead and spoke to President Bush and said watch it with the Iraq War, although now I understand – and we have to reevaluate – that maybe when she was protesting the Iraq War, I was saying that because I didn’t want our soldiers to be in harm’s way. It turns out she didn’t want the Iraqis to be in harm’s way. So we have to, kind of, I have to really reevaluate liberal and conservative and really find out where I stand because I think I’ve been a little blind.

Read the original post:
Rabbi Who Outed Helen Thomas is ‘Liberal’ Who Opposed Iraq War, ‘Reevaluating’ His Views

Leaked ObamaCare Docs Ignore Costs of the Law’s Mandates in ‘De-Grandfathering’ Estimates

On Friday, Investors Business Daily (IBD) reported on leaked government documents identifying what employer-provided health plans can and cannot do if they wish to retain their “grandfathered” status under the statist health care legislation commonly known as ObamaCare that became law on March 23. One of the items in the government document ( 83-page PDF ) is the following table, which estimates the percentages of large and small employers who will choose to “relinquish” (i.e., give up) their grandfathered status: In ironic timing, Walecia Konrad at the New York Times, in a personal finance column that appeared in the paper’s Saturday print edition and which was probably written shortly before IBD’s report, inadvertently revealed that ObamaCare itself may be a reason why employer “relinquishments” over the next three years come in well above the mid-range estimates in the table: As in years past, employers are also grappling with how to offset rising health care costs. Recent years have brought an average cost increase of about 9 percent, said Tracy Watts, a partner at Mercer Health and Benefits. In most cases, companies have been able to absorb about 6 percentage points of those cost increases a year, passing the rest onto employees. This year Ms. Watts estimates that changes made in response to the health law will add an extra 2 to 3 percent in cost increases , pressuring employers to engage in even more cost-sharing with employees — whether through higher premiums, co-payments or other out-of-pocket costs. (Senior vice president at Fidelity Consulting Services Pearce) Weaver also reports increased interest by employers in high-deductible insurance plans. “They’ve been effective in managing costs,” he said. The estimates tabulated above are based on a review of employer plan design changes made from 2008 to 2009. The government did not attempt to look at what might have happened if “an extra 2 to 3 percent” in ObamaCare-driven costs had been piled into the mix. Facing a higher mandated cost structure even beyond increases in the cost of health care services, many employers will find themselves unable to redesign their plans within ObamaCare’s tight grandfathering constraints while remaining competitive (or possibly viable), and will choose to relinquish, i.e., “de-grandfather.” The government’s document says that a de-grandfathered employer has two choices: “Significantly change the terms of the plan or coverage and comply with Affordable Care Act provisions from which grandfathered health plans are excepted; or in the case of a plan sponsor, cease to offer any plan.” To “comply with Affordable Care Act provisions,” an employer would have to offer a plan with ObamaCare’s specified minimum coverage levels, which are far higher and far more expensive than typical private plans, or, conceivably, offer coverage that is even better. Left unstated by the government is the fact that employers above a certain very small workforce threshold who “cease to offer any plan” must pay a payroll-based penalty for not doing so. Unless I’m missing something, the government’s grandfathering regs as drafted also close off the “high-deductible plan” option Konrad cited above. That’s because, as IBD reported, an employer plan will be de-grandfathered if: “It eliminates benefits related to diagnosis or treatment of a particular condition.” “It increases the percentage of a cost-sharing requirement (such as co-insurance) above its level as of March 23, 2010.” “It increases the fixed amount of cost-sharing such as deductibles or out-of-pocket limits by a total percentage measured from March 23, 2010, that is more than the sum of medical inflation plus 15 percentage points.” “It increases co-payments from March 23, 2010, by an amount that is the greater of: medical inflation plus 15 percentage points or medical inflation plus $5.” “The employer’s share of the premium decreases more than 5 percentage points below what the share was on March 23, 2010.” Beyond that, the ObamaCare-driven “extra 2 to three percent” to which the Times’s Konrad refers above may be low. One mandate alone may (I would say probably will) cause costs to increase by about that amount. This was explained in a May 25 item found at the Society for Human Resources Management (bold is mine): The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released estimates in May 2010 of the costs and benefits of the requirement to cover adult children up to age 26, as part of a regulation directing employers and insurers on how to carry it out. The new benefit is estimated by HHS to cost $3,380 for each dependent, raising premiums by 0.7 percent in 2011 for employer plans, according to the department’s mid-range estimate. Some 1.2 million young adults are expected to sign up, more than half of whom would have been uninsured. … there are concerns about the impact of adverse selection with this population. That is, prior to 2014 when all Americans must secure health care coverage, healthy young adults may chose to forgo coverage through their parent’s plan, while the estimated one in six young adults with chronic health issues would be the most likely to accept coverage under their parent’s plan. This self-selection for coverage by the least healthy could result in higher coverage costs than the estimates presented above. … Bruce Davis, health and group benefits national practice leader at HR consultancy Findley Davies … said as of May 2010 his firm is forecasting an additional cost increase of 2 to 2.5 percent to account for the unknown cost of adding adult children, and an overall health care cost trend increase of around 11 percent for 2011. Exit questions: What in this so-called “Affordable Health Care Act” is really “affordable”? Who else (if anyone) in the establishment press will meaningfully address how obviously and utterly untrue the president’s core promise to employees (“If you like your coverage, you can keep it?) has become less than 90 days since ObamaCare passed? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

The rest is here:
Leaked ObamaCare Docs Ignore Costs of the Law’s Mandates in ‘De-Grandfathering’ Estimates

Snooki Re: Tanning — Pants on Fire!

Filed under: Snooki , Barack Obama , Budweiser Select 55 Snooki wasn’t telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when she said she didn’t use tanning beds anymore because of President Barack Obama ‘s harsh comments. Our ” Jersey Shore ” spies tell us Snooki is now doing what’s called a… Read more

Continued here:
Snooki Re: Tanning — Pants on Fire!

Washington Post Tags Nikki Haley as a Former ‘Small-time Agitator’

When’s the last time a journalist referred to Barack Obama as a former “small-time agitator?” That’s exactly how the Washington Post described Republican Nikki Haley in a profile piece on Saturday. A headline for the article by political reporter Philip Rucker critiqued “ Nikki Haley goes from small-time agitator to credible candidate for S.C. governor.”   The piece on the conservative politician also offered this back-handed compliment: “ Haley is friendly, and funny in a generic way ; yet she keeps her politics from becoming too personal.” When describing the state legislator’s  crusade to force elected officials to publicly disclose their votes, Rucker cynically explained: There may have been more than an element of calculation in her effort. She traveled all over the state slamming fellow Republicans for their lack of transparency, and drawing plenty of attention to herself along the way. To be fair, the Post piece does offer some positive, humanizing details about Haley. Readers learn: She puts big decisions on hold for 24 hours, she said, “to take the emotion out of it.” Her inner circle includes only two campaign advisers and her husband, Michael, a full-time National Guardsman. She still handles many of the details of her schedule, sleeps just a few hours a night and clicks out torrents of e-mail on her BlackBerry at all hours. However, a Nexis search of Washington Post stories featuring Barack Obama and the phrase “small-time agitator” finds no matches. Perhaps if Haley had been a “community organizer,” she wouldn’t have received such cynical treatment. In contrast, as the MRC’s Ken Shepherd reported on Thursday, Rucker and Ann Gerhart offered a fawning 60 paragraph piece on liberal Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The co-writers enthused, “She made her life the law and became consumed by it — and happily so, by all accounts.” The piece also highlighted Kagan’s love for poker and the opera. For more examples of the biased coverage Nikki Haley has recieved, see these NewBusters accounts . Rucker can be reached on Twitter here . 

See the original post:
Washington Post Tags Nikki Haley as a Former ‘Small-time Agitator’

Bozell Column: MTV’s Pinata of Profanity

It should tell you something that MTV is still highly valued by Hollywood as the televised center of the coolness universe. Why else would a top movie star like Tom Cruise dress up ridiculously as a fat, bald, bearded guy and embarrass himself in a profanity-littered skit on the MTV Movie Awards? Cruise opened the show by saying he was going to take the program, put it up his posterior, and make it a diamond. He welcomed viewers to “Relax, and enjoy my two-hour giant s—.” And so it began, an apt description for the two hours that followed. What is it about celebrities that they have to – absolutely must – be obscene in front of audiences with millions of impressionable children watching? Broadcast networks have had repeated trouble at awards shows with celebrities cursing. But on cable television, which fears no fines or discipline from the Federal Communications Commission, MTV doesn’t see profanity as a shocking accident. On this show, it was an intentional profanity barrage. If you love infantile cursing as dearly as MTV does, it was a stimulating profanity bath. And it was staged. Actress Anna Kendrick asked, “Ready to make the censors’ ears bleed?” A review of the 122-minute special by the Culture and Media Institute found more than 100 swear words. (Once you remove the incessant commercials, that was more than one a minute.) Network censors bleeped 70 curse words, including a remarkable 47 variations of “f—,” 11 uses of “s—,” two of “a–h—,” one slang expression for breasts, and nine even the watchdogs couldn’t identify. But at least 30 profanities made it past the censors, including nine variations of “f—-,” two of “s—” and one “goddamn.” The censors didn’t even try to cover a whole host of other curse words. It was like candy coming out of a pinata. MTV censors grabbed as many as they could. One of the most egregious offenders was actor Peter Facinelli, who accepted the “Best Picture” award for the teen vampire drama “Twilight: New Moon.” He cooed “I’ve never heard the word ‘f—‘ used so many times in one evening.” He then went on to use it eight times himself, four of which made it past the censors. He only skipped cursing as he honored Stephenie Meyer, the author of the “Twilight” books, because he explained “she’s a Mormon.” That’s consideration, Hollywood-style.  MTV even worked the profanities into three award titles. One was the “Best Scared as S— Performance.” This apparently required S-bombs in the introduction, as comedian Steve Carell declared “When I watched [the low-budget horror movie] ‘Paranormal Activity,’ I literally s— myself.” When predictable controversy erupted, MTV issued a plastic apology: “The MTV Movie Awards is a live televised event known for irreverent comedy and a party atmosphere where our guests speak more freely than they otherwise might. While we aired the live broadcast with a delay, we were unable to mute every word that some might find objectionable. All of these words will be muted in subsequent airings.” That’s responsibility, Hollywood-style. Left unaddressed: how MTV’s “party atmosphere” was entirely their doing. All this cursing was about as unplanned as last year’s Movie Awards stunt, where Sacha Baron Cohen’s bare butt floated in the air just inches away from the face of the rapper Eminem, who feigned outrage and “stormed out.”  The idea that MTV execs would place any of the blame on the celebrities is simply laughable. They put cursing in their award titles, stuffed into their pre-recorded skit with Tom Cruise, and clearly expected a stream of it from their un-famous master of ceremonies, comedian Aziz Ansari. Many of these stars have no trouble appearing in other venues without cursing their faces off. Clearly, in this venue, they were bowing to what they felt MTV wanted. If this spectacle wasn’t enough, MTV heavily promoted throughout the Movie Awards show its new scripted comedy, “The Hard Times of R.J. Berger.” The show’s main plot device? Young Berger loses his pants on the high-school basketball court, demonstrating to the entire school that he has an enormous penis. That’s taste, Hollywood-style. MTV promos during the Movie Awards showed a godly glow coming from R.J.’s crotch, and twisted the Bible to joke “The meek shall inherit the girth.” Before his indecent exposure, R.J. lamented “I’m God’s urinal cake.” One nerdy girl tells R.J. “Any time, any place, any orifice.” She also refers to menstruation as “a vampire buffet.” The Los Angeles Times it declared this raunchy “Berger” show was like the movie “Superbad,” only “minus the humor, warmth, and believability” – and then declared MTV had a hit on its hands with it. Will MTV blame the actors on “Berger” for repeating the disgusting language of MTV’s script?

Originally posted here:
Bozell Column: MTV’s Pinata of Profanity

Letterman Guest Robert Klein Suggests Limbaugh’s Good Health is a Bad Thing

Appearing as a guest on Friday’s Late Show with David Letterman on CBS, left-wing comedian Robert Klein suggested that it was bad that Rush Limbaugh turned out to be in good health after his hospital visit in Hawaii, inspiring laughter from Letterman. Klein: “You lose some, you win some.” After Letterman brought up the birther conspiracy theory that President Obama was not born in America, Klein, who is known for attacking conservatives in his comedy act over sex scandals while being softer on liberals, changed the subject to Limbaugh’s fourth marriage to suggest that Limbaugh is hypocritical for opposing same-sex marriage, and then joked about the possibility of the conservative talker having health problems. Klein: What’s his name, Rush Limbaugh, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage he’s done it four times now, you know, but, you know, not if he, doesn’t approve of marriage if both the husband and wife are circumcised, you know, that’s out of the question. I think a lot of that came from him, and, you know, he was in the hospital couple of months ago in Hawaii. Turned out to be nothing. See? You lose some, you win some. But anyway. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, June 11, Late Show with David Letterman: DAVID LETTERMAN: I’m ignorant in the world of politics, and I don’t know what the people that believe, and the ones who do believe, who really believe that he wasn’t born in this country, that they claim that he hasn’t produced a birth certificate. Do you have any understanding of why we’ve selected this to worry about? I mean, I believe he was born in the United States. ROBERT KLEIN: I’m not worried about it. It’s just, you know, dirty pool, and, you know, what’s his name, Rush Limbaugh, who believes so much in the sanctity of marriage he’s done it four times now, you know, but, you know, not if he, doesn’t approve of marriage if both the husband and wife are circumcised, you know, that’s out of the question. I think a lot of that came from him and, you know, he was in the hospital couple of months ago in Hawaii. Turned out to be nothing. See? You lose some, you win some. But anyway. (LETTERMAN LAUGHS) (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE) LETTERMAN: Turned out to be nothing.

Excerpt from:
Letterman Guest Robert Klein Suggests Limbaugh’s Good Health is a Bad Thing

Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

Earlier this year, in his “Can we lose health coverage? Yes we can” column, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock made a point asserted in dozens if not hundreds of columns and reports during the hide-and-seek legistlative process that ultimately led to the passage of what is commonly known as ObamaCare: The President’s core promise relating to the statist health care legislation that ultimately became law in March — namely that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what” — could not and would not be kept. In that column, Murdock quoted Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon as follows: “Obama’s definition of ‘meaningful’ coverage could eliminate the health plans that now cover as many as half of the 159 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance, plus more than half of the roughly 18 million Americans in the individual market. … This could compel close to 90 million Americans to switch to more comprehensive health plans with higher premiums, whether they value the added coverage or not.” In a late Friday afternoon blog post followed by a fuller early evening report , David Hogberg and Sean Higgins at Investors Business Daily confirmed that Obama’s never-credible core promise is on the brink of being shattered, and that the employer-related calculations by Cato’s Cannon were essentially correct (graphically illustrated by IBD at the top right): Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare. Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans. The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document. In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law. …. The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare’s regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans. Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon. … In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a “bait and switch.” … (A White House) source conceded: “It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status.” … In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status. When one looks at the list of what would cause a plan to get de-grandfathered compiled by Hogberg and Higgins, it’s easy to see why the percentages are so large. The referenced Treasury document (an 83-page PDF ) lays out how employers might react to the new law on Page 36: Page Plan sponsors and issuers can decide to: 1. Continue offering the plan or coverage in effect on March 23, 2010 with limited changes, and thereby retain grandfathered status; 2. Significantly change the terms of the plan or coverage and comply with Affordable Care Act provisions from which grandfathered health plans are excepted; or 3. In the case of a plan sponsor, cease to offer any plan. Option 1 would be nice, but as the IBD reporters noted in the bolded paragraph in the excerpt above, most employers would have run afoul of it during the past year. This means that they would have been forced into Options 2 or 3. Employers choosing Option 2 would have to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through the bill’s health insurance exchanges. Employers choosing Option 3 would force their employees to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through those same exchanges. If the legislation stands, the end result over a not very long time will be that the large majority of employers and employees will be stuck in the exchanges, the roach motels of health care — Once you go in, you can’t come out. Statist mission accomplished. The Associated Press has noticed the story too, but with the weakest of headlines: “Health overhaul to force changes in employer plans.” The content isn’t much better. Earth to AP reporter Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar: ObamaCare, as predicted by so many during the previous year by experts most of the establishment press willfully ignored, will cause many employers to drop their insurance entirely. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

More:
Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

Friday Night Funnies: Obama Sings ‘Kick Ass’ Song

The folks at Auto-tune the News have done it again, this time putting President Obama’s “Whose ass to kick” interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer to a hip-hop melody (h/t Right Scoop ). Enjoy!

More:
Friday Night Funnies: Obama Sings ‘Kick Ass’ Song

Brosnan Harpoons Obama for Voting "Present" on Whaling

Actor and environmental activisit Pierce Brosnan has taken the cause of whales to heart. He does not want humans to kill them, period. www.SaveTheWhalesNow.org has just released a PSA featuring Brosnan, taking President Obama to task for apparently reneging on a campaign promise to support an International whaling moratorium… (Video after jump)