Tag Archives: president

Time’s Scherer Blames Press Pool for Obama’s Flipping and Flopping on Ground Zero Mosque

Michael Scherer of Time tried to explain the concept of  “Why Barack Obama Doesn’t Like to Chit-Chat with the Press Corps” — despite their obvious affection for him. The president’s first Ground Zero Mosque comments were “perfectly scripted,” he wrote, and perfectly timed, on a Friday night at a Muslim dinner celebrating Ramadan. Scherer doesn’t get that the venue could be controversial, considering Obama’s allergies to traditional Christian prayer breakfasts. But this “perfect” scenario was ruined by the White House press pool (specifically, CNN’s Ed Henry ): A reporter asked a stray question, and Obama blew all the careful planning of his staff. He varied from his initial remarks, creating a new narrative for a story the White House does not want to linger. Was he adding an asterisk to his remarks, as the Washington Post put it ? Was it a recalibration, as the New York Times put it ? In short, this is a communications disaster. The White House had to release a statement clarifying the new statement, or restatement, or whatever. The president’s opponents, who had been pushing the mosque issue for weeks as a way to get Democrats on the wrong side of the polls in an election year, came out celebrating. Liz Cheney, who can diminish just about any nuanced thought into a barbed cable news talking point , emailed Politico’s Mike Allen from her iPhone. “I guess President Obama was for the mosque before he was against it. You can quote me,” went the message. You can sense the creative tension between the lines for reporters like Scherer. They want their access to top officials, and yet in the Obama era, they very much want those top officials to achieve their “perfect” media calibrations, and not provide grist to nuance-diminishing conservative attack dogs. They think like campaign operatives — oh, shoot, Obama shouldn’t have talked to Ed Henry besides the jokes about whether he’d swim shirtless! Henry’s question was not a hardball, just an invitation for further reflection on the mosque controversy. Scherer added that a previous Obama gaffe murdered the chances for “comprehensive” immigration amnesty: Saturday’s gaffe represents the second time this year that an unscheduled chit chat with the press corps caused him big problems. In late April, he came to the back of Air Force One and said “there may not be appetite” for immigration reform, an admission dubbed by one reporter Obama’s “fatal flinch” that infuriated Senate leaders and Hispanic voters, and effectively ended any hope for the bill passing this year. Isn’t it possible that Obama didn’t fatally wound an amnesty bill, but that there really was no real public appetite for such a bill?

Excerpt from:
Time’s Scherer Blames Press Pool for Obama’s Flipping and Flopping on Ground Zero Mosque

AP Writers Package Months-Old Polling Data As Currently Relevant News

Memo to Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson of the Associated Press and two other writers who contributed to this report (“AP-GfK polls show Obama losing independents”): You should have taken the weekend off. When I saw a shorter, earlier version of the referenced AP report this morning, it didn’t mention when AP’s polling arm AP-GfK Roper had done their work. When I went to the polling home page and found that the most recent entries were from June 9-14, I figured I’d come back later and give the group time to post fresh underlying details. Little did I know that AP’s gaggle of writers were treating the June 9-14 “Poll Politics Topline” as fresh. It gets worse. It turns out that Fram, Tompson et al wasted about 875 words on a report based on polling data that gave equal weights to results from mid-June, mid-May, and mid-April. Considering the primary topic of discussion, independents’ take on the Obama presidency and performance of Congress, this AP report is laughably irrelevant — unless its primary purpose, especially given that earlier versions of the story didn’t identify when the polling took place, was to present data designed to make readers and listeners think that things are better than they really are right now for Democrats heading into the midterm elections. Here are selected paragraph from the bylined AP pair’s non-punctual piece : Independents who embraced President Barack Obama’s call for change in 2008 are ready for a shift again, and that’s worrisome news for Democrats. Only 32 percent of those citing no allegiance to either major party say they want Democrats to keep control of Congress in this November’s elections, according to combined results of recent Associated Press-GfK polls. That’s way down from the 52 percent of independents who backed Obama over Republican Sen. John McCain two years ago, and the 49 percent to 41 percent edge by which they preferred Democratic candidates for the House in that election, according to exit polls of voters. Independents voice especially strong concerns about the economy, with 9 in 10 calling it a top problem and no other issue coming close, the analysis of the AP-GfK polls shows. While Democrats and Republicans rank the economy the No. 1 problem in similar numbers, they are nearly as worried about their No. 2 issues, health care for Democrats and terrorism for Republicans. Ominously for Democrats, independents trust Republicans more on the economy by a modest but telling 42 percent to 36 percent. That’s bad news for the party that controls the White House and Congress at a time of near 10 percent unemployment and the slow economic recovery. … Both parties court independents for obvious reasons. Besides their sheer number – 4 in 10 describe themselves as independents in combined AP-GfK polling for April, May and June – they are a crucial swing group. To try winning them over, Republicans say they will contrast Obama’s campaign promises of change with the huge spending programs he’s approved. Democrats say they will warn independents that a GOP victory will revive that party’s efforts to cut taxes for the rich and transform Social Security into risky private investment accounts. … Independents trust Republicans far more than Democrats for handling national security, but give Democrats a 42 percent to 36 percent edge for dealing with health care – a potential sign that distrust over Obama’s signature issue is receding. Hope is not lost for Democrats. The AP-GfK polls show a narrow 44 percent to 41 percent overall preference for a Democratic Congress. The party is holding its 2008 edge among women and urban residents, and still splitting the vote of pivotal suburbanites and people earning $50,000 to $100,000. Let’s look at just a few relatively current data points from elsewhere relating to the Fram’s and Tompson’s topics: Trust on health care — The antiquated AP-GfK report cites a 49-39 average Democratic edge among all voters across April, May and June (at Page 26 of detailed report; not in AP’s story). A Rasmussen report based on late June polling data shows Republicans with a 51-40 edge. Even that was six weeks ago. Since then we have learned that Team Obama is arguing in court that ObamaCare’s health insurance purchase mandate is a tax after telling the country for months before the legislation’s passage that it wasn’t. There have also been instances where abortion coverage was found in high-risk pool plans in several states, which were only eliminated when the Department of Health and Human Services issued regulations doing so. This exercise proved, as if proof was really needed, that the pro-life Executive Order that supposedly won over the Stupak Stooges — er, the Stupak Six — was nothing but a charade. Trust on the economy — AP-GfK shows a 45-42 average Democratic advantage (again at Page 26 of detailed report). The same Rasmussen report noted previously is 48-39, advantage GOP . Given the wave of weak economic news in the past six weeks, it would notbe surprising to see that the Republican advantage here has increased since then. Preference in who controls Congress — AP-GfK cites a 44-41 Democratic edge. This question has been a virtual dead heat in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll all year . The latest result based on August 5-9 polling showing a one-point Democratic lead. No AP poll would be complete without a bit of cooking. In this instance, the AP-GfK poll’s average Democratic ingredient outweighed the GOP’s by 44. Gallup’s most recent poll on the topic, admittedly a reversal from most of its results during the past several months, shows the GOP with a 2% edge in party affiliation, including “leaners.” It appears that AP-GfK polls on the topics presented every month. It would thus be reasonable to assume that it has data for July, and that in a few days it will have data for August. Thus, it’s odd that the wire service wouldn’t have simply waited a few days to give us fresher information. Or maybe someone has seen that info, and would prefer not to have to report it at all. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See original here:
AP Writers Package Months-Old Polling Data As Currently Relevant News

Sunday Funnies: Obama Brings His Teleprompter On Vacation

As President Obama headed to the Florida Panhandle for a vacation with the family, he felt the need to drag his teleprompter along (h/t Freedom’s Lighthouse ):   Swimsuit? Check.  Sunscreen? Got it. Insect repellent? Yep . Teleprompter? Teleprompter?   The Teleprompter of the United States: Don’t leave home without it!  

Go here to see the original:
Sunday Funnies: Obama Brings His Teleprompter On Vacation

Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque

President Barack Obama’s endorsement Friday night of building a mosque near Ground Zero has driven the establishment press corps to find nobility in pursuing conviction even in the face of public opposition, not something MSM journalists admired about the previous President, while suddenly becoming very concerned about protecting private property rights – all while hailing Obama’s “great global message.” “I thought the speech Friday night was a model of political courage, in the sense that he said what he believed knowing that it was going to cost him,” hailed Washington Post Associate Editor David Ignatius on ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour. Picking up on Matthew Dowd’s suggestion Obama was echoing George W. Bush’s “it’s my way or the highway” attitude, Chrystia Freeland , global editor-at-large for Reuters, argued: Another way of talking about that is leadership, conviction, having your beliefs and not governing according to polls. And I think if you ask most Americans what kind of leader you want, if you ask people in the world what kind of leader do you want, you want someone who governs according to conviction….for American leaders to say in the face of, you know, some political pressure from their voters, to say actually we believe sufficiently strongly in diversity, in private property rights for our Muslim citizens, I think that’s a great global message. Ignatius, the Post’s former foreign editor and business editor and now a columnist on international affairs, backed Freeland, contending that doing what upsets Americans is good to do because it protects property right and pleases the world: I agree with that. I think that’s one of our strongest suits. As the world looks at us, if they see that the United States, even in an issue that hurts, and Ground Zero hurts, even on that issue, we still stand up for the freedom of people to dispose of their property as they want. That does count. When I travel, you travel Christiane, we hear comments about that America a lot. I think you shouldn’t minimize the benefits of saying to moderate Muslim, here you are. This upsets a lot of Americans, but we’re going to do it anyway. (Where were Ignatius and Freeland when the Supreme Court allowed eminent domain seizures of homes so local government could sell the land to developers?) In between, Amanpour worried the controversy over the mosque hurts Obama’s efforts to befriend Muslims and “so do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque?” Amanpour fretted: I just want to ask you this, but it does go to the heart of what he’s  been doing since the beginning of his presidency, reaching out not just to the Muslim world but Muslims in general. He’s made a very important first interview where he said the United States could not afford to have yet another generation of Muslims viewing it as the enemy. So do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque? Earlier in the program, Amanpour put forward Germany’s state capitalism as a model to emulate: “The big story out of Europe this weekend is that Germany has shown stronger than expected growth over the last quarter. Laura, you were saying something about how Germany had taught and trained its workforce to compete in these situations.” From Berkely, California, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, asserted: “A major part of that is serious vocational training and very serious ongoing training for manufacturing workers in Germany.” She also trumpeted: “Germany manages to do this with a much higher tax rate than we do.” My previous looks at Amanpour’s This Week: From last Sunday: “ Amanpour Elevates British Journalist Who Sees ‘Culture of Hate’ in U.S., Time to Divide Up Our ‘Pie ’” Two weeks ago, reviewing Amanpour’s debut: “ Amanpour Slums to Take on U.S. Politics, Flummoxed Pelosi’s Victories Aren’t Better Appreciated ” A Friday (August 13) Daily Caller article by Caroline May, “ Amanpour’s ‘This Week’ continues to receive negative reviews as viewers express desire for Tapper’s return ,” included my assessment of Amanpour: Brent H. Baker, Media Research Center Vice President for Research and Publications speculated to The Daily Caller that Amanpour’s air of superiority has added to the poor reviews. “Viewer revulsion toward Amanpour is hardly surprising given her condescending attitude toward them,” he said. “In her first two shows, she’s acted like she’s deigning to explain the world to the uninformed rubes, aka Americans, watching, acting as if she’s slumming to help bring the world to the ill-informed Americans.” From the Sunday, August 15 This Week with Christiane Amanpour, segment with Laura D’Andrea Tyson, former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, Senator John Corker and Chamber of Commerce economist Martin Regalia: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Let me just quickly go to what you mentioned about being competitive with the rest of the world. The big story out of Europe this weekend is that Germany has shown stronger than expected growth over the last quarter. Laura, you were saying something about how Germany had taught and trained its workforce to compete in these situations. LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON: Right, well Germany has had a long-term commitment to manufacturing. And it has a very strong manufacturing base. It has a much larger share of economy in manufacturing than we do. A major part of that is serious vocational training and very serious ongoing training for manufacturing workers in Germany. And often times a German firm with German workers will retrain and use technology at home rather than offshore those jobs abroad. And I want to point out also that Germany manages to do this with a much higher tax rate than we do. I think there should be corporate tax reform. I agree with a lot of what Senator Corker and Martin Regalia [of the Chamber of Commerce] have said. But we need investment. I would say, in thinking about the share of government and GDP, something the Senator mentioned, we need to distinguish between investment spending by the government — whether it’s federal, state or local – and other spending. A dollar spent for infrastructure is different than a dollar spent for current operations. From the roundtable: MATTEW DOWD: …It feeds a broader narratively about him, which is, it’s my way or the highway. In many ways, to me, it reminds me of Bush, which is, “I don’t care what the American public is on this, I’m going say what is the right thing to do.” He’s done it on immigration in Arizona, he’s done it on this, he’s done it on health care. I think that’s the political problem he has. DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST. Why is that a problem for him? I thought the speech Friday night was a model of political courage, in the sense that he said what he believed knowing that it was going to cost him. The White House has stayed out of this issue knowing that it’s political poison. And I thought the President spoke to it fairly directly. This is America, people have a right to build on property that they own, even if it’s going to be a mosque near Ground Zero. I was sort of sorry that he was trying to walk it back in these more nuanced comments yesterday. CHRYSTIA FREELAND, REUTERS: I totally agree with David. And I think, you know, Matt, to the point of my way or the highway, another way of talking about that is leadership, conviction, having your beliefs and not governing according to polls. And I think if you ask most Americans what kind of leader you want, if you ask people in the world what kind of leader do you want, you want someone who governs according to conviction. And I do think this touches on, Christiane, the economic panel you had earlier. I think that it touches on in two important ways. This point about private property might seem like a parsing, but it is actually essential and  I think to have the President, and we had similar comments from  Mike Bloomberg, coming out and saying, actually, we believe that the rights of private property are so strong, we are not going to change them because the cosmetics are not- …. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you this, but it does go to the heart of what he’s  been doing since the beginning of his presidency, reaching out not just to the Muslim world but Muslims in general. He’s made a very important first interview where he said the United States could not afford to have yet another generation of Muslims viewing it as the enemy. So do you think it’s wise to have this huge hubbub over it, or it should just go forward, this mosque? …. FREELAND: But let’s talk a little bit about the rest of the world. You know, I think that actually, the President’s comment, the comments by Mike Bloomberg are really an important message to the Muslim world. We’re talking about Pakistan later on. For these people — for American leaders to say in the face of, you know, some political pressure from their voters, to say actually we believe sufficiently strongly in diversity, in private property rights for our Muslim citizens, I think that’s a great global message.   IGNATIUS: I agree with that. I think that’s one of our strongest suits. As the world looks at us, if they see that the United States, even in an issue that hurts, and Ground Zero hurts, even on that issue, we still stand up for the freedom of people to dispose of their property as they want. That does count. When I travel, you travel Christiane, we hear comments about that America a lot. I think you shouldn’t minimize the benefits of saying to moderate Muslim, here you are. This upsets a lot of Americans, but we’re going to do it anyway.

Read more:
Amanpour’s Panel Hails Obama’s ‘Courage,’ ‘Leadership’ and ‘Great Global Message’ on Mosque

Maureen Dowd Hysterically Claims MSNBC Is Tearing Down Obama

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said Sunday MSNBC is tearing down President Obama. More amazing than that, she was actually serious. In her ” No Love From The Lefties ,” Dowd bashed “progressives” for not staying on the President’s bandwagon. This includes MSNBC who she hysterically claimed “is trying to make its reputation by tearing down [Obama]”: One of the most disgusting things about Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, and now the former maverick John McCain, is that they are happy to be co-opted by the radicals in their party to form one movement against President Obama. On the Republican side, the crazies often end up helping the Republican leadership. On the Democratic side, the radicals are constantly sniping at Obama, expressing their feelings of betrayal. Fox built up a Republican president; MSNBC is trying to make its reputation by tearing down a Democratic one. Assuming you haven’t passed out from lack of oxygen during an uncontrollable fit of laughter, there’s more: The lefties came to the defense of the centrist Clinton during impeachment. Now that Obama is under attack, however, they are not coming to his defense, even though he has given more to the liberal cause than the scandal-stunted Clinton ultimately achieved. He has shepherded the biggest expansion of social programs since the Great Society and spearheaded the biggest spending program with the stimulus. But for the left (and for some economists), it was not as big as it ought to have been. Most telling was that Dowd earlier in the piece mentioned “Michael Kinsley’s maxim that a gaffe is just truth slipping out” for the Times columnist was certainly letting her readers in on just how far she’s willing to shill for the President she helped get elected. More importantly, she will publicly scold her colleagues if necessary. After all, MSNBC is still a devout Obama and Democrat supporter along with a unabashed conservative basher. That some of its hosts have on occasion in the past year expressed disappointment with the President by no means qualifies the network as tearing him down. Dowd herself has surprisingly addressed her own concerns for the current White House resident. In June, she wrote about him being “thin-skinned and controlling.” She even scolded, “Like many Democrats, he thinks the press is supposed to be on his side.” Is she the only liberal media member allowed to do so in her view, or are his plummeting poll numbers and a dismal midterm election cycle ahead changing Dowd’s mind about she and her ilk ever being honest when it comes to this President? 

See the rest here:
Maureen Dowd Hysterically Claims MSNBC Is Tearing Down Obama

Daily Kos: Exposing Our Dumbest Quotes Ensures There’s ‘No Meaningful Dialogue’ of Right and Left

It’s bad enough that the Daily Kos posts outrageous claims like “the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm .” When bizarre sentences like these are exposed, then the exposers are accused of being enemies of “meaningful dialogue.” What is meaningful in telling the families of the victims of 9/11 that their losses were more “optics” than “actual harm”? But that’s how the blogger “Something the Dog Said” tried to defend himself against my post on NewsBusters: Mr. Graham is using the quotes from my posts that are most likely to confirm his readers prejudice against the Left and Daily Kos. By doing so he makes sure there can be no meaningful dialog between the Right and Left. The Radical Right has been told [told us?] for 9 years that we, their fellow citizens, are the enemy along with Islam. We are somehow less American because we don’t agree with the jingoistic “Clashes of Civilizations” crap. The very crap that Osama Bin Laden has been purveying; they fail to realize that by giving credence to this terrorist asshat’s idea we help him build up his forces and make it more likely that some city, here or in Europe or Asia sees another horrific attack. It’s also puzzling how this Kosmonaut thinks he or she is conducting a “meaningful dialogue” by accusing his critics of purveying the same propaganda lines as Osama bin Laden. It’s never a good idea for someone at the Daily Kos to suggest someone else has been more uncivil than they have been. This person says conservatives make the bone-headed error of blurring them together with the terrorists — and then blurs conservatives together with the terrorists. But there was more attempts at self-defense against right-wing radicals: Those on the Radical Right are making a big deal about the fact that polls are finding that majorities of Americans are not in favor of the community center being built two blocks from the site of a terrorist attack that was nine years ago. To me that is a sad fact, one which until I saw the polling I would not have believed. Still it does not matter. You do not have rights in this country because the majority says so. You have rights because we all have them and they are written into our Constitution and supported by 200 years of case law. I expect that I am in for some interesting times. I will not back down from my position that the mosque associated with the community center has ever right to build where they please, just as a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple would. I will also not back down from calling out the hysterical fear the Radical Right is stoking against our fellow citizens who are practitioners of Islam. In the end I find this really kind of sad. I had a five e-mail back and forth with TJ [a conservative commenter] and we could not find a smidge of common ground. I listened to his points, but they were based on fear and skewed news sources, like National Review Online, Fox and Newsbusters. They were based on false memes that the Radical Right has been pushing all along and the macho attitude that we are going to kick some ass. Now one of the asses they want to kick is mine. I wish I had any confidence that the folks who commented on these posts read all of both of my articles. There’s several mistakes here: first, that anyone would find the Dog-Said articles more persuasive by reading them from beginning to end. Second, that my post in any way encouraged brutality against Dog-Said. My point in replaying these quotes is the same point we at NewsBusters continue to make when he highlight the Daily Kos. We don’t expect them to be anything less than full-throated leftists. But we do think that liberal pundits (like Bill Press) who claim that liberals don’t say vicious and hateful things need don’t seem to be reading or listening to the arguments of their friends and colleagues.

After Rare Lapse Into Lucidity, Ed Schultz Reverts to Inane Conspiracy Mongering on Economy

Why does Ed Schultz think Wall Street and “big business” are sitting on $1 trillion in assets? Depends on what week you ask him. Here’s what Schultz said about that during a contentious discussion on July 26 with publisher Mort Zuckerman on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” as rebroadcast the following day on Schultz’s radio show ( click here for audio) — ZUCKERMAN: And if you don’t think that the business community doesn’t feel that they’re being, you know, attacked, I’m just telling you, that isn’t the case. They do believe it. SCHULTZ: OK, they may believe that, Mr. Zuckerman … ZUCKERMAN: ‘Cause they are! SCHULTZ: …but credit is tight, money is tight, small businesses getting money is a huge issue, and Wall Street, in my opinion, the bankers, tight with a dollar because they want to see this president fail. ZUCKERMAN: That’s absolute nonsense. SCHULTZ: Well, that’s not nonsense … ZUCKERMAN: That may be your view … Earlier in the interview, Zuckerman said this about hesitancy among business owners to hire more workers after Schultz cited “big time” higher profits for J.P. Morgan and insurance companies ( audio here ) — SCHULTZ: I’m curious, with all of the Wall Street numbers that are out there, J.P. Morgan, their profits up big time, insurance companies are reporting, you know, profits big time again this year. How is that bad for business? How do you see this? ZUCKERMAN: Nobody says that that’s bad for business. Of course it’s not bad for business. And what’s happened to all big companies of America is that they’ve been in a position to significantly reduce their costs. And that, amongst other things, means cutting a lot of jobs in order to do that because they really were very concerned about what was going to happen and what was happening in the economy. A week later, when he was interviewed during his radio show by MSNBC daytime anchor Tamron Hall on Aug. 3, Schultz sang a different tune about “big business” holding tight on $1 trillion in assets — a tune eerily similar to that coming from Zuckerman on July 26 ( audio ) — HALL: I know the president says jobs saved and he says things would have been worse, but still, you’ve got millions of folks out of work who thought that perhaps they would get a boost from the stimulus that they may not see. SCHULTZ: Well, you’ve got a trillion dollars on the sideline right now from big business because they’re afraid of what might happen in the economy , they won’t invest in workers … Alas, the lucidity couldn’t last. Earlier this week, Schultz was interviewed again by Hall during his radio show on Aug. 9 ( audio ) — SCHULTZ:  No one can make the case better than President Obama when he talks about what he has been up against when it comes to Boehner and McConnell and this crowd that has just fought him at every way you possibly can. HALL: But the Republicans say all you need to do is ask, where are the jobs, and that shuts down Democrats on the spot. What do you say to that? SCHULTZ: Well, I don’t agree with that. We’re not peeling off 750,000 jobs a month any more, interest rates are great, the table is set for this economy to come roaring back. We’ve got Wall Street that’s sitting on $1.8 trillion worth of assets because they want to see this president fail. …. which Mort Zuckerman ridiculed as “absolute nonsense” — followed a week later by Schultz parroting Zuckerman.

Read the original here:
After Rare Lapse Into Lucidity, Ed Schultz Reverts to Inane Conspiracy Mongering on Economy

NYT’s Herbert Rips Obama: He Should Have Exclusively Focused On Jobs

Are even the most liberal media members starting to realize the administration’s “Recovery Summer” campaign was a complete joke? Such appears to be the case for New York Times columnist Bob Herbert who on Saturday published a piece absolutely excoriating President Obama for not exclusively focusing on jobs after his inauguration last year: The Obama administration seems to be feeling sorry for itself. Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, is perturbed that Mr. Obama is not getting more hosannas from liberals. Spare me. The country is a mess. The economy is horrendous, and millions of American families are running out of ammunition in their fight against destitution. Steadily increasing numbers of middle-class families, who never thought they’d be seeking charity, have been showing up at food pantries.   That was just the beginning: Mr. Obama’s problem – and the nation’s – is that in the midst of the terrible economic turmoil that the country was in when he took office, he did not make full employment, meaning job creation in both the short and the long term, the nation’s absolute highest priority. Herbert almost sounded like a conservative: We were going to spend staggering amounts of money in any event. There was every reason to use those enormous amounts of public dollars to leverage private capital, as well, for investment in projects and research that the country desperately needs and that would provide enormous benefits for many decades. Think of the returns the nation reaped from its investments in the interstate highway system, the Land Grant colleges, rural electrification, the Erie and Panama canals, the transcontinental railroad, the technology that led to the Internet, the Apollo program, the G.I. bill. Herbert crescendoed to a conclusion: President Obama missed his opportunity early last year to rally the public behind a call for shared sacrifice and a great national mission to rebuild the United States in a way that would create employment for millions and establish a gleaming new industrial platform for the great advances of the 21st century. It would have taken fire and imagination, but the public was poised to respond to bold leadership. Indeed it was, Mr. Herbert. The problem is the presidential candidate folks like you helped get elected had absolutely no leadership experience whatsoever. None. Zero. Zip. Despite this, Herbert and his ilk fell hook line and sinker for “Hope and Change” without any examination into the possibility the person they were backing could pull it off. Now, almost nineteen months in with unemployment at 9.5 percent and likely about to head higher, those that aided and abetted the clothesless candidate are beginning to finally question his abilities. If they had done so when an unqualified junior senator from Illinois first tossed his hat into the ring in February 2007, maybe our country would be in far better shape. Makes you wonder when enablers like Herbert will start apologizing to the nation for shamelessly assisting its downfall.   

Here is the original post:
NYT’s Herbert Rips Obama: He Should Have Exclusively Focused On Jobs

Time Mag’s Klein Goes from Bush Delivering ‘Coolest Presidential Image’ to ‘Juvenile’ Stunt

The August 16 Weekly Standard highlighted a striking change in views from Time’s Joe Klein, whose take seems to have changed to fit what’s fashionable. On August 2, in a “ Swampland” blog post looking at President Obama’s speech touting the end of combat operations in Iraq, Klein fretted it “will not be remembered as vividly as George Bush’s juvenile march across the deck of an aircraft carrier , costumed as a combat aviator in a golden sunset, to announce—six years and tens of thousands of lives prematurely—the ‘end of combat operations.’” But back when Bush’s USS Lincoln landing occurred, Klein was more enthralled with it, asserting on the May 4, 2003 Face the Nation: “Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day.” (Video, from the MRC’s archive, is of the matching exchange between Bob Schieffer and Klein.) The Weekly Standard’s “Scrapbook” page observed: As Peter Wehner noted at the Commentary magazine blog Contentions , “Such bipolar shifts of opinion in a high-ranking public official would be alarming and dangerous; in a columnist and blogger, they are comical and discrediting.” Even in that 2003 CBS appearance, however, Klein wasn’t happy about Bush’s successful PR maneuver, regretting how it illustrated the “major struggle the Democrats are going to have to try and beat a popular incumbent President.” From the May 4, 2003 Face the Nation on CBS, the morning after the first Democratic presidential candidate forum of the 2004 campaign: BOB SCHIEFFER: As far as I’m concerned, that was one of the great pictures of all time. And if you’re a political consultant, you can just see campaign commercial written all over the pictures of George Bush. JOE KLEIN: Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me. And it just shows you how high a mountain these Democrats are going to have to climb. You compare that image, which everybody across the world saw, with this debate last night where you have nine people on a stage and it doesn’t air until 11:30 at night, up against Saturday Night Live, and you see what a major, major struggle the Democrats are going to have to try and beat a popular incumbent President.

See the original post:
Time Mag’s Klein Goes from Bush Delivering ‘Coolest Presidential Image’ to ‘Juvenile’ Stunt

Open Thread: Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: President Obama backs the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Thoughts?

Link:
Open Thread: Obama Backs Ground Zero Mosque