Tag Archives: White House

Budget Chief Peter Orszag leaving

Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag at the Center for American Progress June 8, 2010 in Washington, DC. Orszag is leaving the administration, the Washington Post reported citing a Democrat familiar with his plans, marking the first departure from President Barack Obama#39;s cabinet. White House budget director Peter Orszag is leaving the administration, the Washington Post reported late Monday citing a Democrat familiar with his plans, marking the first departure from Presiden

Visit link:
Budget Chief Peter Orszag leaving

Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward for White House "Shakedown"

BP CEO Tony Hayward is in the midst of a harsh grilling today on Capitol Hill, where he is testifying House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on “The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill.” But not long after the hearing began, Hayward got something not many expected from lawmakers: An apology. Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, apologized to Hayward for what he described as a “shakedown” at the White House yesterday. He was referring to the deal worked out between the Obama administration and BP to set up a $20 billion fund administered by a third party to pay for damages from the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Barton said. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown.” He complained that “the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.” “I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.” “I'm speaking now totally for myself,” he noted. “I'm not speaking for the Republican Party.” Not long after Barton spoke, the White House released a statement calling his comments “shameful.” “What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments.” According to the Associated Press, Barton has taken more than $100,000 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, more than all but one other member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At the hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D – MA) said he “could not disagree more strongly” with Barton's comments. “Not only is the compensation fund that was created yesterday at the White House in an agreement reached between BP and President Obama not a slush fund and not a shakedown, rather it was the government of the United States worked to protect the most vulnerable citizens that we have in this country right now – the residents of the Gulf,” he said. “American citizens are being harmed,” Markey added. “We cannot wait, as unfortunately so many victims of the Exxon Valdez had to wait years to see those families compensated. We can't lose sight of fact that the 1984 Bhophal disaster and lawsuits related to it, were only settled last week. We have to make sure American citizens are protected.” “The families of the Gulf will be crushed financially unless this compensation fund is put in place,” said Markey, arguing that the history of Gulf families will be “permanently altered” without action. Markey added that the creation of the slush fund reflected “American government working at its best” to ensure that families do not become “roadkill” as a result of corporate practices. As Markey spoke, Barton leaned back in his chair reading what appeared to be the newspaper Investor's Business Daily. added by: TimALoftis

C’mon, Give Barack Obama Some Credit For Making BP Pay [Oil Spill]

The weak, spineless worst president ever, whose abysmal speech yesterday eliminated any hope for American prosperity for countless generations, is such an evil corporatist that he’s… found a way to make BP pay claims. Will he ever “show leadership”? More

Michelle Obama Ballin’ with Lakers & Celtics

TMZ has learned Michelle Obama will be attending tonight’s NBA Finals game between the Lakers and the Celtics at Staples Center in L.A. The White House just confirmed rumors that had been circling all day. We’re told the outing is a “family event”

Stephanopoulos Enchanted By Obama’s ‘Marshal Language’ and ‘Feel of FDR’

President Barack Obama’s Oval Office address about the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico certainly impressed George Stephanopoulos, though that’s not a difficult achievement for the favorably pre-disposed Democratic operative turned network political expert. ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC were all back to regular programming two minutes or less after Obama finished, but that was enough time for Stephanopoulos to display his delight. “What struck me tonight,” he informed ABC anchor Diane Sawyer, is: Oval Office addresses are often used when the nation is at war and tonight the President used marshal language. He talked about a “siege,” the “assault on our shores” and his “battle plan” to fix it. And he said we have to “rally together.” The co-host of ABC’s Good Morning America proceeded to relay, presuming the inspirational goal was met, that the White House was “reaching for” the “feel of Franklin Roosevelt during World War II and those fireside chats and the President even said that during World War II they said we couldn’t build enough planes and tanks, but we did. We can beat this as well.” To which, Sawyer chimed in by quoting liberal hero FDR: “Only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” From immediately following Obama’s 8 PM EDT speech on Tuesday night, June 15: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: What struck me tonight, Diane, is you know those Oval Office addresses are often used when the nation is at war and tonight the President used marshal language. He talked about a “siege,” the “assault on our shores” and his “battle plan” to fix it. And he said we have to “rally together.” And I think what the White House was reaching for tonight is the feel of Franklin Roosevelt during World War II and those fireside chats and the President even said that during World War II they said we couldn’t build enough planes and tanks, but we did. We can beat this as well. DIANE SAWYER: “Only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Read more:
Stephanopoulos Enchanted By Obama’s ‘Marshal Language’ and ‘Feel of FDR’

What to Expect From Obama’s Oval Office Address Tonight [Speeches]

Someone in the White House has finally convinced Barack Obama to do a primetime address about the oil spill . He’ll be in the Oval Office . Fancy! But can we expect to hear anything new? Will he “act angrily” enough? More

Congressman’s Outfit Making Gay Staffer Rounds on Capitol Hill [Gaydar]

[ A tipster sends along this miraculous photo—which is “jamming up the gay staff listserve” on Capitol Hill — of GOP Rep. Aaron Schock (right) at Tuesday night’s White House picnic. Did he win any prizes? Click to enlarge. ] More

MSNBC’s Mitchell: Oil Spill An ‘Opportunity’ for Obama to Push Energy Bill

Speaking to New York Magazine columnist John Heilemann on MSNBC Friday, anchor Andrea Mitchell wondered if the Gulf oil spill could be a political opportunity for President Obama: “Is there an opportunity now to do something real on energy?” Heilemann proclaimed the disaster was “a triggering action for us to try and get toward a greener future…break our addiction to oil…”              The discussion occurred during the 1PM ET hour on Andrea Mitchell Reports with Mitchell noting how the President was “trying to contain the political damage” from the spill. After she spun the crisis as an “opportunity,” Heilemann argued: “I think this is one of these real moments for any president…what better moment is there than this?” Both Mitchell and Heilemann seem to share the philosophy of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Heilemann actually worried that the White House would not exploit the situation enough: “I think that for the White House to do that and not end up with a piecemeal, some kind of small bill – small ball bill – he’s got to go really big and turn this into a crusade.”  He described the “fear” on the Left that the administration was “going to end up settling for a small solution rather than the big one that really changes, fundamentally, our relationship to energy and the – and our climate.” Mitchell then quoted Heilemann’s recent column in New York Magazine: …you wrote that: “As much as pulling the country back from the economic brink or passing health-care reform, the catastrophe in the Gulf offers Obama a chance to rise to the occasion, and in the process not only validate his conception of progressive, activist, and competent governance but reclaim the visionary mantle that inspired so many during his campaign.” Mitchell agreed with the sentiment and declared: “…it strikes me that this is an opportunity for him [Obama] to change the conversation….[to do] what he arguably does best and show his competence and the big conceptual approach to the energy policy, that would really be a major test of leadership.” Heilemann replied: “It would be…he does competency, he also does inspiration really well….he does inspiration terrifically well.” Heilemann concluded: “There’s places where he [Obama] can go here and – on both substance and symbolism – that would actually benefit him and what I – as I said, play to his strengths rather than his weaknesses.” Mitchell was pleased by all of his political advice for the President: “John Heilemann, that’s why we always love to talk to you. Thank you very much.” Here is a full transcript of the June 11 exchange: 1:14PM EST KEITH JONES [FATHER OF OIL RIG VICTIM]: I don’t criticize the President in not having condemned BP or any other party that may have been at fault in the accident. Not yet. ANDREA MITCHELL: Keith Jones, whose son died on the Deepwater Horizon rig after visiting the White House, as BP tries to cap the oil spewing into the Gulf. President Obama is trying to contain the political damage, but as estimates of the oil continues to rise, what is this political fallout? With us now, John Heilemann, national political columnist with New York Magazine and of course co-author of ‘Game Change,’ the best-selling book. John, The President has taken step by step measures to change the policy. Now, he’s inviting BP to the White House next week – summoning really – next Wednesday, after saying for days and days, weeks, that there was no need for them to communicate. He met with the families. He went down and spent hours there last week. He’s going back on Monday and Tuesday. Is this course correction going to work? JOHN HEILEMANN: Well, I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do think that there is, you know, there’s this daunting sense, and I say this not in a way to suggest somehow they were – this is not criticism of the White House. I think for all of us, there’s the sense that this thing is –  the scale of it is much larger than anybody thought and I think more importantly, that the time frame for it is now much longer than most people had ever hoped or expected, right? So this is going to go on for months and months. And so, you know, if tomorrow they capped the well completely, which of course is not going to happen, you would have months of an environmental disaster, an economic disaster, that the President is going to – the political challenge for him and the substantive challenge, is greater, I think, going forward, than it even has been in this last two months. And so as they’ve started to realize that, that this is like – he’s going to be judged not on whether he capped the – plugged the hole, but on how he deals with this. How does he protect the coastline? What changes does he get through in terms of energy policy? That’s where he’s really going to be judged and that’s where he either win or lose. MITCHELL: And on energy policy, do you think – where do you come down? Is this an opportunity or is this a real loss in terms of the ability to get something done? John Kerry and  Lieberman say something can be done. There’s a competing Lugar proposal that actually Lindsey Graham has signed on to. And a vote this week we saw, where – a fairly narrow vote, 53-47, Senator Murkowski tried to limit the White House’s ability to contain emissions and failed. But that was a pretty tough fight in the Senate yesterday. Is there an opportunity now to do something real on energy? HEILEMANN: Well, I think that the politics of it have gotten more complicated, not less, because, as you know, you know, the notion of opening up some offshore drilling was a key carrot to get Republicans and conservative Democrats on board. At the same time, I think this is one of these real moments for any president, where if there is going to be a triggering action for us to try and get toward a greener future, a different kind of energy future, break our addiction to oil, what better moment is there than this? But I think that for the White House to do that and not end up with a piecemeal, some kind of small bill – small ball bill – he’s got to go really big and turn this into a crusade. Lay out a future for American energy, American climate policy, and really drive for that. And I think the fear for people who would like to see him do that is that they’re looking at the difficulty of the politics and they’re going to end up settling for a small solution rather than the big one that really changes, fundamentally, our relationship to energy and the – and our climate. MITCHELL: I read, recently, you wrote that: ‘As much as pulling the country back from the economic brink or passing health-care reform, the catastrophe in the Gulf offers Obama a chance to rise to the occasion, and in the process not only validate his conception of progressive, activist, and competent governance but reclaim the visionary mantle that inspired so many during his campaign.’ You know, it strikes me that this is an opportunity for him to change the conversation so that he’s not arguing over whether he’s emoting enough or feeling the pain enough. That’s not a natural instinct for him, it’s the theatrical – he has to do a little bit of that because he is the commander and consoler-in-chief, but if he does what he arguably does best and show his competence and the big conceptual approach to the energy policy, that would really be a major test of leadership. HEILEMANN: It would be, and look, he also – he does competency, he also does inspiration really well. That’s one of the things we know he does well. He doesn’t do anger well, but he does inspiration terrifically well. So there’s the energy legislation side of this. There’s also another side of this, right? Which is there are going to be – we’re going to need thousands of people to be down in the Gulf trying to keep this oil from getting further into the wetlands than it already is, from getting onto the beaches in Florida. I say why not start a Gulf Conservation Corps or a Gulf Recovery Corps? And start a new branch of our national service of AmeriCorps and tell them – try to inspire young Americans to take a year off and go to the Gulf to save our natural habitat. There are things he can do that would play to his strengths rather than asking him to do some of these theatrical things that don’t play to his strengths and that he, I just think, when he does them he actually looks phony doing them. There’s places where he can go here and – on both substance and symbolism – that would actually benefit him and what I – as I said, play to his strengths rather than his weaknesses. MITCHELL: John Heilemann, that’s why we always love to talk to you. Thank you very much. HEILEMANN: You’re welcome. 

The rest is here:
MSNBC’s Mitchell: Oil Spill An ‘Opportunity’ for Obama to Push Energy Bill

ABC Reporter Hassled on Gulf Coast Beach While Covering Oil Spill

In today’s “Silence of the Cams” segment, an ABC reporter was hassled Thursday for trying to cover the Gulf Coast oil spill from an Alabama beach. According to an article published at ABCNews.com, “Reporting is often about access, but journalists along the Gulf Coast covering the BP oil spill have had some trouble getting it.” The piece continued, “As BP faces more pressure from the government and from its own shareholders unhappy with the company’s falling stock price, it seems to be clamping down on who can talk to reporters” (video follows with more quotes from the article and commentary): Despite company statements that anyone on cleanup crews can share their views, ABC’s Matt Gutman reports that’s not necessarily the case. Today during a “World News” Conversation, he saw firsthand how a BP manager took pains to keep workers away from the press. While preparing for a video chat on his laptop from a public beach in Alabama, Gutman was hassled by the manager of a nearby crew, asking Gutman why he was on the beach. In reality, BP officials likely have learned how to avoid media access by watching the Obama administration handle the press since Inauguration Day. In the end, there are consequences when journalists abdicate their responsibility to advance a political agenda. Maybe if they wouldn’t have assisted candidate Obama’s rise to the White House and then basically reported anything his administration wanted in the opening months of his presidency they wouldn’t be treated with such disregard by a British company. On the other hand, one has to wonder whether or not the White House minds what BP is doing. Think about it: if the Administration wanted greater press access to the beaches and the cleanup, it could just DEMAND BP allow it. After all, these ARE American beaches — or so I’ve been told. 

Follow this link:
ABC Reporter Hassled on Gulf Coast Beach While Covering Oil Spill

Media Reality Check: Team Obama’s Grubby Federal Job-Dangling Is Not News to ABC, CBS, and NBC

On February 18, Rep. Joe Sestak, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, revealed in a Philadelphia TV interview that the Obama White House offered him a job in an effort to talk him out of opposing Sen. Arlen Specter, who’d recently switched parties. Network interviewers asked the White House for comment, but the network news bosses at ABC, CBS, and NBC kept any mention of this possible quid pro quo off the airwaves of their morning and evening news programs for more than three months. Then ten days after Sestak defeated Specter, the White House issued a brief statement on the Friday afternoon heading into the Memorial Day weekend, claiming they asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Sestak an unpaid position on a presidential advisory board. That drew perfunctory reports on Friday night and some brief mentions over the holiday weekend. During the following week, the White House narrative fell apart, since Sestak could not serve on these advisory boards as a member of Congress. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs obfuscated and dodged reporters when peppered with questions, which led to some newspaper and cable coverage, but ABC, CBS and NBC all blacked out the story as it crumbled. Then Andrew Romanoff, a Democratic Senate candidate in Colorado, emerged with a similar story, complete with a White House e-mail he received that touted several positions in foreign aid programs he could have. This spurred two network morning show stories, but the networks weren’t acknowledging any kind of scandal was occurring. There’s now been 12 days of network silence on Team Obama’s Sestak maneuvering. Media Research Center analysts monitored all network morning and evening news coverage in 2010 on Sestak’s Senate campaign. The Sestak job-offer scandal drew only nine stories or mentions on the three networks. NBC offered only one evening anchor brief. CBS featured an evening anchor brief, a morning anchor brief, and a Saturday night interview where analyst John Dickerson dismissed the scandal. ABC did the most with five offerings: three stories or discussions on World News, and two on Good Morning America. All of these nine segments were contained within the Memorial Day weekend. It sounded odd for ABC’s Jonathan Karl to announce on May 28 that “after months of dodging questions,” Team Obama offered an answer. How would anyone watching just network news have any idea the story wasn’t brand new? The networks even failed to note developments on their own Sunday interview programs. On May 23, Sestak dodged questions on CBS’s Face the Nation and NBC’s Meet the Press, while ABC’s This Week ran a soundbite of the February interview with Sestak in Philadelphia. But none of the networks aired a second of the Sestak story until the following Friday night. Only ABC reported a full story that Friday evening. On CBS, anchor Katie Couric offered only a 30-second brushoff. Couric’s sense of its news value was summed up seconds later when she followed that with a light story about frogs: “Thousands of them have been disrupting traffic along a busy highway in northern Greece for days now. And why did the frogs cross the road? To get to the food on the other side.” NBC anchor Brian Williams offered a 73-second anchor brief with a no-news-here tone: “The story got out back in February, and the White House, as the President pledged yesterday, set the record straight today.” Williams signaled his lack of interest by putting that story after a two-minute obituary for ‘80s child star Gary Coleman. That was the only time NBC’s morning and evening newscasts have touched the story, even as MSNBC star Chris Matthews declared the whole Clinton-offer story “a big case of bluffing and BS.” ABC offered the most follow-up, offering a story on Saturday’s Good Morning America and a question to Jake Tapper on Sunday’s morning show. They also threw Tapper a Sestak question on Saturday’s World News, and a Sestak question to ABC political analyst Rick Klein on Sunday night’s newscast. CBS added a few touches over the Memorial Day weekend as well. CBS threw in an anchor brief on Saturday’s Early Show and a couple of questions on Saturday’s Evening News to political analyst John Dickerson, who insisted Democrats saw nothing wrong and Republicans “don’t own the leverage of power to actually force an investigation, so it might just die there.” Especially if the networks want it to die there. The only time CBS offered a full report came on The Early Show on June 3, when White House correspondent Chip Reid reported on the Andrew Romanoff case. ABC mentioned Romanoff briefly on its morning show, but NBC never did. None of the three evening news shows have touched the Romanoff story at all. The networks cannot plausibly claim that this job-dangling is not a news story because it’s a commonly sleazy practice – not after years of claiming the choice of Obama was so idealistic and inspiring. Their inaction not only ignores Obama’s yellowed promises to be transparent and accountable, but also Joe Sestak’s new pledge on the night he defeated Specter that “accountability has been missing for far too long, and I want to help bring it back.”

See the article here:
Media Reality Check: Team Obama’s Grubby Federal Job-Dangling Is Not News to ABC, CBS, and NBC