Tag Archives: speech

Olbermann: Palin a ‘Phony,’ ‘Idiot’

Name-calling isn’t just for 6-year-olds anymore. Keith Olbermann proved once again that Sarah Palin is the media’s favorite conservative to hate, mock and condemn when he called Palin an “idiot” who endorses “stupidity instead of intelligence.” Olbermann named “Sister Sarah” his “Worst Person in the World” on “Countdown” June 28 after Palin mistakenly said Ronald Reagan’s alma mater was “California’s Eureka College” during a speech at Cal State Stanislaus. Reagan attended Eureka College in his hometown of Eureka, Ill. In addition to labeling her speech a “gaffe fest,” Olbermann called her mistake “symbolic of her imbecility, her corner-cutting,” saying it was one of “perhaps, 100 things that brand her as a phony.” One wonders where Olbermann’s outrages was when then-candidate Obama mistakenly said in June 2008 that he’d been to 57 states. This isn’t the first time Olbermann has unleashed on a conservative woman. Olbermann gave Palin the moniker “Worst Person in the World” last May after Palin refused to appear on his show. Olbermann also called her “idiot-woman” once and “idiot” twice after Palin nixed a “Countdown” appearance. Olbermann has also ridiculed Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the past by comparing her son’s participation in Teach for America to a Star Wars-like crossing over to “the dark side.” During the 2008 presidential campaign, Olbermann also called Palin “sick” and an “out of control liar” for “cutting” her state’s special-needs program. The accusation was misleading-Palin had really increased the program’s funding by 10 percent.

Link:
Olbermann: Palin a ‘Phony,’ ‘Idiot’

ABC’s Tapper: A ‘Good Week’ for White House After ‘Gift’ From Joe Barton

On Friday’s Good Morning America on ABC, White House correspondent Jake Tapper described  White House reaction to Republican Congressman Joe Barton calling BP’s $20 billion escrow fund the result of a government “shakedown”: “…the argument they’re making, that the Republican Party is too close to corporate America…..And they’ve been given this great foil by Joe Barton.” When co-host George Stephanopoulos wondered if the Obama administration was at all concerned about being seen as anti-business, Tapper recited the White House spin: “…they say, at the end of the day, there were inequities throughout the Bush years and they need to correct those inequities. It was the wild west. And they’d rather be on their side, taking on corporate America, than on the Republican side, in their view, defending it.” Later, Tapper concluded: “…they think it was a good week. The President’s trip down to the Gulf, the speech, the $20 billion escrow fund and then this gift from Joe Barton ….they feel like they had a good week. Perhaps their first good week since this crisis began.” At the top of the show, co-host Robin Roberts described the “political firestorm” surrounding BP CEO Tony Hayward’s Thursday testimony on Capitol Hill and Barton’s comments. Later, Stephanopoulos argued that the “beating” Hayward got by members of Congress was “overwhelmed” by Barton. In a report that followed, correspondent Jonathan Karl declared: “Hayward did find one friend on Capitol Hill, Republican Joe Barton.” Turning to Tapper, Stephanopoulos began by noting how Democrats “pounced” on Barton. Tapper quoted a tweet from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “He said, ‘Who would the GOP put in charge of overseeing the energy industry and big oil if they won control of Congress? Yup. You guessed it, Joe Barton.'” Here is a full transcript of the June 18 Stephanopoulos and Tapper exchange: 7:08AM ET GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s go to Jake Tapper at the White House. And Jake, they just pounced yesterday when they heard that apology. JAKE TAPPER: That’s exactly right. Vice President Biden made comments. And then take a look at this tweet from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. He said, ‘Who would the GOP put in charge of overseeing the energy industry and big oil if they won control of Congress? Yup. You guessed it, Joe Barton.’ And that’s the argument they’re making, that the Republican Party is too close to corporate America, corporations throughout the world, like BP. And they’ve been given this great foil by Joe Barton. STEPHANOPOULOS: Are they concerned at all about the argument that the White House is overstepping its bounds? That the President is just viscerally anti-business, which you’ve heard from many Republicans. TAPPER: Well, a senior White House official I spoke to said that they – they’re careful to walk the line and not be anti-business, they invite businesses to be part of discussions. But they say, at the end of the day, there were inequities throughout the Bush years and they need to correct those inequities. It was the wild west. And they’d rather be on their side, taking on corporate America, than on the Republican side, in their view, defending it. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Jake, how about the Left? You know, I think the White House was hoping – they kept calling the speech the President gave on Tuesday night an ‘inflection point,’ that it would be a turning point for the President. Yet, they were met by a chorus of criticism, not only by – from conservatives, but also liberals. Concerned by that at all? TAPPER: They are concerned by that. But they think it was a good week. The President’s trip down to the Gulf, the speech, the $20 billion escrow fund and then this gift from Joe Barton, which has really been a lightning rod for the Left, far more than the White House. So I think they feel like they had a good week. Perhaps their first good week since this crisis began. STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re going to have a chance to put a lot of these questions in a big exclusive on Sunday. TAPPER: That’s right, we have an exclusive with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. So we’ll talk to him on Sunday. And then we’ve got a great roundtable, as well, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jake, we’re looking forward to that.

Continue reading here:
ABC’s Tapper: A ‘Good Week’ for White House After ‘Gift’ From Joe Barton

Rockies lose Tulowitzki to injured hand (AP)

Colorado Rockies shortstop Troy Tulowitzki left the game against Minnesota on Thursday in the eighth inning after getting hit by a pitch on his left hand. Tulowitzki was in visible pain after being hit by reliever Alex Burnett and received attention from Rockies trainers. He remained in the game on the bases, but was pulled when the defense took the field in the bottom of the inning.

Read the rest here:
Rockies lose Tulowitzki to injured hand (AP)

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’

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

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.

See the original post:
Obama Speaks At Lower Grade Level Than Bush, CNN Says He’s ‘Too Professorial’

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

For Criticizing Obama, Barnicle ‘Castrated’ By Mika

Guess Mike could always get a gig with the Vienna Boys Choir . . . If MSNBC libs like Olbermann and Matthews were surprisingly critical of Pres. Obama’s speech last night, PBO can apparently count on one defender at the network: Mika Brzezinski.   So fiercely did Brzezinski go after Mike Barnicle on Morning Joe today for his criticism of the speech, that the panel agreed poor Mike had been “emasculated.”  Joe Scarborough took it a graphic step further, saying Mika had “castrated” the former Boston Globe columnist. All while protesting his “love” for the president, Barnicle did offer some stock criticism, saying PBO hadn’t been specific enough in addressing “the plight of ordinary Americans.”  That set Mika off.  Accusing him of speaking “drivel,” she continued her attack, heartfelt anger in her voice . . . MIKA BRZEZINSKI: My point is that it just seems that he can’t do anything right. And here he is, setting the path that you’re talking about, and now you’re criticizing it for it not being enough. And if he went out there and read like an encyclopedia, you guys would be saying [imitates male voice] “he’s a professor, it’s too much information.” Please.  Please. Seriously. It’s enough.  This is just drivel. I mean, come on: do you hear yourselves? Do you all hear yourselves?  It’s so knee-jerk. A bit later, the panel commented on poor Barnicle’s plight. JOE SCARBOROUGH: She tore you up. WILLIE GEIST: She tore you up. BRZEZINSKI: I haven’t even begun. SCARBOROUGH: She castrated you. Put the scalpel away! BRZEZINSKI: Would you stop? GEIST: That was downright mean. BRZEZINSKI: This is a morning show, and that is not acceptable.  That’s just wrong. SCARBOROUGH: Tina [Brown], was Barnicle not emasculated by Mika? TINA BROWN: Completely emasculated.  I mean, the guy is . . . SCARBOROUGH: It’s the end of men. BROWN: The end of men.  I’ve been holding his hand in the breaks here. GEIST: He’s been weeping quietly. SCARBOROUGH: Quivering.

Read the original here:
For Criticizing Obama, Barnicle ‘Castrated’ By Mika

MSNBC Panel Not Impressed By Obama Speech

On a special edition of Tuesday’s Countdown show on MSNBC which aired after President Obama address to the nation, the panel of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman were not impressed by the President’s speech, as the group complained that it was not “specific” enough and lacked details. Matthews complained that in the Obama administration, “meritocracy is going too far,” and asserted that it was “ludicrous” that the President had mentioned that Energy Secretary Carol Browner has a Nobal Prize. Matthews: Well, I thought a couple of things were surprising to me. Why does he continue to say that the secretary of energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it`s almost gotten ludicrous. We have Carol Browner do it again tonight. I know I`ve mocked him for doing it, saying I`d barf if he did it one more time. But it`s not important. This meritocracy is going too far. This I`m the new guy here, the head the MMS. I`m not sure whether these degrees are going to help or these awards from overseas. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Tuesday, June 15, Countdown show on MSNBC:  KEITH OLBERMANN: Chris, I`m going to start with you. Maybe I missed something. I thought it was a great speech if you`ve been on another planet for the last 57 days. But was that what was needed tonight? Did he shoot really low? CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well, I thought there was a bit of news there and I don`t whether it`s optimistic beyond belief, which is, in the coming days or weeks, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. Well, that`s the first I`ve heard of that. In coming days, we`re going to have this thing capped. We`re going to effectively solve the problem? Secondly, he didn`t mention what power he has as chief executive of the country to make them understand they need to put this escrow account in third party hands. Is he going to litigate? Is he going to file an amicus brief with class action suit? Wait seven years for this to happen? Or is he really going to demand it to happen? He said, I can ask them to do this. I`m amazed he just says he has that power. We`ll see. And as for the energy bill, I think you hit on something important there. Cap and trade passed the House. It hasn`t gotten anywhere in the Senate. And one reason it has gotten there is, remember how he jump- lined for immigration after Harry Reid for a while there? He had the bill in the queue. He pushed this aside for immigration, knowing he wasn`t going to be able to get immigration through, or even come with an I.D. card as part of a comprehensive solution. And then he pushed it aside and then he put it back in line again. It`s not clear. Now, the hard part of this is the heavy-lifting of energy transition. He said we have to accelerate this thing, accelerate the transition to renewables. That is the hardest thing in the world. That`s what broke Jimmy Carter. That`s what Ronald Reagan took a buy on completely. And Bill Clinton didn`t do anything. It`s the hardest thing in the world. He`s saying, I`m going to do it, and then no more information. OLBERMANN: Nothing. Nothing specific. Nothing specific at all. MATTHEWS: The best you can do, if you do it, and the question: Is he going to do it this year? Is there going to be a bill that goes from cap and trade to something like Lugar? Is there a particular direction he`s going in? He didn`t tell us. OLBERMANN: But he didn`t even say the Senate needs to pass the bill that`s already on the table. MATTHEWS: Well, at least something. You need to go to conference. OLBERMANN: Howard, I got the feeling, Howard, that the president would have said, hey, I was as surprised by this as you were. He talked about how he had approved the expansion of the offshore drilling and said he`d been assured everything was going to go all right. And then he had the analogy, which many people expected would be more contemporary about 9/11, was instead about World War II. And he said something I found just extraordinary, it`s nice- speechifying. But let me read it again. “Our determination to fight for the America we want for our children, even if we`re unsure exactly what that looks like, even if we don`t yet know precisely how we`re going to get there, we know we`ll get there.” It`s nice, but again, how? Where was the “how” in this speech when the nation is crying out for how? HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. you said he aimed too low. I don`t think he was specific enough, Keith. You talked about the energy bill. The fact is that Harry Reid has told him there aren`t 60 votes in the Senate to get beyond a filibuster with cap and trade. That`s the detail of it. But beyond that, I think the American people, both in the Gulf and everywhere else, wanted to know more how this was going. Somewhere between earlier today and tonight, this went from being a war and all about an assault on the Gulf to an epidemic. That`s one thing that I thought was interesting. The commander-in-chief thing was lost. And I thought it was, he had to confess but in a way didn`t confess enough. Why he had approved offshore oil drilling and he had accepted these assurances? Who were these assurances from? Who were they from? Now, if you connected the dots between that paragraph and the one below where he said the MMS was a disaster and a mess, you might get a little bit of an idea why that it happened. I think this is a war. I think he was commander-in-chief or should have been commander-in-chief tonight. I think, just, if he`s going to make the analogy to World War II, it should have been like Franklin Roosevelt explaining exactly what was happening in Europe, where Patton was going, where the troops were going, what the losses were, what the advances were, what the troop`s strengths were. Tell everybody. They` been watching television for the last 59 days. They want to know how we`re doing. OLBERMANN: Right. Even if we don`t know precisely how we`re going to get there we know we`ll get there. There wasn`t any specificity to it. FINEMAN: Yes. OLBERMANN: I`m going to revise my remark, Chris. I don`t think he aimed low. I don`t think he aimed at all about this. It`s startling to have heard this, isn`t it? MATTHEWS: Well, I thought a couple of things were surprising to me. Why does he continue to say that the secretary of energy has a Nobel Prize? I mean, it`s almost gotten ludicrous. We have Carol Browner do it again tonight. I know I`ve mocked him for doing it, saying I`d barf if he did it one more time. But it`s not important. This meritocracy is going too far. This I`m the new guy here, the head the MMS. I`m not sure whether these degrees are going to help or these awards from overseas. I think it`s interesting. We have a blue ribbon panel now that`s going to look in to what went wrong. Can`t we move a little quicker than that, than to name a commission? That`s what they`ve done here. Another commission and another guy mentioned — they mentioned for having a Nobel Prize. I think there`s a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk here. References — you know what they don`t refer to, his cabinet. Now, this is cabinet government like I`ve never seen before. I asked Admiral Allen the other day, “Who do you work for?” Because there`s been concern in the Gulf as to the lack of a clear-cut chain of command, like the president of the United States, Rahm Emanuel, cabinet does what they`re told. Now, I asked Allen, “Who do you work for?” Well, he says, “I work for Janet Napolitano over at homeland security and then she sort of reports to the president.” And go — wait a minute, isn`t the president calling the shots here? And here he was delineating everybody`s job like Admiral Allen and he`s got this Nobel Prize guy and then he`s got this blue-ribbon panel. I don`t sense executive command. And I thought that was the purpose of this speech tonight, command and control. I`m calling the shots. My name is Barack Obama. I`m the boss. I`m telling people what to do. I didn`t get that clarity. And I think that command and control, a phrase that`s made, worked its way around the White House is essential here. He must be chief executive. He can no longer be Vatican observer or intellectual, or a guy calling in experts, or naming commissioners or whatever. I think he`s, or citing people for their Nobel prizes, I think he has to be the boss. And he never mentioned here anything beyond BP, like, aren`t there other oil companies that could help clean up this mess? You know, we`ve had Hofmeister on, the former Shell executive, saying you`ve got to get all these tankers in there, all these people out there skimming. I don`t sense this as a real national effort yet.

See the original post here:
MSNBC Panel Not Impressed By Obama Speech

Tony Awards Go To Movie Stars Scarlett Johansson, Denzel Washington

‘Red’ takes home Best Play, while ‘Memphis’ wins Best Musical. By Jocelyn Vena Scarlett Johansson at the Tony Awards Sunday Photo: Andrew H. Walker/ Getty Images While the Tony Awards are intended to celebrate the biggest stars of the Broadway stage, several of this year’s trophies wound up in the hands of movie stars. Hosted by “Promises, Promises” star Sean Hayes and held at Radio City Music Hall in New York City, the Tonys honored the new production “Red” (starring Alfred Moline) with Best Play, and “Memphis” beat out “American Idiot” and “Fela!” for Best Musical . Bill T. Jones did win Best Choreography for “Fela!” (which counts Jay-Z and Will Smith among its producers ). “American Idiot,” meanwhile, won awards for its scenic design and lighting design. But Hollywood was a dominant presence all night. Denzel Washington won Best Performance by a Leading Actor in a Play for his work in