Tag Archives: president

Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

You know why President Obama’s Gulf Coast oil spill address from the Oval Office failed so miserably on Tuesday? It went over too many heads. At least that’s what the folks at CNN.com believe. Maybe that’s why the so-called geniuses at MSNBC didn’t like it – it went over Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Howard Fineman’s heads! Even more absurd in this piece  by the CNN Wire Staff is that it completely ignored how Obama’s speech patterns when he addresses the nation are at a lower grade level than those of George W. Bush (h/t Lachlan Markay): Tuesday night’s speech from the Oval Office of the White House was written to a 9.8 grade level, said Paul J.J. Payack, president of Global Language Monitor. The Austin, Texas-based company analyzes and catalogues trends in word usage and word choice and their impact on culture. Though the president used slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, his 19.8 words per sentence “added some difficulty for his target audience,” Payack said. At a micro level, the average word in the speech contained 4.5 letters, a bit longer than is typical for the former constitutional law professor, Payack said. Obama’s nearly 10th-grade-level rating was the highest of any of his major speeches and well above the Grade 7.4 of his 2008 “Yes, we can” victory speech, which many consider his best effort, Payack said. Got that? The supposedly smartest president in history on Tuesday night was speaking at less than a 10th-grade level. But that was TOO complicated for the television audience to understand. This genius is FAR MORE effective when he speaks like a 7th-grader! Yet George W. Bush was an idiot, right? Apparently not according to an analysis published at Smart Politics on January 29, 2009, after Obama’s first State of the Union address: Text of Obama’s Address has a readability score for an average 8th grader – two grades lower than George W. Bush’s Addresses and the historical average for modern presidents.  Shhh. Wait. It gets MUCH better:  Unlike the criticisms hurled at his predecessor, however, few have ever charged that the President, a former senior lecturer in Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has written or spoken too simplistically or catered his words to the lowest common denominator. However, a Smart Politics analysis of nearly 70 oral State of the Union Addresses since the mid-1930s finds the text of Obama’s speech on Wednesday evening to have one of the lowest scores on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test ever recorded by a U.S. President. The Flesch-Kincaid test is designed to assess the readability level of written text, with a formula that translates the score to a U.S. grade level. Longer sentences and sentences utilizing words with more syllables produce higher scores. Shorter sentences and sentences incorporating more monosyllabic words yield lower scores. Smart Politics ran the Flesch-Kincaid test on each of the last 68 State of the Union Addresses that were delivered orally by presidents before a Joint Session of Congress since Franklin Roosevelt. Excluded from analysis were five written addresses (Truman in 1946 and 1953, Eisenhower in 1961, Nixon in 1973, and Carter in 1981) and two addresses that were delivered orally, but not by the President himself (Roosevelt in 1945, Eisenhower in 1956). Prior to FDR, most, but not all, such Addresses were delivered in writing. Obama’s Flesch-Kincaid grade level score of 8.8 for his first State of the Union Address was the fourth lowest score since FDR’s first Address in 1934. What this means is that Obama wrote and delivered a speech that incorporated shorter sentences, with those sentences containing shorter words, than nearly every such Presidential Address in the modern era.   Remember: he’s supposedly the smartest president in history! So now see how he compares to the so-called idiot he replaced:  As such, the speech by ‘the professor’ stands in contrast to his predecessor, ‘the cowboy,’ George W. Bush, who was frequently skewered by the left and late-night talk show hosts for his public speaking abilities, his intelligence, and his misuse of the English language. Bush averaged a Flesch-Kincaid score of 10.4 across his seven State of the Union Addresses – or nearly two full grades higher than Obama’s speech. Bush’s speeches also averaged 2.4 more words per sentence than Obama, at 19.0. In other words, the text of George W. Bush’s speeches are expected to be understandable (in written form) by an average sophomore in high school, whereas Obama’s speech should be understandable by a junior high school student. Interestingly, George W. Bush’s 10.4 Flesch-Kincaid score was also higher than several of his predecessors, including Ronald Reagan (10.3), Bill Clinton (9.5), and his father George H.W. Bush (8.6). Still, it is, at the very least, interesting that ‘the professor’ should write and deliver a speech that has a readability level two grades lower than those crafted and delivered by ‘the cowboy.’ Interesting indeed. Yet despite speaking to the nation at a higher grade level than Obama does — and did on Tuesday! — Dubya was certainly never “accused” of being too professorial. Facts really are a stupid thing as are the depths liberal media members will sink to explain why this president is failing so miserably.

Read more from the original source:
Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

Hit From Left Over Obama Criticism, Olbermann Quits Kos

When the vitriol is too much for Keith Olbermann, something is seriously wrong. The MSNBC prime time anchor parted ways with the far-left Web site Daily Kos on Wednesday, citing the site’s apparent unflinching, see-no-evil attitude towards President Obama, and the omnipresence of wild leftist conspiracy theories there. “You want Cheerleaders? Hire the Buffalo Jills,” Olbermann wrote . “You want diaries with conspiracy theories, go nuts. If you want this site the way it was even a year ago, let me know and I’ll be back.” The divorce came after Kossacks relentlessly railed on Olbermann for having the gall to criticize their dear leader for his let-down of a national address on Tuesday. He took to his Twitter account to defend the decision . Olbermann’s explanation apparently did not satisfy the Kossacks, one of whom wrote that Olbermann had “transformed from Edward Murrow wannabe to a clown.” But what really got Olbermann riled up were some of the comments on that post. The one that he chose to highlight accused him and his MSNBC superiors of fabricating their outrage over the president’s address in an attempt to improve ratings. That Keith did not appreciate. And now he’s gone. Are you happy, Kossacks?

Originally posted here:
Hit From Left Over Obama Criticism, Olbermann Quits Kos

Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer

On Wednesday’s Joy Behar Show, HLN host Behar led a discussion of President Obama’s Address to the Nation with left-wing actress Janeane Garofalo and liberal commentator Ron Reagan, all of whom had some criticisms for President Obama regarding the BP oil spill and his speech on the subject. Garofalo started off complaining that “the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time.” After Behar pointed out that Obama had blamed Mineral Management Service members who were still in place from the Bush administration, Garofalo did not give Obama a pass: “Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office?” Reagan complained that his speech was “too little too late,” and that “he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was.” While Behar was generally more inclined to defend Obama, at one point even she asserted that President Obama’s failure to meet with the head of BP was “so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way,” prompting Garofalo to lament: “I don`t know who’s giving him the worst advice in the world. I don`t know, I don`t know why this presidency has been as disappointing as it has been. I really feel like he`s being advised terribly.” After Behar fretted that “some Sarah Palin clone” who would be “even worse” might replace Obama, Reagan pessimistically concluded that “you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama”: BEHAR: And who`s going to take the place? Who are we going to get instead of him? Some Sarah Palin clone, or she herself? It`ll be even worse. REAGAN: That`s the dilemma. BEHAR: Isn`t that`s a scary thought? REAGAN: That`s the dilemma for liberals. That`s the dilemma for progressives and liberals is you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama, even though Barack Obama isn’t doing what we want him to do. Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Wednesday, June 16, Joy Behar Show on HLN: JOY BEHAR: President Obama appears to be doing everything he can to make sure Americans know that stopping the oil spill is his main priority. He met with BP executives today, and last night he delivered a speech on the disaster from the Oval Office. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: But make no mistake. We will fight this spill with everything we`ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused, and we will do whatever is necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. BEHAR: Well, let`s just hope the next time Malia says, “Daddy, did you plug the hole?” she isn`t 47 years old. So was this speech enough to please his critics or did it just give them more material? Here with me to discuss this are Ron Reagan, liberal commentator, and actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo. … Janeane, start with you, did you like the speech? JANEANE GAROFALO: No, I didn`t feel that it was a strong speech, and I felt that the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time. BEHAR: Anti-intellectual? He’s considered, like, overly intellectual? GAROFALO: He himself is. BEHAR: Yeah. GAROFALO: When politicians use that prayer stuff, it is anti-intellectual. It has nothing do with what has happened, it has nothing to do with any real way to solve a problem. You know, I felt this speech was not very effective. You know, fighting, fighting it with all that they`ve got, what would have been good is to undo the Bush policies that brought this. You know, Ken Salazar should not have been the Interior Secretary. That people from Mineral Management Services should not still have been able to work. BP has a terrible track record. It`s amazing that the Bush policies were allowed to still flourish, that the “drill, baby, drill” policy was still going. That any of these disasters could had been avoided because it wasn`t, it wasn`t unknown what could have gone wrong. BEHAR: Okay, well, he did blame a lot on the agency that was still in place. He did say that it was ineffective. GAROFALO: Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office? BEHAR: A good question. Ron, what do you think? RON REAGAN: Well, too little too late I agree with Janeane, he did bring up the Mineral Management Services, of course, and that really is the crux of this, to me. You know, BP was doing what BP could be expected to do – cut corners, act recklessly, all in the name of profits. But Mineral Management Service, which was supposed to be regulating them and overseeing this, had fallen asleep on the job. Actually, that`s not even the right way to put it. Fallen asleep on the job suggests they actually wanted to do the job somehow in the first place, but they didn`t, of course because they`re all former or, you know, prospective oil company employees there. That`s the criminality here, it`s not just BP, it`s the MMS. BEHAR: Do you think it would have been any different if a Republican was in office now? Be the same thing or worse? GAROFALO: Oh, no, the exact same because these are these type of conservative anti-regulation policies and also all this kind of oil culture of oil cronyism. I’m not going to say that Democrats don`t partake in that. Obviously they do. But it might be worse if Bush was in office in maybe more hiding scientific facts or maybe they would do that thing they always say about no fingerprinting, now`s not the time for the blame. Yeah, they always say that. BEHAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whenever they’re to blame. GAROFALO: But the policies are still the same unfortunately. BEHAR: Yes. GAROFALO: The same Bush policies that we`ve been laboring under have been continued. There is no reason why MMS has been allowed to thrive the way they have. There`s no reason Ken Salazar should be at the Department of the Interior, and there`s no reason that BP should still be doing what they`re doing right now as we speak with other rigs. BEHAR: The left is very hard on him, though, I think. The left is going very hard. Part of the frustration, I think, with, on the left and the right, probably is that he can`t fix it. He can`t do it. People say he should do it. What do they want him do? GAROFALO: Well, there’s many, many things a President could and should do to make sure these types of things- BEHAR: Isn`t he doing some of it? GAROFALO: I would hope so, but there should had been regulation. You know, I mean, there should had been regulatory reform as he came into office. BEHAR: When he came into office. GAROFALO: Yes. BEHAR: Yeah. Why didn’t, Ron, why didn`t he do that? REAGAN: Well, because he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was. He`s a little less obvious about it. I think maybe his heart isn’t quite as in it. He`s not an actual oil man himself, but listen, he`s between a rock and a hard place here. He just proposed that we open up a lot of our coastline to deepwater drilling here, to offshore drilling. Completely ignoring the fact that any dependence on oil by America is dependence on foreign oil. That`s the thing that I think a lot of people don`t understand here. You can drill all- BEHAR: It`s kind of shocking in a way. It`s kind of shocking to me. REAGAN: Well, of course, but you can drill all that you want for oil on American territory, it goes into a global market. We`re going to sell it to China just as much as we`re going to sell it to, you know, American drivers here. There`s no such thing as American oil. It`s all fungible. It`s all global, so any dependence on oil is dependence on foreign oil. BEHAR: Well, he used the opportunity to bring up energy policy. Do you think that he was effective at all? Because I was a little disappointed in that. You know, we need alternative energy and there`s no question about it, and the American people are so lackadaisical about it that even now no one seems to see the urgency of the situation. GAROFALO: I think there’s many people who do see the urgency. They just aren’t given a forum to speak about it. There’s many people who are very concerned about this. There should have been clean energy reform made years and years ago. There`s many people who have tried to do this and because oil runs everything it keeps getting thwarted. There`s no reason why we shouldn`t have more clean energy and more reform in that area, too. It`s just, it`s one of those things it just keeps business as usual, it just keeps going and going and going. BEHAR: I know. Well, he met with BP men today. Ron, do you think that he kicked their butts today at all? REAGAN: No, I don`t think it`s about kicking their butts. No, of course not. It`s nice that there’s going to be a $20 billion fund to pay people off- BEHAR: Right. REAGAN: -but who says when the people actually get the money? There are people that are still waiting for a payoff from the Exxon Valdez, you know, I mean, you know, just because there`s money in a fund doesn`t mean it`s actually going to be going to people. I will imagine that BP will litigate every claim. BEHAR: He said, originally he didn`t want to meet with them because he didn`t want to hear their talking points. That is so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way certainly.

See the rest here:
Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer

Parents of Celts fan settle with Boston (AP)

The parents of a Celtics fan who stopped breathing and later died after Boston police took him into custody during 2008 NBA championship celebrations have settled with the city for $3 million. The settlement announced Thursday by a lawyer for the parents of David Woodman came on the same day the Celtics were scheduled to play the Los Angeles Lakers in the deciding Game 7 of the 2010 NBA Finals.

Follow this link:
Parents of Celts fan settle with Boston (AP)

World Cup 2010: Yaya Touré’s agent says move to Manchester City likely

• Barcelona midfielder likely to join brother Kolo at Eastlands • ‘I think we will probably close his departure very soon’ Manchester City’s long pursuit of Yaya Touré is nearing a successful conclusion and the basis of a deal with Barcelona has been agreed for after the World Cup. A fee has been decided, understood to value him in the region of £25m, and if the structure of payments can be decided City appear to have beaten off Chelsea to convince the 27-year-old that joining a club not involved in the Champions League may still be of benefit to his career. Touré has been on City’s radar since Mark Hughes was manager but, until the past few weeks, he has always expressed reservations about leaving Barcelona for a club outside the Champions League. He is now understood to be inclined to join his brother, Kolo, and become City’s second major summer signing following the £10.5m arrival of Jerome Boateng, the Germany defender, from Hamburg. “I think we will probably close his departure very soon,” Touré’s agent, Dimitri Seluk, said today. “It is likely to be this week, but at the moment we can’t announce anything.” The matter is complicated by the fact that Barcelona have a new president, Sandro Rosell. “I haven’t spoken to Rosell but, out of respect, of course I will speak to him before anything is closed,” Seluk said. “[Joan] Laporta is the president until 30

Here is the original post:
World Cup 2010: Yaya Touré’s agent says move to Manchester City likely

VIDEO: Biggest Gas Boom in History Blowing Up in US! (literally)

It's official: the expansion of hydro-fracking operations is creating the biggest natural gas boom in US history… the film GASLAND explores this controversial method of extracting gas. (Don't know what hydro-fracking is yet? — Watch the trailer!) Oil and gas companies are going to start hydro-fracking operations to drill for gas in NY this year if the state's Dept of Environmental Conservation (DEC) approves the permits. The DEC needs to do the right thing: wait until the Environmental Protection Agency finishes a national study on the environmental impact of hydro-fracking in the next year or two. Hydro-fracking, despite polluting the groundwater in many documented cases across the US, isn't currently regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This loophole is unacceptable — and corrupt. It's known as the “Halliburton Loophole” because Dick Cheney (former Vice President and former CEO of Halliburton) requested the inclusion of the provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. “The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Reports of ground water contamination have questioned whether the exemption is appropriate. A complete listing of the specific chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations are not currently made available to landowners, neighbors, local officials, or health care providers.” “The FRAC Act, introduced in June 2009, would eliminate the exemption and would require the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.” (wikipedia) Why are companies being allowed to push ahead with this dirty, dangerous form of drilling? If it's as safe as the corporations say it is, then why can't they wait for confirmation from the EPA? Check out and support a group, called Frack Action, that has formed to oppose hydro-fracking and urge its regulation! Their website is really great: www.FrackAction.com added by: captainplanet71

Open Thread: A Striking Image

Rasmussen has a number of interesting findings , but this image sums it all up well: The poll was also taken before the President’s disastrous Gulf spill address. Thoughts?

Read more here:
Open Thread: A Striking Image

Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer

On Wednesday’s Joy Behar Show, HLN host Behar led a discussion of President Obama’s Address to the Nation with left-wing actress Janeane Garofalo and liberal commentator Ron Reagan, all of whom had some criticisms for President Obama regarding the BP oil spill and his speech on the subject. Garofalo started off complaining that “the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time.” After Behar pointed out that Obama had blamed Mineral Management Service members who were still in place from the Bush administration, Garofalo did not give Obama a pass: “Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office?” Reagan complained that his speech was “too little too late,” and that “he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was.” While Behar was generally more inclined to defend Obama, at one point even she asserted that President Obama’s failure to meet with the head of BP was “so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way,” prompting Garofalo to lament: “I don`t know who’s giving him the worst advice in the world. I don`t know, I don`t know why this presidency has been as disappointing as it has been. I really feel like he`s being advised terribly.” After Behar fretted that “some Sarah Palin clone” who would be “even worse” might replace Obama, Reagan pessimistically concluded that “you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama”: BEHAR: And who`s going to take the place? Who are we going to get instead of him? Some Sarah Palin clone, or she herself? It`ll be even worse. REAGAN: That`s the dilemma. BEHAR: Isn`t that`s a scary thought? REAGAN: That`s the dilemma for liberals. That`s the dilemma for progressives and liberals is you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama, even though Barack Obama isn’t doing what we want him to do. Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Wednesday, June 16, Joy Behar Show on HLN: JOY BEHAR: President Obama appears to be doing everything he can to make sure Americans know that stopping the oil spill is his main priority. He met with BP executives today, and last night he delivered a speech on the disaster from the Oval Office. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: But make no mistake. We will fight this spill with everything we`ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused, and we will do whatever is necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. BEHAR: Well, let`s just hope the next time Malia says, “Daddy, did you plug the hole?” she isn`t 47 years old. So was this speech enough to please his critics or did it just give them more material? Here with me to discuss this are Ron Reagan, liberal commentator, and actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo. … Janeane, start with you, did you like the speech? JANEANE GAROFALO: No, I didn`t feel that it was a strong speech, and I felt that the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time. BEHAR: Anti-intellectual? He’s considered, like, overly intellectual? GAROFALO: He himself is. BEHAR: Yeah. GAROFALO: When politicians use that prayer stuff, it is anti-intellectual. It has nothing do with what has happened, it has nothing to do with any real way to solve a problem. You know, I felt this speech was not very effective. You know, fighting, fighting it with all that they`ve got, what would have been good is to undo the Bush policies that brought this. You know, Ken Salazar should not have been the Interior Secretary. That people from Mineral Management Services should not still have been able to work. BP has a terrible track record. It`s amazing that the Bush policies were allowed to still flourish, that the “drill, baby, drill” policy was still going. That any of these disasters could had been avoided because it wasn`t, it wasn`t unknown what could have gone wrong. BEHAR: Okay, well, he did blame a lot on the agency that was still in place. He did say that it was ineffective. GAROFALO: Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office? BEHAR: A good question. Ron, what do you think? RON REAGAN: Well, too little too late I agree with Janeane, he did bring up the Mineral Management Services, of course, and that really is the crux of this, to me. You know, BP was doing what BP could be expected to do – cut corners, act recklessly, all in the name of profits. But Mineral Management Service, which was supposed to be regulating them and overseeing this, had fallen asleep on the job. Actually, that`s not even the right way to put it. Fallen asleep on the job suggests they actually wanted to do the job somehow in the first place, but they didn`t, of course because they`re all former or, you know, prospective oil company employees there. That`s the criminality here, it`s not just BP, it`s the MMS. BEHAR: Do you think it would have been any different if a Republican was in office now? Be the same thing or worse? GAROFALO: Oh, no, the exact same because these are these type of conservative anti-regulation policies and also all this kind of oil culture of oil cronyism. I’m not going to say that Democrats don`t partake in that. Obviously they do. But it might be worse if Bush was in office in maybe more hiding scientific facts or maybe they would do that thing they always say about no fingerprinting, now`s not the time for the blame. Yeah, they always say that. BEHAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whenever they’re to blame. GAROFALO: But the policies are still the same unfortunately. BEHAR: Yes. GAROFALO: The same Bush policies that we`ve been laboring under have been continued. There is no reason why MMS has been allowed to thrive the way they have. There`s no reason Ken Salazar should be at the Department of the Interior, and there`s no reason that BP should still be doing what they`re doing right now as we speak with other rigs. BEHAR: The left is very hard on him, though, I think. The left is going very hard. Part of the frustration, I think, with, on the left and the right, probably is that he can`t fix it. He can`t do it. People say he should do it. What do they want him do? GAROFALO: Well, there’s many, many things a President could and should do to make sure these types of things- BEHAR: Isn`t he doing some of it? GAROFALO: I would hope so, but there should had been regulation. You know, I mean, there should had been regulatory reform as he came into office. BEHAR: When he came into office. GAROFALO: Yes. BEHAR: Yeah. Why didn’t, Ron, why didn`t he do that? REAGAN: Well, because he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was. He`s a little less obvious about it. I think maybe his heart isn’t quite as in it. He`s not an actual oil man himself, but listen, he`s between a rock and a hard place here. He just proposed that we open up a lot of our coastline to deepwater drilling here, to offshore drilling. Completely ignoring the fact that any dependence on oil by America is dependence on foreign oil. That`s the thing that I think a lot of people don`t understand here. You can drill all- BEHAR: It`s kind of shocking in a way. It`s kind of shocking to me. REAGAN: Well, of course, but you can drill all that you want for oil on American territory, it goes into a global market. We`re going to sell it to China just as much as we`re going to sell it to, you know, American drivers here. There`s no such thing as American oil. It`s all fungible. It`s all global, so any dependence on oil is dependence on foreign oil. BEHAR: Well, he used the opportunity to bring up energy policy. Do you think that he was effective at all? Because I was a little disappointed in that. You know, we need alternative energy and there`s no question about it, and the American people are so lackadaisical about it that even now no one seems to see the urgency of the situation. GAROFALO: I think there’s many people who do see the urgency. They just aren’t given a forum to speak about it. There’s many people who are very concerned about this. There should have been clean energy reform made years and years ago. There`s many people who have tried to do this and because oil runs everything it keeps getting thwarted. There`s no reason why we shouldn`t have more clean energy and more reform in that area, too. It`s just, it`s one of those things it just keeps business as usual, it just keeps going and going and going. BEHAR: I know. Well, he met with BP men today. Ron, do you think that he kicked their butts today at all? REAGAN: No, I don`t think it`s about kicking their butts. No, of course not. It`s nice that there’s going to be a $20 billion fund to pay people off- BEHAR: Right. REAGAN: -but who says when the people actually get the money? There are people that are still waiting for a payoff from the Exxon Valdez, you know, I mean, you know, just because there`s money in a fund doesn`t mean it`s actually going to be going to people. I will imagine that BP will litigate every claim. BEHAR: He said, originally he didn`t want to meet with them because he didn`t want to hear their talking points. That is so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way certainly.

Doing the Job Media Won’t Do: Fact-checking Obama’s Gulf Spill Address

Plenty of prominent media figures were upset with President Obama over his substandard address to the nation last night ( full text ). While most are distraught, none seem to be doing what should be the essential journalistic task of the day: pointing out all of the factual misstatements the president made. So, in absence of a serious attempt at fact-checking from the legacy media, let us undertake some of our own. In all, the president misrepresented the federal government’s–and especially his cabinet’s–role in creating the conditions that led to the spill, the state of the nation’s oil reserves, and his own administration’s involvement with BP. Futhermore, his transition from discussing the Gulf spill to advocating “clean energy” legislation was a huge logical leap, and one that necessarily misrepresents the problems the nation faces with regard to energy. The latter was perhaps the president’s most subtle sleight of hand. He claimed the Gulf spill is “the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.” Now, if the president had stated the spill is a reminder that the nation needs to get off of oil–that disasters like this are an unfortunate, if rare consequence of harvesting crude oil–he would have had a point. But that is not what he said. He claimed the disaster underscores the need for “clean” energy, which presumably does not include coal, the dirtiest of them all. But the Gulf spill has no bearing on coal energy. Also intended to promote the “clean energy” cause was Obama’s misleading statement that “Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America.” In fact, as the Heritage Foundation notes , China “will account for nearly 45% of oil demand growth in the next five years, receives 70% of its energy from coal already, and is projected to nearly triple coal capacity by 2030.” Say what you will about clean energy or coal, but the president’s advocacy of his own energy agenda despite the facts was as obvious as it was unseemly. Moving forward, Obama also misrepresented the state of the oil industry itself. He claimed that Americans “consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.” “This howler,” writes John Hinderaker at Power Line, “is a favorite canard of Democratic politicians”:  As is so often the case, they are relying on the public’s ignorance. Most people don’t realize that in the U.S., oil isn’t counted as part of our “reserves” unless it is legally available for drilling. Thus, ANWR, to take one of many examples, isn’t counted toward the total “reserves.” The U.S. government could cause our reserves to skyrocket overnight by opening new areas, on land and in shallow water, to drilling. But the U.S. is the only country in the world that has deliberately chosen not to develop its own energy resources. No one else is that dumb. So the reason oil companies drill a mile beneath the water is not that there are not ample supplies of crude in other parts of the United States, but rather that the federal government does not permit drilling in so many of those areas. According to Kiplinger Magazine (by way of the American Thinker ), “untapped reserves are estimated at about 2.3 trillion barrels, nearly three times more than the reserves held by Organization of Petroleum Exporting Counties (OPEC) and sufficient to meet 300 years of demand-at today’s levels-for auto, aircraft, heating and industrial fuel, without importing a single barrel of oil.” Not surprisingly, the misdeeds of the oil industry were, of course, a frequent refrain in the president’s speech. But he also misrepresented that industry’s culpability by claiming “time and again, the path forward [to further regulation] has been blocked…by oil industry lobbyists.” What the president conveniently neglected to mention, however, was that BP has been an advocate of most of his energy agenda. As the Examiner’s Tim Carney reminds us : BP “has lobbied for tax hikes, greenhouse gas restraints, the stimulus bill, the Wall Street bailout, and subsidies for oil pipelines, solar panels, natural gas and biofuels… BP was a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobby dedicated to passing a cap-and-trade bill. As the nation’s largest producer of natural gas, BP saw many ways to profit from climate legislation, notably by persuading Congress to provide subsidies to coal-fired power plants that switched to gas. Though the company left USCAP, it did not stop lobbying for cap and trade, and later “signed off” on Senate cap and trade legislation as well as explicitly lobbied for a higher gas tax. So Obama’s insistence the oil industry has opposed relevant regulations tooth and nail is less than accurate. While Obama was placing as much unearned blame at industry’s feet as possible, he was also sidestepping his own administration’s complicity in the crisis. He stated towards the beginning of his speech: A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe –- that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken. That obviously was not the case in the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. Well, perhaps he should ask his cabinet members–you know, the ones he just put in charge of the new commission investigating the incident. On March 31 in a speech at Andrews Air Force Base, he told the nation that Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and climate czar Carol Browner had assured him that additional Gulf Coast drilling would be safe. But the president of course did not put the blame at their feet. In fact, as Byron York noted : [I]n this moment of crisis, Obama is relying on the same team that earlier gave him “the assurance that [offshore drilling] would be absolutely safe” — advice that he now openly says was wrong. And what is the “green team” telling him now? That it is impossible to stop the flow of oil into the Gulf. Politico’s Mike Allen channels West Wing thought this way: The Gulf gusher is a battle we can’t win. So we had to make this tragedy about something bigger than the liveshot of spewing oil. So having surrendered on the challenge of stopping the oil, Obama tried to redirect the public’s attention away from the spill and onto the political debate over a cap-and-trade bill. The short version of the strategy: Give up and change the subject. Like everything else Obama has tried so far in the Gulf crisis, it won’t work. Indeed. 

See the original post:
Doing the Job Media Won’t Do: Fact-checking Obama’s Gulf Spill Address

Chris Matthews Claims Tea Party is ‘McCarthyite,’ Sees Federal Government as an ‘Occupying Force’

Chris Matthews definitely took a “hard look” at the Tea Party, on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe,” in anticipation of tonight’s MSNBC documentary “The Rise of the New Right.” Tying the whole Tea Party movement together, the MSNBC “Hardball” host defined it as “McCarthyite,” possessing a “fundamental questioning of authority,” and viewing the federal government as an occupying force. “It believes that this government is verging on tyranny,” Matthews complained, pointing to the movement’s use of the Revolutionary War-era Gadsden flag — “Don’t Tread on Me” — in an ominous light. When asked by Joe Scarborough if he would link members of the Michigan Militia featured in tonight’s documentary (seemingly characterized in the preceding video clip as a radical fringe group), to Tea Party members who have campaigned for Scott Brown and Marco Rubio, Matthews answered that the various groups are all part of one movement. “I’m tying the whole movement together,” he asserted. “Because what you hear is that they all fly the same flag.” Matthews said that the use of the Gadsden flag by Tea Partiers “scared” him. “They are basically looking at the federal government now as an occupying force, basically a foreign occupying force, a tyranny,” he said. “And that justifies a lot of bad behavior, I would say.” “What you hear, Joe, is the fundamental questioning of authority,” Matthews claimed. He also alleged that the movement is pointing to the Second Amendment to justify armed force against the federal government “when the time comes.” Not wanting to be left out of the fun, advertising executive Donny Deutsch, chairman of Deutsch, Inc., threw the race card onto the table. “Chris, along those lines, would the Tea Party be having the same verve if this was not an African-American President?” But Matthews wouldn’t bite. “I don’t know,” he said. “You make those kinds of charges, you get into trouble. I have no idea.” However, Matthews did accuse the movement of being “McCarthyite,” referencing accusations by Dick Armey and Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) of Democrats and administration members of being un-American.     The transcript of the interview, which aired on June 16, at 7:45 a.m. EDT, is as follows: WILLIE GEIST: Chris, as far as you can tell, what is the new right? And how influential is it? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, it believes that this government is verging on tyranny. The federal government of the United States, which was honestly elected, is more like a British occupying force of colonial days. They look at it as illegitimate. Many of them believe that Barack Obama is not an American. They believe they need their Second Amendment rights–as Sharon Angle said the other day–to perhaps carry out remedies when they think that Congress is going too far. Very strong on Second Amendment as a way of fighting the federal government, when the time comes; very concerned about the legitimacy of Barack Obama as whether he is an American or not. And, in fact, if you listen to Dick Armey, they wonder whether anybody in the administration has any pro-American attitudes. And Michelle Bachmann would go right through the Democrats in Congress, and have the media investigate them for anti-American attitudes. It’s very much McCarthy-ite, it gets back to the days of questioning other people’s loyalties, and it questions the President’s very legitimacy. And what scared me, if you want to get scared, was the use of the flag from the American Revolution–the Great Gadsden flag from South Carolina, with the coiled rattlesnake. They are basically looking at the federal government now as an occupying force, basically a foreign occupying force, a tyranny. And that justifies a lot of bad behavior, I would say. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Chris, though, you’re not connecting, though, Tea Party members that Mike interviewed in Massachusetts that helped Scott Brown get elected, or Tea Party members that may be supporting Marco Rubio in Florida, or Tea Party members who are supporting other conservative candidates across America–you’re not tying them with members of the Michigan Militia, are you? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yes, I am. I’m tying the whole movement together. Because what you hear is that they all fly the same flag. Certainly there are people that straggle along and show up at meetings of any political party, whether it’s mainstream or French. People show up and join. I’m not talking about the joiners. I’m talking about the leadership people themselves. Listen to Sharon Angle. Listen to Rand Paul. Listen to their basic questioning of federal authority. It’s very fundamental, and their absolute focus on the Second Amendment over and over again–that guy in that militia uniform with his fatigues on said that he speaks very much the same language as the Tea Party people. He says it. If you listen to people like Michelle Bachmann, they question the legitimacy of the government, they question whether it’s a tyranny or not. You got to hear the words tonight, Joe. These people–wait till you hear Dick Armey talking about “There’s nobody in this administration who is pro-American.” I mean they’re saying it. I’m not saying it. JOE SCARBOROUGH: I’ll be watching. I know that the guy in the camouflage said that the Tea Party people tell him that they’re not connected. But are you connecting–let me be more specific. This is fascinating. Are you connecting Rand Paul with these Michigan Militia members that run around with guns, that– CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, I think you have to see the absolute resonance of the sound. What you hear, Joe, is the fundamental questioning of authority. You have people who believe that the federal government–look. Joe, I know you saw those Congress people waving the Gadsden flag off the balcony of the Capitol on the House side. They were waving that revolutionary flag. They were the ones inciting those people to look upon the federal government as a tyranny, as perhaps illegitimate. They’re the ones using the language of revolution. It’s not us. In fact, the documentary, all through it, you hear a very similar voice: this government is not legitimate. 32 percent of the Republican Party now believes that Barack Obama is not an American. And that’s the latest CBS Poll. These are not things that are arguable, Joe, these are facts. DONNY DEUTSCH, Chairman, Deutsch, Inc.: Chris, along those lines, would the Tea Party be having the same verve if this was not an African-American President? CHRIS MATTHEWS: I don’t know. I think–I don’t know. That’s something you got to get into people’s souls, and you make those kind of charges, you get into trouble. I have no idea. I do think that– DONNY DEUTSCH: I’m not making charges. I’m asking a question. I just want (Garbled) CHRIS MATTHEWS: I think the fact that so many of the people are–Orelly Tates is out there with the birther movement, which has very much been part of this, saying that the guy’s not an American, that he should be out of office because he was born in Kenya. Challenging that–Alan Keyes, those kinds of people. All those voices are out there on the Right. 

See original here:
Chris Matthews Claims Tea Party is ‘McCarthyite,’ Sees Federal Government as an ‘Occupying Force’