Obamas Lack of Judgement

[RanchHQ]

[RanchHQ]

The jest of this Article is that President Obama was willing to send $2 Billion down to Brazil for Off Shore Drilling while being against the same here, and, more importantly, reneging on a promise to help guarantee a $2 Billion Loan to a 'Start-up" here that would help take America down the path to Clean Energy.

Now, why would our President do that? Huh, Lisa?

What Obama wouldn’t fund with $2B in loan guarantees

posted at 4:45 pm on August 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey


Earlier this week, we found out what kind of energy production Barack Obama likes to support when he offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazilian oil producer Petrobras to drill off Brazil’s shores — while supporting a moratorium on offshore drilling in the US. Coincidentally, Obama had the opportunity to offer the exact same amount of money to an American company for energy production just three weeks earlier. Did they get the cash for their zero-emission energy industry venture? Apparently, George Soros didn’t invest in USEC:

Bethesda-based USEC on Tuesday accused President Obama of reneging on a campaign pledge after the Energy Department turned down the company’s request for $2 billion in loan guarantees for a new uranium enrichment project in Piketon, Ohio.
USEC, which operates the nation’s only uranium enrichment facility, said it would “demobilize” the new project, which it said could not obtain private financing without the federal loan guarantee. The company has already spent $1.5 billion on what it calls the American Centrifuge Plant, but USEC says the final price tag could reach $3.5 billion, 1 1/2 times as much as it estimated two years ago.
“We are shocked and disappointed by DOE’s decision,” USEC chief executive John K. Welch said in a statement. “President Obama promised to support the loan guarantee for the American Centrifuge Plant while he campaigned in Ohio. We are disappointed that campaign commitment has not been met.”

Let’s make this clear. Obama found $2 billion in the depleted Treasury to fund an expansion of oil production in Brazil, despite both his opposition to American offshore drilling and to increasing reliance on fossil fuels.

However, he cannot find any money to keep a promise to support nuclear energy in the US by keeping the USEC plant in operation in Ohio, a state that will get hammered by his cap-and-trade proposal. The denial will set back the introduction of nuclear energy that could replace some of the coal-based electrical power generated in Ohio and elsewhere.

The DoE says that the USEC project has not reached the readiness stage required for funding. However, the same is true of the project that Obama’s funding in Brazil. In fact, investors (other than Soros) wonder whether the state-owned and state-run Petrobras is really up to the task of properly exploiting the find, despite the leftist government’s campaign of supporting Petrobras control of it. The extraction of the coastal find is still in the planning stages, whereas the USEC facility is much closer to production. Yet the US has no use for American energy even as it subsidizes Brazil’s government-owned oil production.

What’s the difference that pushed Obama towards Petrobras and away from USEC? Because from here, it just looks like George Soros.

SOURCE: Hot Air Blog Archive What Obama wouldn’t fund with $2B in loan guarantees

[RanchHQ]

Victor David Hansen is a really, really smart Dewd.

Sometimes I think anyone really, really smart ends up with three first names.

His “gorge the beast” philosophy of mega-deficits ensures the goal of “spreading the wealth” - VDH

August 20th, 2009 5:59 am
The Strange Case of the Obama Meltdown

The Obama Meltdown—Symptoms/Diagnosis/Prognosis
Strange things are happening to the Obama administration and quickly so. His polls are diving and may not stop at 50/50, the most precipitous drop in approval of a first-year President since Bill Clinton in 1993 (cf. Hillary care).

First, here are some of the problems the President faces:


Symptoms and Diagnosis

1) Health Care. Health-care take overs and socialized medicine have terrified not just the right and conservatives, but the elderly of all persuasions who fear their shaky Medicare funds will be diverted to Obama’s new plans. In short, they believe their care will be rationed and given to all sorts of new recipients. And they fear age will be a basis for meriting treatment; as if the gang banger with a long felony record of mayhem at 22 would be more deserving before a federal health panel than would someone at 90 who scrimped and saved for insurance in case of some future need for a hip replacement (and was still active and productive; cf. great octogenarians from Sophocles to Barzun who did their best work in their late lives).

It was an insane political move to demonize these town-hallers, when streaming video showed the participants scared and angry, but not violent, trying to get answers from smug politicos who either cell phoned away, ridiculed questioners in the manner of Barney Frank, or mocked their interrogators. These were for the most part not Code Pink/Cindy Sheehan type protestors. (And by the way, what happened to Code Pink, given we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan?)

2) The Spell is Broken.

Cap-and-trade, the mega-deficits, the apology tours, and the sleaze of some appointments and congressional grandees (cf. Rangel, Dodd, Murtha, etc.) were stimulants, but not in themselves enough to awaken the somnolent American people from their collective trance. Yet health care was like a shot of adrenaline that jolted the patient out of his slumber. Suddenly hope and change no longer worked like the swinging watch and “you’re getting sleepy” lingo. Voters are feeling they’ve been “had” and were mesmerized into being used for an extremist agenda.

Who made the following decisions? 1) to propose a 1,000 page bill that no one had read, much less could explain?; 2) to ram down the greatest change in the US economy in fifty years by the August recess?; 3) to talk loosely of the “uninsured” without knowing why they were not insured, how much it would cost to insure them, or whether they currently in fact find some sort of care?; 4) to reference Rahm Emanuel’s doctor brother as a source of wisdom? 5) to demonize the health-care industry as greedy?

(NB: Does Obama really believe that illegal aliens do not possess 200-300 dollars a month to buy catastrophic health coverage, when they send on average at least that amount back to Mexico on the assumption the emergency room here is free, for everything from injuries to natal care? Does he believe that a 25-year old does not gamble that his robust health means he prefers his I-pod, DVDs, and nights out to squirreling away cash each month for health insurance? There are flaws in our system that must be corrected, but the notion of conspirators in black hats who plot to prevent health care for the “uninsured” is fallacious.

3) The Counter-attack is not working.

The Obama shotgun has blasted all sorts of magnum loads—town-hall and tea-party critics were un-American, Nazis, tools of the insurance industry, dupes, and Astro-turfers. Now the religious argument is thrown out at the 11th hour: those who doubt neo-socialist care are somehow un-Christian and uncaring. But that tactic evokes Trinity-Church politics, where religious piety rings false and serves political advantage. Did not the Christian Right get demonized for just that avenue of political mobilization?

And because Obama assumed messianic pretensions, such a prophet suffers the wage of hypocrisy, given the growing reality that he is, on the presidential scale, rather mean spirited, highly partisan, too sensitive to criticism, and surprisingly ill-informed given the emphasis on his Ivy-League education and the whiz-kids around him (who wrote the error-plagued Cairo speech).

The Therapy


1) Cool the “this is our moment”, “hope and change” rhetoric.

Obama reminds me of what Wellington supposedly said of Napoleon’s Old Guard at Waterloo “They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way.” Instead, he should quietly follow the 1995 triangulation model of Bill Clinton/Dick Morris.

Instead of the old sops of welfare reform, school uniforms, balanced budgets, and more police officers on the street (I’m not being entirely cynical here), Obama should concentrate on debt, debt, and more debt. He could freeze federal spending at 2% per annum, and get into the black in two-three years, given his income tax hikes. He could pacify the Left with, “I’d love to pursue our socialist agenda, but we are going broke and cannot right now.”

Instead of cap-and-trade, he could allot a few feminist, green and gay ambassadorships that would not impact the federal treasury. Given the sudden silence on Iraq, the Left has demonstrated that their furor was always about power lost and hatred for George Bush in the White House, never much about principles or convictions. That Obama is in the White House is more important to most former critics of Bush than anything he does or says.

2) Return to the “no more blue/red state” bipartisan tropes.

Consider Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank as the real challenges, since the animosity that they engender can do far more damage to Barack Obama than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and all of the Fox News cast put together. Voters are more comfortable with Blue Dogs than Barbara Boxer. Soon the tea-party anger is going to spill over and result in Boxer, Reid, etc. having reelection nightmares.

3) Retire Robert Gibbs.

He is as disingenuous as Ron Ziegler; as buffoonish as Scott McClellan; as abrasive as Ari Fleischer without the accompanying competence; and as mean-spirited as Bill Moyers. He must be some sort of Republican plant? (David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel seem likewise increasing liabilities.

Axelrod is knee-deep in conflict of interest problems (his former firm is paying out his final settlement in part from business generated from Axelrod’s present West Wing influence). Emanuel is the architect of ramming through these borrow-and-spend radical proposals all at once, on the theory that a left-wing government can be institutionalized and permanent constituencies established before the public catches on and the treasury can borrow no more.)

4) Stop the apologies abroad and emphasize the continuance of the war on terror (renditions, tribunals, Predators, etc.). Stay the course in Afghanistan and don’t broadcast our intentions in Iraq. The model is Truman and JFK, not McGovern and Jimmy Carter. Read up on Iwo Jima and Chosun, and cool the victim studies chants.

5) End the class warfare against those who make over $150,000 (or is it $200,000 or is it $250,000?), and begin to thank them for creating national wealth and giving so much of it back to the government (state, federal, and payroll taxes already result in a 50 percent plus bite for many). As it is now, Obama’s agenda is not so much against the wealthy (the rich own the homes he vacations in, organized the salons that enriched him in the campaign, and are among his most generous supporters and recipients of insider favors), as it is directed at those who wish to be wealthy.



And the Republicans?

1) Mea Culpa. At some point the opposition will have to offer counterproposals that are the opposite of the financial recklessness of 2001-06. On health care reform, they could offer tax incentives for private health care accounts, craft subsidies for the poor to purchase private catastrophic plans, and insist on tort reform. It won’t do any good to blast Obama for bankrupting the treasury if conservatives still vote in multi-billion-dollar agriculture subsidies, expand earmarks, and dream up new programs like No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug expanded benefits. The Republicans gain from the Obama meltdown, but will be embarrassed when voters turn and ask , “And you? What have you got for us that is any better?” and they have no detailed reply.

2) Clean House. If opponents are to emphasize the Democratic sleaze—Rangel, Dodd, Murtha, the Obama Cabinet tax-cheaters, Axelrod, etc—then they must pledge no more Tom Delays, Duke Cunningham’s, Mark Foleys, and Jack Abramoffs. Parts of the success of the old Contract with America were provisions about congressional behavior.

3) Something Different This Time. Conservatives must appreciate that Obamism transcends the usual liberal challenge posed by past Democrats. For a variety of reasons, the liberal agenda this time is much more far-reaching and systematic. Obama proposes not just to grow government and absorb much more of the nation’s GDP into the state, but to create a lasting legacy of statism.

His “gorge the beast” philosophy of mega-deficits ensures the goal of “spreading the wealth” (cf. his campaign interview in which he was unfazed by the point that targeted tax cuts and economic expansion brought in greater federal revenue). Income is deemed arbitrary and compensation not rational; thus government is called upon to even things out given its greater wisdom and superior moral sensibility. The rapid growth in the state leads to permanent loyal constituencies of those who grant and receive entitlements—and could not be undone for generations, if ever. A religiosity surrounds these proposals, and critics (“fishy”) are targeted on email and websites, considered un-American and now un-Christian, in one of the most glaring examples of the utopian ends justifying devious means that we have seen in our lifetimes.

What’s Next?

In exasperation I think Obama’s supporters will revert to the race card more often still, which in turn will only take his popularity even lower. Because of his inexperience and unfamiliarity with political hostility, I think Obama will press ahead on the present course, heightening partisan tensions, dividing the country, and ultimately diminishing his presidency further still. Again, the voters wanted youth, charisma, competence, fiscal sobriety, non-partisanship, and are getting radicalism with an increasing edge to it.

An inflation-, debt-induced mini-recovery, I think, will help Obama by early next year. But the laws of physics will then catch up to him, as a falling dollar, high interest, high inflation, low growth, and high unemployment return to choke off a return to former prosperity. His political fortunes will hinge on what part of this economic cycles the elections fall, and the degree to which he jettisons the Chicago style (I predict many of us critics will be fully audited by next April or see Team Obama increase the swarm on websites and postings). With savvy Democratic role models like Truman, JFK, and Clinton, it is suicidal that he pursues a Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry agenda—as if he really thinks voters supported him to resurrect such unpopular policies.

LINK: Works and Days The Strange Case of the Obama Meltdown

[RanchHQ]

FROM: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

Obama Lowballed Deficit Figure By $2 TRILLION!


Nice work. it looks like he was a wee bit off.
Team Obama was $2 trillion off their budget deficit estimates.

Obama and the Democrats may not know how to create jobs- but they sure know how to spend money.

Barack Obama will likely quadruple the US deficit in his first year in office. He will reportedly spend $23.7 trillion to "fix" the economy... or bankrupt it by next year. And, he has no one to blame but himself.

The Obama Administration just raised their 10-year budget plan by $2 trillion.
Reuters reported:

The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives further fuel to President Barack Obama's opponents, who say his spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls.

The White House took heat for sticking with its $7.108 trillion forecast earlier this year after the Congressional Budget Office forecast that deficits between 2010 and 2019 would total $9.1 trillion.

"The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year," said the administration official, who is familiar with the budget mid-session review that is slated to be released next week.

Let's give them health care!

[RanchHQ]

Those Forked Tongue Democrats: Long Term Costs
Posted by JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor in Economy, Politics.
Aug 22nd, 2009

Back when I was young, Kris Kristofferson warned us all of the dangers of the silver tongued devil… the person who would come off as a charming fellow and say things you want to hear, then turn around and do you wrong. If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the running series of comments from both President Obama and Congressional Democrats on matters of spending, the deficit and the national debt, you should be getting an old, familiar feeling. It was only six months ago to the day, on Feb. 22, when Barack Obama proclaimed that he was going to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. And let’s be sure to recall that this was after TARP was already in play and Porkulous was under construction like a fully operational Death Star. The economy had begun to collapse the previous fall, so nobody could say it was coming as a surprise.
My, how things change in six months. (Hat tip: Hot Air)

Obama to raise 10-year deficit to $9 trillion
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.
The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives further fuel to President Barack Obama’s opponents, who say his spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls.
Politically, the deficit has been an albatross for Obama, a Democrat who is pushing forward with plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare industry — an initiative that could cost up to $1 trillion over 10 years — and other promises, including reforming education and how the country handles energy.

You’ll keep hearing more and more claims about how the Democrats’ proposed health care legislation will actually wind up saving money through the miracles of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. (Oh yes, and eliminating the evil insurance companies.) But the CBO keeps on shooting those ideas down, saying that the Dem plan will not result in any savings and putting the price tag at close to one trillion. Not to mention that some analysts are convinced that the CBO is using an outdated model and the real cost of ObamaCare will come in at closer to two trillion.
And yet some supporters still protest loudly here, saying, “Oh, Jazz. Don’t you call us tax and spend Democrats. That’s an old myth and you can’t prove it.”

You’re right about one thing. So far all we’re really seeing is the spend side of that characterization, aside from some early hits on tobacco, alcohol and “luxury” items. The real taxes haven’t started yet. But don’t worry … you can trust Congress. They wouldn’t lie to you, would they? Hisssssssssssssssssssssss.

SOURCE: Those Forked Tongue Democrats: Long Term Costs | The Moderate Voice

[RanchHQ]

Guantanamo Detainee Released to Afghanistan

The administration reportedly has released Mohammed Jawad to his home in Afghanistan.

The Obama administration reportedly has released a prisoner from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp accused of attacking U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

According to Reuters, the administration released Mohammed Jawad to his home in Afghanistan.

Jawad had been accused of throwing a grenade in 2002 that injured two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter in Kabul. He has returned to his family, according to his lawyer.

Kirk Lippold, former USS Cole commander and fellow at Military Families United, criticized the decision in a statement Monday, calling it part of a "sadly familiar pattern."

"No coherent policy in the war on terror. No comprehensive plan in place to deal with the future of Guantanamo Bay detainees. No accountability for terrorists who harm our brave fighting forces," he said.

LINK: Guantanamo Detainee Released to Afghanistan - Political News - FOXNews.com

[RanchHQ]

FROM: The Greenroom Forum Archive Obama’s disrespect for presidency hits new low

Obama’s disrespect for presidency hits new low

posted at 7:06 am on August 25, 2009 by Pundette


G-Lo, that is. I wouldn’t have believed this if I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes. The sitting President of the United States of America has filmed a cheesy promo for a late-night talk show and thereby trivialized his office as well as his own phony vision. Click and watch the video of POTUS-as-shill. I’ll save you a minute of your life by telling you that our transcendent, intellectual, rara avis president appears only at the beginning of the commercial, which goes on to play on, and further cheapen, the hope-and-change theme.

EDIT: LINK to Video in question: George Lopez

Reaction from Peter Roff: Obama doesn’t know how to be president

So imagine my shock, surprise, and amazement the other night when I happened to catch the president of the United States, the leader of the free world, Barack H. Obama, playing second fiddle to a second-rate comedian in a TV spot promoting a new late-night television talk show—and on basic cable no less.The spot, which looked like it had been filmed inside the White House, was decidedly unfunny, which does not auger well for the talk show it was promoting. But more than that, having the president of the United States appear in a commercial, while still in office yet seemed, well, unseemly.
There are those in recent days who have written that Obama is, perhaps, overexposed, that he has become too accessible and, as a result, he is unable to persuade the nation that his vision for change in America is, after all, the right one. The idea that he has time to appear in commercials promoting new TV shows does not make him more presidential; it makes him smaller. It reduces the people’s opinion of him and therefore reduces his effectiveness as a leader.
David Axelrod and company may have designed a campaign to win the White House that presented Obama as more like a “rock star” or “pop idol” rather than as a candidate for public office. But now they’re in the big show, and they have to act like it.

That last sentence is precisely parallel to Robin Givhan’s bottom line on the first lady’s uber-casual exit from Air Force One last week:

She gets the fancy jet. She has to dress for the ride.

It’s all about respecting the office. That’s what’s so jarring about this photo:

Givhans understands what’s wrong here:

When the first couple disembarks from Air Force One, military personnel stand at attention, shutters click and minions scurry. It’s not as though they are climbing out of their own personal RV with their backpacks — like celebrities caught unawares by the paparazzi. Ultimately, the first lady can’t be — nor should she be — just like everyone else. Hers is a life of responsibilities and privileges.

It isn’t just that the first lady looks sloppy, is showing too much leg, or is wearing unflattering clothes, though all of these are true. It’s the stark contrast between our military on either side, respecting, by extension, the office of POTUS, and Mrs. Obama in the center, not respecting the office or those who have entrusted it to her husband.
The office of president is the honor that it is because the president was chosen by the people to be our representative. It should be intrinsically humbling, because who can truly be worthy of that trust? It’s the president’s responsibility to uphold the dignity of the office itself, which has been entrusted to him temporarily, on loan. It shouldn’t be viewed as a personal windfall, like hitting the Powerball number or winning American Idol. It’s not an opportunity to be used for self-promotion or the pursuit of expensive pleasures. We don’t want our president to be seen as crassly enjoying the perks too much or reveling in his celebrity status.
The Obamas don’t seem to get it. But what about their handlers? Do the Obamas refuse to take advice, or are their advisors clueless as well? It’s hard to understand how this promo could have been planned and filmed without anyone raising an objection.

[Maximus]

Sooner or later Obama's numbers will level out, but they keep dropping. From today's Rasmussen poll:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

30% strongly approve vs. 41% who strongly disapprove.

[RanchHQ]

Anyone who supported the Election of Barack Obama should be embarrassed, and angered by this.

I didn't, but I am.

Obama’s Team Crosses the Rhetorical Line

• Posted September 1st, 2009 at 12.01pm in Ongoing Priorities.

(Update: The website cited below has been suspended by barackobama.com. The screenshot above is the original page, but the embedded links will no longer work. Click on the picture above for a full-screen view.)

Many Americans took off work and sacrificed family time this past August to attend congressional town halls, where they voiced opposition to a government-run overhaul of their personal health care choices. They hand painted signs, grabbed their children and drove to their local church or school gymnasium for valuable lessons in community organizing and democracy. While they lived the Rockwellian version of American discourse, they were called names, labeled as ‘too organized’ or “un-American”, and likened to mobs, Nazis and Fascists. And now President Obama’s team has designated September 11 as the day to liken conservatives to Al Qaeda terrorists.

Today, President Obama’s campaign organization “Organizing for America” sent out a notice to its “grassroots” supporters. It asked them to wage a coordinated phone campaign for health care by calling their U.S. Senators on September 11 – also known as Patriot Day in honor of the thousands of Americans killed by Al Qaeda terrorists eight years ago. It goes on: “All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

Please read that again.

Typically when this type of outrageousness is unleashed on the American public, the appropriate response is to recall the webpage and explain the gray area, with phrases such as ‘that was taken out of context’ or ‘we didn’t mean that conservatives were actually terrorists’ or ‘that was written by a junior staffer who has been admonished’. But that should not be sufficient this time. There are several lessons America must learn from this:

Bipartisanship: Rather than rally our nation, which is certainly more divided than ever, they seek to make those divisions even more distinctive this September 11. The President often talks about reaching across the aisle, working with people of differing viewpoints, but that rhetoric is not matched by this reality.

Zealots: This type of irresponsible rhetoric can make dissent against the President seem dangerous. Down the road, the President could paint his detractors as nothing more than right-wing zealots bent on destroying his vision for the nation. Remember, these ‘zealots’ are not smuggling weapons, they’re smuggling poster board and markers. They’re not flying planes into buildings; they’re flying to see their parents for Thanksgiving.

Free Press: How does it help our nation to rally against a free press? If Fox News doesn’t report the story as the White House sees it, does that make them a “propaganda network” as it says on today’s release? Who are the “treacherous leaders” that Fox News is reporting to by the way? These questions need answering.

Memorial: September 11 should be a day to grieve and remember, not a day to lobby for government-run healthcare. It certainly should not be a day to demonize fellow Americans. America’s enemies are violent extremists, bent on bring this nation to its knees, not soccer moms, dads and senior citizens who may disagree with one’s political or policy views.

Results: Will a single American become more enamored with the President’s health care plan, if they are called a terrorist? Will the country become more unified? This is not a strategy that will build consensus, rather it will end health care reform. All Americans want reform; they differ on the details. No reform will be possible in this toxic political environment.

President Obama has a way of deflecting the bad behavior of his subordinates. It is certainly true that he does not get up every morning and write all of his own press releases, and refresh his own website. But he is responsible and accountable for its content. It is time for the President to stop campaigning. He should eliminate his “Organizing for America” website immediately. He needs to stop embracing the rising sun seal of Obama/Biden ‘08 and instead embrace the great Presidential seal of the White House 2009.

On September 11, 2008 then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama said: “Americans across our great country came together to stand with the families of the victims, to donate blood, to give to charity, and to say a prayer for our country. Let us renew that.”

Let us renew that indeed. We should never degrade that day’s events to call those who oppose a policy “terrorists.” Mr. President, this September 11; remember the heroes, remember the victims, remember the families who wept that evening and pray for America’s continued resolve and wisdom, because together we are stronger. Divided we fall.

(Update #2: Several readers have asked us whether this posting on barackobama.com was “user-generated” rather than a staff posting. From what we can tell, this may have been the case. Nevertheless, members of ‘Organizing for America’ in Illinois, North Carolina, Michigan and possibly other states were invited to this event without filter. Anything under the ‘Organizing for America’ banner that is distributed en masse is accountable to those who run the President’s perpetual campaign.

Which is the problem with a perpetual campaign. When you have campaign organizers attempting to assist the White House message, you end up in this situation. If one American received one email that led them to believe that the President shared these views, that is one too many.

This was not an ill-advised comment on a blog, but rather an organizing activity that used hateful language to describe the opposition. The President and his political advisors should immediately denounce this language and continue to remove it from their website. And they should immediately discontinue the use of the ‘Organizing for America’ website to remove any suspicion that the President shares these views. There is a time for campaigning, and a time for leading. Now is the time for the President to lead.)

LINK: Obama’s Team Crosses the Rhetorical Line The Foundry

[RanchHQ]

Another Union Payback:

"When was the last time you heard of a union official creating a manufacturing plant?"

Good Grief. Obama Puts Former SEIU Bigwig In Charge of Creating Manufacturing Jobs

What exactly does a union leader know about creating manufacturing jobs?

Honestly, just how incompetent is Barack Obama?
The radical in the White House just placed a high-level SEIU negotiator in charge of creating manufacturing jobs...
When was the last time you heard of a union official creating a manufacturing plant?



Former SEIU principal Ron Bloom becomes the Obama "Manufacturing Czar."
Jake Tapper reported this on Sunday:

In Cincinnati tomorrow, President Obama will announce that he's appointing Ron Bloom his Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy, White House sources tell ABC News.

Bloom is currently Senior Advisor to Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner as a member of the President’s Task Force on the Automotive Industry, named to that position in February. He will remain in that position even while he takes on his new task.

So who is Ron Bloom?
Jammie Wearing Fool has this:

The name Ron Bloom is one that we need to start paying attention to. He has a long history of being the negotiating face of unions in a suit. He is a Harvard Business School graduate who has worked for the unions beginning with SEIU for decades. The most recent union he represented was the United Steel Workers (USW) before becoming a part of the automotive team that Obama put together. You know the one that had the head Steven Rattner having to resign over some questions about his personal finances mixed in with a little fraudulent money gifts.Rattner was replaced by Ron Bloom, and voila the United Auto Workers (UAW), got a sweetheart deal backed up by the power of the federal government to try and stave off bankruptcy.

This is just further proof that Barack Obama knows nothing about economics but is an expert on radicalism.

LINK: Gateway Pundit