When the Obama's limo is trying to leave the White House https://t.co/CnCEAmHA4k—
emanuel (@phuqmanny) January 08, 2017
Posts Tagged ‘beast
Tags: al, appeasement, b, Barack, beast, benen, bin, blair, contraception, contraceptives, court, cure, cuts, daily, friday's, Gingrich, girls, good, house, idiot, john, King, laden, michael, mitt, Newt, npr, Obama, osama, perry, photos, plan, President, republicans, rick, romney, sharpton, steve, supreme, tax, teenagers, the, tomasky, toon, video, walking
Michael Tomasky: A Progressive Defense of the White House on Plan B
Kathleen Sibelius is getting flak for her Plan B decision. But Michael Tomasky defends the administration’s position because of the ethical issues raised by minors using the pill.
I get the reasons for liberal outrage at the Obama administration’s Plan B decision. But I can’t quite join in the indignation. I know that I am a man – a fact I’ve been aware of for some time – and so readers male and female can factor that in here as they wish. But it seems to me that to call this merely a case of politics cynically trumping science is way too dismissive of some concerns that parents with all kinds of political views might have about their teenage daughters buying this pill without their knowledge…..
Full article here
NPR: For the second week in a row, the Senate on Thursday voted down proposals to extend the payroll tax holiday through next year. In the case of the Democrats’ proposal, Republicans objected to the “millionaires surtax” that would be used to pay for it.
Ever since the idea of the surtax was introduced weeks ago, Republicans in Congress have railed against it, arguing that it is a direct hit on small-business owners and other job creators.
… We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.
Full post here
They’re eating each other alive, part 72,393:
USA Today: As the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq is completed this week, President Obama will kick off a string of military-related events this month by attending the Army-Navy game Saturday.
The Cadets and the Midshipmen tee it up at 2:30 p.m. at Fed-Ex Field in Landover, Md.
Vice President Biden and his wife, Jill, will attend the game with Obama.
Wednesday, the president and first lady Michelle Obama will travel to Fort Bragg, N.C., where the president will address the troops stationed there.
President Barack Obama attends a National Security Council holiday party at Blair House, across the street from the White House, December 9
Steve Benen: Rick Perry unveiled a rather ugly campaign ad this week, condemning gays for being able to “serve openly in the military,” and promising voters he’ll “end Obama’s war on religion.”
The Texas governor talked to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this week, and to his credit, the host asked Perry to back up the language in the ad.
PERRY: [W]e’ve got a federal judge for instance in San Antonio that said these kids couldn’t say an invocation in school. I mean, they say you can’t even use the word invocation at their commencement. I mean, that’s —
BLITZER: Is that President Obama’s war on religion?
PERRY: I’m just giving you suggestions after what we are seeing from the left of which I would suggest to you, President Obama is a member of the left and substantial left of center beliefs that you can’t even have a Christmas party. You can’t say a prayer at school.
I’m beginning to think Perry was not blessed with an overabundance of intelligence….
Full post here
Steve Benen: It’s generally not too much to ask that major party presidential candidates know how many Supreme Court justices there are. Alas, Rick Perry, who’s already struggled to be coherent on a wide range of issues, flubbed this one, too.
…. Let’s count the errors of fact and judgment, because this a doozy.
I’d swear this guy is getting dumber as the campaign progresses.
Full post here
Hey, I forgot, it’s Friday! Thanks for the reminder LOL!
President Barack Obama makes a statement at the start of a Cabinet Meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington, Monday, Oct. 3, 2011. From left are, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice.
Michael Tomasky: So the Rick Perry hunting ground story has been absorbed …. the way things seem to be shaking out, the big loser from the revelation that the property bore the name “Ni**erhead” is … not Rick Perry. It’s the black guy.
…. Herman Cain was the first – and as of Sunday night the only – Perry opponent to pounce on The Washington Post’s revelations published Sunday morning …. it is instructive, is it not, that no other candidate jumped on this revelation?
… This charge may make some conservatives feel that Perry is a tad embarrassing. But how many will it personally offend? Let’s face it, based on the evidence of the last debate, the GOP base thinks Perry isn’t racially insensitive enough, giving $100,000 college-education discounts to all those illegal brown children.
…. If the story is true in its worst light, it maybe doesn’t make him a racist. It does make him a person who doesn’t care what people who aren’t just like him think — and who doesn’t even bother to be friends with anyone who cares. I have a word for that: Texashead. But it’s OK. That used to be a kind of railroad spike.
Full article here
Steve Benen: The RNC was delighted today to trumpet a quote from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi about the Obama White House. “‘I think you need to talk about how poorly they do on message,” she was quoted as saying about the president and his team. “They can’t see around corners; they anticipate nothing.”
I was curious about the context, so I went to the Newsweek/Daily Beast article that featured the quote. It wasn’t there. As it turns out, there’s a good reason for that:
Just one problem: She never said it, according to both her office and sources at Newsweek …. Newsweek has retracted the quote, and put an editor’s note on the piece: “Editor’s Note; An earlier version of this story included a comment erroneously attributed to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, criticizing the White House’s efforts at political messaging. Newsweek and The Daily Beast regret the error.”
Bloomberg: In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries Inc., one of the world’s largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.
“I uncovered the practices within a few days,” Egorova- Farines says. “They were not hidden at all.”
…. Egorova-Farines wasn’t rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company’s attention. Her superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings. She sued Koch-Glitsch in France for wrongful termination.
…. A Bloomberg Markets investigation has (also) found that Koch Industries – in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle Easre – has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.
Full article here
Worth seeing again (and again and again and again….):
President Obama: “I don’t think the American people would dispute that at every step of the way, I have done everything I can to try to get the Republican Party to work with me to try to deal with what is the biggest crisis of our lifetime, and each time all we’ve gotten from them is, ‘no’.”
Daily Beast: Obama has nearly decimated al Qaeda. Why doesn’t he brag about it? Michael Tomasky on liberals’ squeamishness at thumping their chests — and the endless victory lap that Bush would have taken.
The immediate political question raised by the successful drone attack that took out Anwar al-Awlaki is simple. How much credit will Barack Obama get for this? He ordered renewed drone attacks in Yemen earlier this year, and now, we see clear results. But I doubt Obama will derive much political benefit….
When that SEAL team nailed Osama bin Laden, Obama got about a five-point bounce out of it, but it washed away as quickly as a wave on a beach….
…. Imagine if the Bush administration had killed bin Laden, under circumstances as daring as the ones under which he actually was put on ice by the Obama administration. Imagine what that week would have been like. On Fox News, we’d have been subjected to endless Soviet-style encomia to our heroic leader … in all likelihood, Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Condi would have dashed around the country making speeches … in the presence of some of the very 9/11 widows whom the Bushies aspersed for wanting things like an honest commission investigation into how 9/11 happened in the first place.
Obama didn’t do it. He held the press conference the night it happened. He quietly and tastefully — and wordlessly — laid a wreath at Ground Zero….
… the Obama administration has decimated al Qaeda in Iraq and Pakistan over the last three years…..(but) liberals don’t generally gloat about these things. It may cost Obama a few points in the opinion polls. But it’s the more honorable course for the country. We should go get these people, but we should be humble about it.
Full article here
Michael Tomasky has a good article on The Daily Beast about Ron Paul and the type of people who support him. A couple of lines stood out:
Some people take great comfort in backing candidates they know will never win – they prefer, on some deep level, to fall short and be angry about it. It encases their loserdom in a carapace of purity and righteousness. I had a friend, a hard-core leftist …. who liked to say: “Vote for the loser, he’ll never let you down.” ….
…. the paradox of Ron Paul is that if he gained any actual power, most of his base would desert him, because it’s not power they want but a vessel for their resentments.
Never mind Ron Paul supporters, what a truly perfect description for the ‘pure’ left! (Although, of course, the two groups have a habit of overlapping).
Michael Fullilove (Daily Beast): …. The president was accused of neglecting alliances and ceding too much ground to allies in Libya, but this week’s successes in Tripoli prove he’s heir to Roosevelt and Truman.
…. Conservative commentators have mocked Obama’s belief in the efficacy of international rules. Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope that “nobody benefits more than we do from the observance of the international ‘rules of the road’.” Many of these rules were established by Roosevelt and Truman, who believed that a rule-based system amplified U.S. power rather than constraining it….
…. Obama’s response to the Arab Spring, though initially uncertain and clumsy, came to be characterized by a blend of caution and hardheaded liberalism. He now places a lesser premium than most of his recent predecessors did on the stability provided by Middle East allies, and a greater premium on their people’s right to democracy. But some of those allies can no longer provide stability anyway.
…. Events this week indicate that Obama’s approach in Libya has managed to cripple the Gaddafi regime in a way that maximizes the Libyan people’s ownership of the victory and minimizes the risks and costs to the United States. The contrast with George W. Bush’s approach in Iraq is stunning.
… Obama’s critics also fail to acknowledge that he is much more popular with allied publics than was his predecessor …. it has restored drooping public support in allied countries for the idea of allying with Washington. For example, the number of Australians who believe the U.S. alliance is very important to their country’s security has shot up by 23 percent since the nadir of the Bush administration.
…. Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, the founders of America’s alliance system, were hardheaded liberals. They would certainly recognize Barack Obama as their heir.
Full article here
Michael Tomasky (Daily Beast): Yes, the economic recovery is too slow. But events in Libya suggest that this may be a truly great foreign-policy president in the making.
…. Yes, of course, let’s stipulate: the war isn’t actually, you know, over. And even after it is, Libya could descend into chaos or extremism or both (although it is heartening to read that the National Transitional Council, the recognized new governing body, apparently has detailed governance plans in place). So could Egypt, and Tunisia, and so on and so on. Lots of things could, can, and undoubtedly will go wrong….
All that said, the administration has already handled a lot of these changes well (and in the face of absolutely constant know-it-all criticism)…..
Obama took a lot of stick for not being more forceful on Egypt in February, but he was right to be cautious … He then took heat for moving too slowly on Libya, but here again he was correct…..
….. That’s starting to sound like a doctrine to me. Call it the doctrine of no doctrine: using our power and influence but doing so prudently and multilaterally, with the crucial recognition that Egypt is different from Libya is different from Syria is different from someplace else. According to the foreign-policy establishment, if you want to have a self-respecting big-D doctrine, you’re not supposed to recognize differences…..
…. there’s work to be done. But it’s hardly impossible to envision an Obama administration in a few years’ time that has drawn down Afghanistan and Iraq, helped foster reforms and maybe even the growth of a couple of democracies around the Middle East, and restored the standing of a country that Bush had laid such staggering waste. And killed Osama bin Laden. If this is weak America-hating, count me in.
Full post here
Tomasky has been hugely critical of the President recently on domestic issues, without ever really acknowledging the opposition he faces when he tries to get anything done. He’s critical of him again in this article (click the link to read it all), but at least he gives credit where it’s due on the foreign policy front.
Michael Tomasky (Daily Beast): …. let’s go ahead and think about a Perry-Obama race …. a war between the two Americas, each side represented by its respective cultural standard-bearer, each side’s foot soldiers absolutely smoldering with contempt for everything the other guy stands for and indeed the way he looks. We’ve never quite had that before, not in this way, so it’s worth thinking about.
… Republicans don’t want a posh, well-spoken Yankee who works at a place with a name like Bain Capital. In their deepest souls, they want a Texas governor. They want a shit-kicker. And here, we circle back to culture.
When my friends and I looked at George W. Bush in 1999, we shuddered like people who’d turned a street corner and stumbled across a dog’s corpse. We knew and had contempt for his beliefs, but it had nothing to do with them, really. It was just the way he presented himself. That puffed-out chest. That self-satisfied smirk. All that Jesus talk – even in the event that it was sincere, which we never quite bought, it was to a liberal deeply inappropriate to haul it into the public square like that. He represented Southern country clubs and Dodge Durangos and Browning bolt-actions and homes with no books in them …. Liberals just couldn’t stand the sight of the guy. And that was before he ruined the country.
I understand that conservatives feel similarly about Obama. They look at him and see wine-and-cheese parties where people have jazz playing in the background and where talk turns to the merits and demerits of Jonathan Franzen, who drive Priuses (or is it Prii?) and buy espresso machines and live in homes with far too many books in them. And worse than that: for much of Red America, Dr. Frankenstein himself could not have stitched together a more perfect Other: urban, urbane, sophisticated, intellectual. “Black,” of course, may no longer be a deal breaker in this day and age, but it doesn’t help. Many conservatives clearly can’t stand the sight of him.
Perry, on this scale, is chillingly Bush-like. I saw a clip the other day of him saluting … he looked exactly like Bush. The chest pumped up with self-regard. The overly aggressive way he thrust his saluting hand out from his forehead. He even, I swear, was smirking. I shuddered all over again.
During an Obama-Perry contest, millions of Americans on both sides would be shuddering constantly for four months. We’ve never had quite this kind of showdown culturally … I don’t relish this. We’re divided enough, thanks. To invoke one of Bush’s most degrading moments of smirky chest-puffery, I say don’t bring it on.
Full article here
Andrew Romano (Daily Beast): …. disaffected conservatives think they’ve found their man. His name? Rick Perry …. The only problem? Perry has almost no chance – unlike, say, Romney, Pawlenty, or even Jon Huntsman – of beating Barack Obama in the general election.
This isn’t because he “sounds too much like” George W. Bush, as almost every pundit in Washington has been repeating, ad nauseum, since Perry first hinted in May that he might run. And it’s not because he’s “too religious”, either.
The real reason Perry will find it nearly impossible to win a general election is, believe it or not, substance. He holds three positions that vast majorities of the American public, Republicans included, will simply refuse to stomach – that America would be better off without the federal programs known as Social Security and Medicare, and that the government should do nothing (zero, zilch, nada) to counteract an economic crash.
…. I spent the better part of an hour talking to Perry about his political philosophy and policy prescriptions back in the fall….
In the interview, Perry hints that he would do more to limit the power of the federal government than any president since Calvin Coolidge. His argument is basically that we should dismantle most of the last 75 years of national policy and relinquish even Washington’s least controversial responsibilities to the states.
Perry believes, for example, that the national Social Security system, which he calls a “failure” that “we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now,” should be scrapped and that each state should be allowed to create, or not create, its own pension system. “I would suggest a legitimate conversation about let[ting] the states keep their money and implement the programs,” he says.
Perry also includes Medicare in his list of programs “the states could substantially better operate,” suggesting that each governor should be “given the freedom from the federal government to come up with his own innovative ways [of] working with his legislature to deliver his own health-care innovations to his citizens.”
And Perry thinks TARP was a total mistake – along with all subsequent efforts to backstop or stimulate the economy. Instead, he prefers an entirely laissez-faire approach to job-destroying financial crises. “I think you allow the market to work its way through it,” he says. “I don’t understand why the TARP bill exists. Let the processes find their way.”
No Social Security. No federal health-care program for seniors. And no Beltway involvement – at all – during a crash or recession. These views will undoubtedly endear Perry to the Tea Party faithful. But they would alienate nearly every other voter in the country …. Somewhere, Obama’s aides are already dreaming up the attack ads.
Full article here
Meet Rick Perry (Texas Democrats)
Michelle Goldberg (Daily Beast): Here’s why Mark Halperin is a disgrace. It’s not because he used a mild obscenity to describe our president on Morning Joe, disrespectful as that was. Rather, it was the circumstances of the slur.
Right now, the Republican Party is threatening to blow up the world economy unless Democrats agree to savage cuts in spending while refusing any of the revenue increases that all serious economists say are necessary to actually address the national debt. Obama, whose greatest fault in office has been a misplaced faith in the GOP’s capacity for reasonableness, went on television and chided the party for this stance. Apparently, this struck Halperin as unreasonable. His response embodies all that’s rotten and shallow about D.C.’s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.
….He’s as good a symbol as anyone of our political class’s smug insularity, its obsession with process and symbolism, and utter disinterest in policy. He creates and then reifies conventional wisdom.
…In slavish interviews with Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, he apologized again and again for the media’s purported liberal bias. “I’m proud of where I work, where we understand that we’ve got to not be liberal,” he said.
….Because Halperin is so determined to bend over backward for the right, he can’t come to grips with the central fact of modern politics – the death of Republican moderation … Right now, the GOP is playing a game of chicken with all of our financial futures … The president tried, in a very mild way, to address his opponents’ dangerous intransigence. What kind of political journalist regards that as wildly inappropriate? Halperin has given us the answer.
Full article here
Thank you Loriah