The Obamabots In Full Panic…
CNN has a feature hosted by former Barbra Streisand boyfriend, Wolf Blitzer, called ‘The Situation Room’.
I do not often watch CNN, as I cannot take the adoption of glitz over hard-nosed reporting and real investigative journalism. They often take shots at Fox News, but even with their sometimes very conservative flavor, Fox has some very good reporters and commentators, who have taken the Bush and Obama Administrations equally to task on some very key matters.
But I digress…
If the current White House had their own feature, it would be called ‘The Panic Room’.
Several times since his inauguration, I have written, extensively, of how President Obama has consistently failed to deliver on the promise of what his soaring rhetoric predicted as certainty.
Well, after a year of steady failures, the symbolic pinnacle must have been the loss of the late Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts senate seat. In a spectacular win by Republican Scott Brown for junior senator status in a state where they often lean Democrat, the Obamabots retreated with breathtaking swiftness.
Off to craft a ‘State of the Union’ speech, delivered of course, last week, that they promised would reach out to the surging Republicans–and once again, they failed.
Oh, there was the typically vacant olive branch and more, but not as soaring rhetoric, by the Suit-In-Chief, and the hippies in Armani failed to deliver, again, because they just can’t help themselves.
I listened, intently, for genuine sincerity on working together, Democrats and Republicans, for the betterment of America. And the Democrats, after almost a full year with a super majority (both houses of Congress and the White House) tripped themselves up over a constantly changing healthcare plan and launched a bailout package that would have left the Bushies in shock and awe; and pork barreling that Jimmy ‘Castro’ Carter still dreams of–so they needed a strong olive branch–not a twig with a white flag attached.
Two points from the meandering and often disjointed speech, that struck me as much for its brazen shamelessness as for its inability to sustain any kind of true outreach:
1) When was the last time you actually heard a sitting President, stand in the Senate chamber and insult the Supreme Court TO THEIR FACES–with mindless inaccuracy??? In what can only be described as stunning carelessness, at just about half way through the second part of the President’s middling speech he upbraided the Supreme Court for having recently returned with a decision on campaign finance which “opened the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections” Now, to even the casual observer, this would normally mean that the Supreme Court justices were responsible for some kind of judicial comment on public policy, but that’s not their job, nor was it in any part an appendix to the case before them. The Supreme Court was responsible for applying the Constitution, not anticipating a weakness in any statute that might at some point later affect campaign finance. But tell that to the geniuses shielding Mr. Obama. Worse yet, this kind of drivel came from the mouth of a man, a sitting President, who not too long ago taught CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the University of Chicago!!! The Supreme Court is an equal branch of government to the Congress and the President. It is unheard of for such an audacious slight to come from the chief occupant of the West Wing, without cause, reason or requisite precision. So I asked for a former classmate who reads law in New York to send me a copy of the decision, which he did. And it’s truly stunning that neither the President or any of his advisors located the chapter where it was explicit that no foreign corporations, nationals or groups can donate in American political campaigns, as a result of this decision. Truly, for anyone who was offended by gaffes made by the immediate past President, this one by the current President, was astounding.
2) One of President Obama’s demands was that in the spirit of bi-partisanship, Congress find a way to list on an as yet to be constructed website, all the earmarked (read: pork barrel) spending attached to any bill henceforth. I just about fell out of my chair. Last year, in the great omnibus bailout bill that the Democrats single-handedly concocted, President Obama signed off on over 8700 individual earmarks totalling a staggering $7.7 BILLION. 97% to Democrat precincts and districts.
This is what happens my darlings, when an unqualified individual assumes big shoes. Woe betide us should Sarah Palin come even close or should Barack Obama be re-elected. Christ Almighty, they both make Dubya look like a bloody genius.
Alex, when have the fine folks at FAUX taken the Bushies to task for anything other than something Fox perceived as being detrimental to the Reich Wing/Corporate cause?
As too:
“ When was the last time you actually heard a sitting President, stand in the Senate chamber and insult the Supreme Court TO THEIR FACES”
That is the most appropriate time and place to do it – did you notice Scalito silently imitating a retarded Senator from one of the Carolinas?
While you and your excellent legal mind (better than Obama’s trained in Constitutional Law one it appears) were reading the decision, did you by any chance read the lengthy and excellent dissenting opinon?
I think you are being disingenous and grasping at straws/red herrings with your emphasis on “foreign” coporations being explicitly excluded in the decision. As if large corporations had the slightest sense of nationality, loyalty or patriotism to anything other than greed and power.
This decision is the most “activist” decision of the USSC that I can remember. First the court IGNORED over a hundred years of precedent going back to at least the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. Of course to the Reich Wing Justices, precedent is a word only paid lip service during confirmation hearings. If you will recall, in the infamous decision that selected Dubya as a favor to his daddy, they not only ignored precedent (there wasn’t any) but specifically decreed that decision COULD NOT be used in future as precedent – in other words the law (and constitution) didn’t apply that day, it was more important to put W in the White House by whatever means worked!
Then they went on to, instead of rendering a decision on the limited issue before the court, decided to open up the whole issue of campaign finance and legislate from the bench, conferring even more of the rights of personhood on the abstract construct of the corporation. Corporations already had most (if not all) of the rights of “persons” without the responsbilities of you or I, and this decision puts them above mere individuals, as if they weren’t already above the individual and most nations.
I know the founders were men of property, some even owning slaves, but I don’t think they ever intended freedom of speech to extend to money, though more and more with conglomeration and mergers, especially in media, that has been the trend. We wind up with the government that we can afford to buy, and unfortunately, most of us can’t afford to buy any and have to be satisfied with just enough crumbs to keep us from killing and eating the elite!
Actually the election of Scott Brown could be the best thing that has happened to the Obama adminstration. Maybe he’ll realize that trying to accomodate the party of NO and abandoning the progressive voters that elected him ain’t the way to go. Maybe this will prevent a repeat of 1994 and Newt’s Contract ON America crap, which was looking almost inevitable until the election of the Pick-Up Pin-Up dude – kind of an early warning that may prevent a return to Repuke pillaging of the people or God forbid, President Palin or Jeb!
[Translate]
Happy to oblige: O’ Reilly on the war effort at it’s genesis; O ‘Reilly again on the treatment of the Valerie Plame evidence; Rivera on Katrina; Hannity on Walter Reed funding and appropriations; Beck on the bailouts which began during the last year of Dubya….the list is almost endless (the last one refutes your Fox as corporate bitches theory, since business lackeys would be bumping for bailouts…um, like your pal Geitner, sitting one desk away from the current Prez–get your facts straight koot and stop looking for the doctrinaire piffle).
As for your contention that it is appropriate for the President to take shots at the Supreme Court, you;re wrong. The State of the Union speech is customarily expected as a dignified and impartial affair. Partisanship in the rhetoric? You bet, but this was over the top by the President. And I did read the dissenting opinion. Written in the image of judicial activism. Did YOU read what the SC Justices were charged with? What was their task, tell me? Koot, on this one, with respect, you’re so full of it, it’s coming out your ears. They were charged with the task of interpreting the challenge strictly based on the Constitution. Not interpreting what it MIGHT mean. It’s a simple matter of reading the law. Instead, the President decided to forget about the law in favor overtly partisan messaging. Ridiculous.
Your interpretation of the decision as activist is comical. And what precedent? Are you trained to look at this or are you just regurgitating Democrat speaking notes? Reads like it.
And again, you have confused the decision which confirmed the election of Dubya as President. Go back and have another read. Well, try anyway… what were they supposed to do with an electoral college showing only a case for a Bush victory. Even the dissenting opinion was watered down by this. Their argument was more over jurisdiction. The reason they didn’t want to use that decision as precedent is because of the individual circumstances being almost impossible to replicate and a fear that someone in the future might strictly consider the matter simply based on the college and not other mitigating factors like fraud by the Democrats in Ohio (where they lost anyway) or by the Republicans in Colorado (Where they won anyway) You need to stop spinning and simply go by the book on Constitutional matters.
As for the matter of corporation above the individual, AGAIN, you are reading the decision backwards. Nothing gives the individual lesser rights or the addition of personal rights to the corporation. They were asked to provide a decision on a very narrow set of circumstances, which you and other left wingers identify as being a comment on the lack of statutory oversight. That’s the job of the govt, not the SC.
I realize you like your left coasters, but please make sense on this stuff, will ya?
Scott Brown isn’t a wake up call. It’s a trend, just watch. Obama has blown it and the people behind him who thought they could redefine America are now screwed–by their own, um, hand…
And President JEB would be most welcome. President Palin–NOT!
[Translate]
Hi Alex, you have more tolerance then I do, after watching/hearing the (State of the Uunion?) explanation of his failed promises, I wouldn’t call them lies, just a “Distortion of their real Meaning” voiced with an absolute arrogant attitude, which should be a insult to any rationally thinking American, able to see beyond Party Politics (there is a difference between being forcefully decisive and distorting facts). It actually sounded like he was talking to 7 grade students, trying to make the “ignorants” understand, that if they didn’t follow his “Teachings” (Failing Policies) he would find different ways to “Teach” (Implement Policies).
[Translate]
Believe me, even my tolerance gets tested…often…
[Translate]
Uh, … were you suggesting that George W. Bush wasn’t a genius?
[Translate]
[Translate]
I believe that political parties in the U.S. get more money from lawyer’s than they do from Corporations.
And I see Kooter stayed away from the discussion on “earmarks”. If there was ever legalized theft the money that was hijacked by Pelosi and the other Don’s was so disgusting it’s a wonder that they aren’t having another revolution down there.
[Translate]
The money collected by Pelosi’s husband is astounding. Much covered on the blogs, Washington Times and Fox News. But nowhere else. Pathetic.
[Translate]