Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Obama finds friends in GOP

Republicans have made it their mission — a lot of them, anyhow — to trash Barack Obama as some sort of wacked-out Marxist/socialist who is intent on the destruction of the country that elected him as president of the United States.

So, what does the president do? He locks arms with Republican members of Congress and decides it’s really all right to support a free-trade agreement with a dozen Asian nations — which runs counter to where the base of his Democratic Party stands, or so it appears.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-clears-senate-hurdle-118178.html?hp=t4_r

The GOP-led Senate has just shut down a filibuster that had stalled the fast-track legislation to get the free trade agreement approved and sent to the president’s desk.

Obama’s major allies in this deal happen to Republicans. The Senate was acting chaotically as senators scrambled between discussion groups to hammer out some kind of deal.

What’s up with that?

I happen to believe in a freer trade than what we’ve had for so long. The world is shrinking and nations or even continents no longer can shield themselves from influences of other nations and continents.

So the free trade agreement likely now will get approved. It will end up on the president’s desk. He’ll sign it.

I’m hoping to see a lot of Republican lawmakers — along with centrist/moderate Democrats — standing with the president when he puts pen to paper.

It’s a scene we haven’t witnessed too much during the Obama administration, but which used to be a regular occurrence during the past presidencies of, say, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Government works better when both parties can find common ground. So help me, it works almost all the time.

 

 

Yes, polls do matter to pols

Politicians are known to stretch the truth, fib a little and, yes, even lie through their teeth.

One of the greatest lies politicians tell us is that “Polls don’t matter.”

Uh, yes they do.

Obama’s favorability rating ticks higher

The Gallup Organization has released some new polling data that show President Obama’s approval rating among voters is at 53 percent. That’s not great, but it’s a lot better than where it was, say, a year or two ago.

His overall poll standing — taking averages of all the major surveys — is around 46 percent. Still not great, but not bad, either, for a second-term president heading toward the finish line.

Politicians who say “Polls don’t matter” usually say those things when they’re trailing in a campaign against the other individual. They make those statements as if to dismiss the bad news they’re getting from their hired guns. The other candidate, the one who’s leading? Why he or she thinks polls are great. They use those numbers as affirmation of the job they’re doing trying to sell whatever snake oil they’re peddling.

I’ve long ago dismissed the notion of politicians saying they “pay no attention to polls” when they’re pondering key policy decisions. My definition, politicians who want to keep doing their public service jobs, rely on voters’ views on the job they’re doing.

So, that means they must take note of what the polling data are showing.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall of the White House right now, listening to what Barack Obama is saying about the polling data. Sure, he’ll tell us he’s doing “what’s right for the country.”

He’s also doing what’s right for his standing in those polls.

 

Welcome to the Twitter-verse, Mr. President

Barack Obama wanted, I guess, to show the world how hip he has become.

So he opened a Twitter account and tweeted a message out there.

What follows below is a small sample of the “welcome” responses received by the president of the United States of America, leader of the Free World and the most well-known and easily recognized individual on Planet Earth:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/18/welcome-to-twitter-ngger-righties-go-full-racist-potus-twitter-account-tweets/

Were there other messages like that? Oh, more than likely.

Racism lives on. Probably forever.

I won’t even summarize what’s contained in the messages shown on the link. Just seeing the operative word — let alone hearing it — makes me shudder.

Yes, the president did get some actual welcome messages. Indeed, as soon as I finish this brief post, I’m likely to send one myself.

But as the link notes, the president and his family are handling this display of hate: “If this doesn’t tell you that Barack Obama has handled the unprecedented disrespect and outright hatred directed at him from right-wing racists with the utmost grace and dignity, I don’t know what will.”

 

 

Not exactly Felix and Oscar, however …

The Hill calls them Washington, D.C.’s newest “odd couple.”

They are Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Barack H. Obama, the Democratic president of the United States of America.

McConnell has been saying nice things about the man he once pledged to make a “one-term president.” The one-term notion didn’t work out, as Obama was re-elected in 2012. But hey, life goes on.

Washington’s new odd couple: McConnell and Obama

I rather like the idea of these men becoming “friends,” even if it’s a relationship of convenience.

They aren’t the first national political leaders to link arms and find common ground in an Oscar Madison-Felix Unger sort of way.

Let’s go back to the 1960s, when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and Republican Senate Leader Everett Dirksen teamed up to help enact the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts. How about when Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill would bash each other in public, but then toast each other over whiskey after hours? Democratic President Bill Clinton and GOP Speaker Newt Gingrich worked together to balance the federal budget. Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy found common ground in pushing education reform through Congress.

See? It can be done, ladies and gentlemen.

McConnell and Obama are on the same page regarding international trade. The president, in fact, is finding his stiffest opposition coming from the left-wing base of his own party. But he’s got a pal on the other side of the aisle.

The arrangement doesn’t surprise some Capitol Hill hands. “It validates what McConnell has been saying for the last six and a half years. If the president wants to join us on something that’s good for the country, we will work with him. This is an example of that,” said Don Stewart, McConnell’s spokesman.

Well, for what it’s worth, some of us out here in the Heartland are surprised.

And pleasantly so, at that.

 

Christie attacks Obama … on economy? Wow!

new-jersey-governor-chris-christie

Chris Christie needs to read more.

The New Jersey governor, and a probable Republican candidate for president next year, thinks the economy has tanked under President Obama’s administration.

Interesting.

http://wegoted.com/2015/05/chrsitie-goes-after-president-obamas-economic-policies/

The stock market is at record highs. Unemployment is at its lowest level in about a decade. Jobs are being created at a rate not seen since the Clinton administration, when everyone — even Republicans — say the economy was booming. The banking and auto industries have recovered. Automakers have paid back the funds they borrowed when the government bailed it out shortly after Barack Obama took office as president.

“This president is failing because he cares more about redistributing wealth than he cares about creating and growing new wealth in our economy,” Christie said on a radio talk show.

Here’s a flash: The president may be criticized for a lot of things, but the economy is in full recovery mode. Even the New Jersey governor ought to understand that.

Has the president done everything he said he’d do? No. We haven’t stabilized Middle East politics. We haven’t brought a world of peace and plenty to places that have neither. It can be argued that the war on terror hasn’t progressed as the president promised it would when he took office.

The nation’s economy — while it isn’t perfect — is in far better shape than when the 44th president moved into the White House.

Then again, when has the economy ever been in perfect condition?

ISIS leader killed, wife taken captive … what now?

U.S. Army Special Forces did their job with lethal precision overnight, killing an Islamic State leader and taking his wife captive in a daring raid in Syria.

But as with seemingly all things in this complicated war against international terror, complications may set in.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-special-forces-kill-isis-commander-and-capture-wife-in-syria-raid/ar-BBjRkz5

The Delta Force raid ordered by President Obama killed Abu Sayyaf, who was supposed to be captured alive. That part of the raid didn’t work out as planned. Too bad for that, but at least another key terror leader is dead. His wife, Umm Sayyaf, was captured and taken to an Iraqi detention center.

This is where it gets a bit complicated. The Iraqis need to be monitored in the way they treat Umm Sayyaf. The Obama administration has notified International Red Cross authorities about her capture and are working to ensure that she’s treated humanely. I’m OK with that.

However, it’s reasonable to presume that Mrs. Sayyaf may be a font of knowledge about the activities of her terrorist husband. Even terrorists, I’m quite sure, engage in a little “pillow talk,” you know? She’ll need to be questioned aggressively by U.S. intelligence officials seeking as much information as possible about the Islamic State’s continuing operations.

No waterboarding, though. All right?

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter issued a statement: “The operation represents another significant blow to ISIS, and it is a reminder that the United States will never waver in denying safe haven to terrorists who threaten our citizens, and those of our friends and allies.”

Another terrorist monster is wiped out. Another one will emerge to take his place.

So, the fight goes on.

Well done, Delta Force.

 

Here we go again, Gov. Perry

Rachel Maddow is no fan of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

There. I’ve stipulated what many folks know already about the liberal commentator for MSNBC.

That all said, she noted Friday night that Perry is about to break another “glass ceiling” for Republican presidential candidates. He’s about to become the first candidate under felony indictment to seek his party’s presidential nomination. He’ll make his announcement on June 4.

The Texas Tribune has posted a fascinating analysis on the pluses and minuses of a Perry presidential campaign.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/15/case-and-against-perrys-2016-campaign/

You remember the indictment, yes? A Travis County grand jury indicted Perry in 2014 on charges of abuse of power and coercion when he tried to get the Democratic Travis County district attorney to resign after she pleaded guilty to drunken driving; if she quit, he’d then let the DA’s Public Integrity Unit have the money appropriated by the Legislature. She didn’t quit. So Perry vetoed the money.

The grand jury said that sequence constituted an indictable offense.

Hey, that doesn’t matter. He’s going to run for the presidency a second time, hoping that all will be forgiven from his first — and disastrous — run for the White House in 2012; he actually lasted only a few days into 2012, as he dropped out of the race in January of that year.

Will the indictment hold him back? Will it matter to GOP voters who are looking for a right-wing darling to embrace as an alternative to squishy moderates such as Jeb Bush, Rob Portmand, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham or Chris Christie? All of those guys — and the others who already have declared their intentions to run or are about to declare them — will seek to paint themselves as hard-core conservatives.

Perry, though, is the real thing … he says.

He’s got this chink in his conservative armor, however. It’s immigration. You see, as the governor of a border state for a bazillion years, he has this idea that we really ought to have immigration reform. He also favors something akin to President Obama’s DREAM Act, which grants amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States by their parents, when they were children. And … he also favors granting in-state college tuition waivers to those very illegal immigrants.

That area is where I happen to agree with the former governor.

The rest of it? No thanks.

Plus, he’s got that indictment matter to settle before he thinks about taking the presidential oath on Jan. 20, 2017.

Something tells me it won’t come to that.

 

Obama a sexist? That's a good one

Barack Obama has been called a lot of things during his time as president of the United States.

Socialist. Islamic terrorist sympathizer. Kenyan. Weak-kneed liberal. Un-American.

What else? I guess those are some of the worst epithets hurled at him … mostly from politicians and talking heads associated with Republicans.

Now comes this. From a Democratic U.S. senator, Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

The president is a sexist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/sherrod-brown-barack-obama-gender-role-elizabeth-warren-spat-117866.html?hp=b1_l1

Brown didn’t like the way Obama lectured Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., over her opposition to the fast-track trade deal the president favors with a dozen Asian nations.

The president was being “disrespectful” of Warren, Brown said.

Here’s how Politico reports it: When asked how Obama was being disrespectful of the Massachusetts Democrat, Brown replied: “I think by just calling her ‘another politician.’” He continued, “I’m not going to get into more details. I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps? I’ve said enough.”

The dreaded “first name” reference is a sure sign of “disrespect,” according to Brown.

He needs to listen to audio conversations the president has had with many members of both legislative branches, members of both genders. He routinely calls people by their first name. There was that notable exchange during a White House budget negotiation early in his presidency when Obama lectured “John” on his concerns about how to come to a budget deal. “John” was none other than Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., who kept referring to Obama as “Mr. President.”

I agree that Barack Obama perhaps ought to reciprocate in these public exchanges with fellow politicians who adhere to using the courtesy title of “Mr. President” when addressing him. Use of the word “senator” or “congressman” or “congresswoman” would return the respect they show him.

However, it’s foolish to suggest that Sen. Warren’s gender makes it easier for this president to be “disrespectful” in the way he scolds those with whom he disagrees.

I’m waiting now for Sen. Brown to tell us what happened when his office phone rang. “Senator, the president is on the line for you. Hello, Sherrod … ?”

 

SEAL turns into POTUS defender

Rob O’Neill angered me some months ago when he stepped forward to take credit for killing Osama bin Laden in May 2011.

Why? Because as a member of an elite Navy SEAL team that killed the notorious terrorist, he violated what I’ve always understood was an unwritten code: that the team came first and the men involved with the team didn’t seek publicity.

He broke the code.

Now he’s standing up for the commander in chief’s version of what happened on that dark night in Pakistan, refuting the claims made by journalist Seymour Hersh, who says President Obama “lied” to Americans when he announced bin Laden’s death.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/navy-seal-who-says-he-killed-bin-laden-refutes-118783904096.html

Yahoo News reports: “O’Neill took particular issue with Hersh’s allegation that there was no firefight during the nighttime raid on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

“’Well I’m sure that my friends who got shot at and almost took a few bullets in the face through the doors would disagree,’ O’Neill said. ‘I saw Osama bin Laden standing on two feet, there were no [Inter-Services Intelligence] up there. I shot him in the head twice, and then I shot him again in the face while he was on the ground.’”

Who do you believe? Someone who took the word of a single, unnamed source or someone who actually was there, drawing down on Osama bin Laden?

Hersh’s account has been roundly criticized. He said Pakistan’s ISI spy network had been tipped off prior to the raid. The White House says it acted without notifying Pakistani officials.

I am inclined to take the White House account over Hersh’s version.

One of the SEALs who was there backs up the White House.

Until proven otherwise, that’s good enough for me.

Did the president really lie about bin Laden raid?

Are we now going to believe more than four years after the fact that President Obama lied to us about the details of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden?

Famed journalist Seymour Hersh says “yes.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/report-obama-lied-about-bin-laden-raid/ar-BBjyIEa

Pardon me, sir. I think I’ll stick with what was reported at the time of the raid.

Hersh asserts — citing a single unnamed source — that Obama didn’t tell the truth about what happened the night of May 2, 2011 when Navy SEALs killed bin Laden, hauled his body out of Pakistan, deposited it aboard the USS Carl Vinson, where sailors then “buried” bin Laden’s remains at sea.

The Pakistanis had a much greater role in the raid than the president said at the time, according to Hersh; the White House wanted to announce a drone strike took out bin Laden, Hersh writes; Obama had no way to explain to Americans what happened had the raid failed, Hersh asserts.

Of all the purported inconsistencies, the one I find least believable is the one about what the Pakistanis knew and how much they assisted in killing bin Laden.

If you’re a Pakistani intelligence official, or a leader of the Pakistani government, you would want the world to know you had a hand in taking out the world’s No. 1 terrorist. The White House said at the time that the SEALs killed bin Laden without Pakistan knowing about it. I continue to believe the SEAL team performed the act as it was announced by the president that evening.

And it takes four years to dig out the so-called “truth” about this raid?

I remain skeptical of these latest revelations.

Here’s the link to the report: Take a look.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden