Barack Obama and the Solution that Wasn’t

June 19, 2010

Two days ago, Obama delivered his first speech from the Oval Office to a country that desperately wanted to know what was being done to address the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. What he delivered, to paraphrase Keith Olbermann, was a speech that could have described another country on another continent on another planet. Perhaps even a time and place long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

Certainly, he discussed the many efforts the government has undertaken to address this disaster. And to the average, uninformed citizen, Obama would have left the impression that something was being done, even from Day 1.

It’s true that since the oil spill, Obama has been very busy. After all, there’s so much to do.

For instance, since day one, Obama has played at least 7 rounds of golf. He has welcomed at least 4 sports teams to the White House including the New York Yankees, the Duke men’s basketball team, UConn women’s basketball team and the Navy football team.

He has attended at least 3 fundraisers, one of which was held for Barbara Boxer on the same day as the memorial service for the 11 workers killed in the Deepwater Horizon explosion. I suppose keeping Barbara Boxer’s Senate Seat was more important. Oh, and did I mention that he attended a party with the Getty Oil family that day too?

Obama has even been on two vacations. Not to mention that Tom Strickland, chief of staff for Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, went on a “work-focused” trip that includes whitewater rafting in Arizona on Day 8 of the oil spill.

But let’s not forget that since the oil spill, President Obama has met with very important dignitaries like President Calderon of Mexico, sports analyst Marv Albert, Bono, and most importantly, Paul McCartney. However, it wasn’t until day 58 that he met with BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg and BP CEO Tony Hayward.

As much as Obama would love for us to believe that he has his “boot on the neck” of BP and that he is demanding to know “whose @$$ to kick,” it seems that he has other irons in the fire. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.

In sharp contrast with his actions over the past 59 days, Obama’s speech offered the illusion that he is in control of this massive disaster. Furthermore, he is begging us to believe that his cap-and-trade legislation will somehow address this monstrosity. The reality is that it simply will not. I believe Governor Bob Riley of Alabama said it best: “If my house is on fire, I don’t need the fire chief telling me I should not have built the house out of wood.  I need somebody to put the fire out.” We don’t need cap and trade, we need to “plug the d@mn hole” (to quote Obama) and clean up our shoreline.

Also, we shouldn’t have rejected assistance from the Dutch when they offered it to us days after the rig exploded. We should have repealed the Jones Act and let our allies help us with this disaster.

It is downright shameful of this president to use the oil spill as leverage to foist his economically inhibitive policies on our country. Cap-and-trade will not clean the oil from our shores. Cap-and-trade will not directly prevent disasters like this from happening. Cap-and-trade will not accelerate scientific advances in clean energy. Why on earth should we pass such legislation?

We must ask ourselves: does it make sense to throw more money at a government who has failed, as a result of bureaucracy and not a lack of money, to clean up our shores in a timely manner? Unfortunately, instead of concerning themselves with the actual oil spill, the White House is apparently more concerned with never letting “a crisis go to waste.”

Article first published as Obama and the Solution that Wasn’t on Blogcritics.


Is it the Beginning of the End for Obama?

June 4, 2010

On the campaign trail, Obama was portrayed as a moderate, willing to extend the olive branch of bipartisanship. Then he became known for his views on the redistribution of wealth, revealing himself to be a liberal. Next, he was branded a socialist. But was he ever thought to be scandal-ridden and incompetent? Not until now.

In a time where Obama would do well to seem calm, collected, and in charge after a knock-down, drag-out fight over healthcare, the chinks in his armor are beginning to show.

BP and Barack: A Love Story

Despite what Ken Salazar, Obama’s Secretary of the Interior, has said about keeping a “boot on the neck” of BP, Obama’s actual dealings with BP seem to indicate otherwise. In fact, out of all of BP’s contributions to federal candidates, the President ranks #1 among its recipients. I suppose this conflict of interest might make it more difficult for him to apply pressure with that size 13 1/2 heel. Oh, why do we always hurt the ones we love?

His hesitance to do anything at all in the midst of this crisis (besides hang out with the Duke basketball team and Bill Clinton) bears a strong resemblance to the left’s caricature of a supposedly uncaring President Bush in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. However, while Bush only took a mere four days to physically arrive at the scene, Obama’s arrival to Louisiana took nearly two weeks.

Is it a lack of compassion? Is it incompetence? What is it that keeps Obama at the point of being so stupefied? At any rate, something needs to happen before James Carville blows a gasket over this.

I’ll Have Mine Chicago-style, Please

At press time, there are two scandals on the horizon where the White House has dangled the carrot of federal jobs to Democrats in primary races for political reasons. Apparently, Obama didn’t learn much from the Blago scandal, but I suppose the Chicago culture is so ingrained in the mindset of the White House that it’s difficult to resist.

The first case involves Joe Sestak, a Democrat who challenged and prevailed over the Obama-backed Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania. Supposedly, the White House via Bill Clinton offered Sestak the position of Secretary of the Navy if he would drop out of the race. He probably should’ve taken it, considering that he could still lose to Pat Toomey in November.

The second instance involves Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff being offered an unknown position if he would drop his challenge to Senator Michael Bennet. Apparently, it’s pretty lucrative to challenge sitting Democratic congressmen in the primaries. Are there any other positions open that you’d like to tell us about, Mr. President?

From FDR and JFK to Carter and Nixon?

Obama was supposed to be a legendary president in the mold of FDR and JFK. After all, BHO does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Instead, he has taken up the policies of Carter with the transparency of Nixon. Will “I’m not an ideologue” become the next “I am not a crook”?

In record time, Obama’s presidency has taken a turn for the worse. Between a massive oil spill (resulting from a rig that won a Safety Award from his administration) and two back room deals, will the Obama administration survive politically until 2012? Some don’t think so.

This November could simply be the last nail in the coffin for his hopes of a two-term presidency unless he significantly alters course.

Article first published as Is it the Beginning of the End for Obama? on Blogcritics.


Obama: The Worst President Since FDR

March 11, 2010

I know what many of you are thinking: “But FDR got us out of the Great Depression. FDR signed the Social Security act. FDR helped us win World War II. He was a good president!”

A good president? Yes and no.

Now while I would not be one to discount his leadership in World War II or many of the other positive things he accomplished, instead what I intend to look at is the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s economic policies, specifically the ones he implemented to get us out of the Great Depression in comparison to Obama’s economic policies today.

Certainly there are parallels between the two presidents from the outset. Both began their administrations after an unpopular Republican president. Both faced dire economic circumstances in the early parts of their administrations (though for FDR, the problems were arguably much greater than they are today). And both of them sought to bring about major social change through their respective government programs.

One thing that is interesting to note about FDR’s administration is that he actually implemented some of the policies of his predecessor, Republican president Herbert Hoover. How can that be? FDR bringing about the same things as the dreaded Herbert Hoover? It’s true. Just ask FDR’s advisor Rexford Guy Tugwell:

We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”

This is unusual considering that FDR ran on a platform of cutting taxes, cutting government, and balancing the budget. In contrast to Hoover’s Revenue Act in 1932, which doubled the income tax rate and was the largest tax increase in peacetime history.  The ideas that FDR campaigned on were actually quite good. However, just like with Obama, campaign promises and actual policies were two different things to FDR. He raised the top income tax rate as high as 90 percent. In the same vein, just last year, Obama has proposed to increase the top income tax rate as well, although fortunately not to 90 percent like FDR did!

And just as FDR followed Hoover’s bad policies, Steve Forbes points out that Obama is following Bush’s bad economic policies, which ironically run counter to that of FDR’s:

What is most astounding about President Barack Obama’s radical economic recovery program isn’t its breadth, but its continuation of the most destructive policies of the Bush administration. These Bush policies were in themselves repudiations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Mr. Obama’s hero.

Both presidents also share a fondness of elevating the public sector. InThe Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, Amity Shlaes points out that the New Deal eroded the private sector, while lifting the public sector:

Evidence from that period suggest that government was crowding out the private sector. The Tennessee Valley Authority, for example, dealt mortal blows to a private employer that wanted to electrify the South… For every state-relief job created, about half a private-sector job was lost.”

Since Obama has taken office, private sector jobs have decreased and public sector jobs have increased.

A few interesting excerpts from the diary of Henry Morgenthau Jr., Secretary of the Treasury under FDR, are also very revealing:

“…we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work… We have never made good on our promises…. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… and an enormous debt to boot!

That sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it? A 2004 study by Harold Cole & Lee Ohanian at UCLA concludes that FDR’s “ill-conceived stimulus policies” prolonged the Depression by seven years. They also said that the New Deal “short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”

But back to Morgenthau’s comment on unemployment. In spite of the New Deal, the unemployment rate during the Great Depression never got below 14%. Obviously, the New Deal had little to no effect on the staggering unemployment that faced our country. Just like the New Deal, Obama’s stimulus has failed to affect unemployment. In fact, unemployment numbers have gone up since the stimulus, despite the White House’s predictions.

Just like FDR, Obama is prolonging our recession. Now personally, I think Barack Obama is more like Jimmy Carter: a miserable failure of a president that needed to be ousted after 4 years of dreadful economic policies. But perhaps like Carter, the American people will find themselves repeating history by voting Obama out in 2012. Only time will tell.

-Originally posted on BlogCritics.org


It’s Okay, Obama’s not a Muslim; He’s a Racist!

March 20, 2008

I’m sure you’ve all heard the rumors spread by the Christian right….and the Clinton campaign: Obama’s a Muslim. His father was a Muslim! He had a buddy in high school that was Muslim. And on and on we go. Actually I made up that part about the buddy in high school. See? That’s how rumors get started!

But if there’s ever a time in Obama’s campaign when the people he’s associated with have got him in trouble, it’s now. His pastor, Jeremiah Wright has made some statements that have put him at odds with much of America. Examine exhibit A:

First of all, Mr. Wright, you’re wrong in so many ways. But one thing in particular: Jesus was a Jew that was delivered to Romans and killed by Romans. He wasn’t black. He was Jewish. And the Jewish Pharisees were the ones that were ultimately responsible for His death. So if you compared Him to Barack Obama, the story would have to be that black people formed an angry mob and delivered him to the “white people.” Wait, maybe that does make sense: Wright, a black man, delivering Obama up for political crucifixion… Ah, I can’t make this stuff up. The irony is almost unbelievable.

Exhibit B:

I apologize. Some of that was repeated from the previous video. Notice his words, and I quote “God d*** America!” Thank you, Mr. Wright. I can tell that you’re just oozing with patriotism. By the way, did anyone know about the U.S. inventing the HIV virus as a form of genocide for minorities? That’s amazing! I guess white people don’t get AIDS. I must say though, a slow-killing though incurable virus like HIV seems to be a little less effective than say…Ebola? I’m sure our uber-Aryan scientists have got something better cooking in the labs, just waiting for a chance to be released. Side note: correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t HIV originate in Africa?

Now, it’s not that Mr. Wright is Obama’s pastor. I could excuse that. I mean, I don’t agree with everything my preacher says. But we have to consider the fact that Wright was Obama’s spiritual adviser, which seems to be a bit more significant than just a mere pastor. He’s the one that performed Obama’s wedding. One of his sermons inspired the title for Obama’s book Audacity of Hope. He’s a close friend to Obama. He’s not just some guy that happens to preach at Obama’s church. It’s much deeper than that.

And in spite of all this, I was still willing to give Obama a bit of a pass. That is, until I found out that Obama was endorsed by the New Black Panther party:

ObamaBlackPanther 

Remember the black panthers? The militant group that hate whites and Jews, you know the one. And you know it’s pretty bad when a group of African-Americans is considered to be an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Obama was so proud of this endorsement that it was featured on his website. However, all of a sudden, it was taken down. I guess someone got offended…

Obama can talk of racial equality, progress and change all he wants but how can he possibly be taken serious when he is surrounding himself with the very people that are fanning the flames of hatred in America?

As you can see, Barack Husayn Obama considers his company to be people who hate America, who cause division, who support extremism, and believe insane lies like the ones his pastor tells from the pulpit. If elected President, I believe that the harm he would do to our country would be almost irreparable. America cannot afford a President like him.


Hey Hillary! If You Can’t Take the Heat, Get out of the Race!

November 2, 2007

I never thought I’d see the day when a major network (other than Fox) would give Hillary a tough time. Is there some type of weird tension between her and Tim Russert? Who knows?

So now it seems like everyone is saying that Hillary is going to play the “gender card,” claiming that every man in the race (Republican and Democrat), along with the news media of all people, is ganging up on the only poor defenseless woman in the race. This is an interesting strategy to say the least, but I personally think it’s a little pathetic.

This is the arena of Presidential politics. It’s not friendly. It’s not easy. It’s not all glam and softball questions. Hillary knows that…or at least she should.

So I don’t buy this whole “Little Red Riding Hood” idea where Hillary is naively prancing towards a “hard-earned” victory only to be attacked by the “Big Bad Wolf” of fellow contenders. She may think this will endear her to women voters, but I don’t think it will work other than being an excuse for women who were going to vote for her anyway.

If Hillary can’t take some jabs from her future running mate (Obama), she should have gotten out of this race a long time ago. But I like to think she’s a little more tenacious than her campaign is giving her credit for.

Hillary is tough enough to handle herself. Just ask Dick Morris or better yet….Vince Foster.


Joe Biden is an Idiot

October 31, 2007

Did anyone catch that tidbit from the Dem debate last night where Joe Biden said that Giuliani was “the most unqualified candidate since George W. Bush”? To me, that’s just laughable. This is the same guy that buys into the idea of dividing Iraq up into 3 states based on religion and ethnic background.

Sure, Biden is on his sixth term as a Senator from Delaware, but does that really make him any more qualified than Giuliani?

Delaware is a state with a population of less than 800,000. Now keep in mind that Biden isn’t the Governor of Delaware, he’s just a Senator, so from what I can tell, he has no governing experience and even if he did, he’d be managing a state that has less people than the city of Jacksonville, Florida.

Now, let’s compare him to Giuliani, former mayor of New York City. Giuliani served two terms as mayor of New York City, one of the largest cities in the world with a population of 8 million. And on top of that, he had a fairly good record in doing so.

So who do you think is more qualified: a man who has represented a state of less than 800,000 or a man who has managed a city of over 8 million?

Also: gaffe #185143490: he just revealed the location of a secret bunker.


Attention America! Liberals want their Media back!

August 1, 2007

It can be returned to the National Lost & Found c/o a Democrat-controlled Congress.

I know I sound like a fear-mongering conservative, but you’ll just have to forgive me. All too often it seems that Republicans are being referred to as the ones that support a “1984” infrastructure where the government is wire-tapping every phone and “Big Brother” is always watching. But could it be that their opponents, the Democrats, are also guilty of advocating similar measures?

I’ll start off by saying that in some ways, I favor censorship. There are just some things that don’t need to be in the mainstream media. I’m talking about foul and explicit language, nudity, extremely graphic violence, etc. You may or may not disagree with that. It doesn’t matter to me. I just wanted to get that out of the way.

Rumors have been flying recently that liberals are interested in dismantling conservative talk radio and even Fox News. That all sounded like hearsay and conjecture to me until I found out some startling information:

DNC Chairman Howard Dean has recently been quoted as saying that “we need to re-regulate the media.” What an interesting idea you have there, Howard. I wonder how you’d plan to do it.

The weapon of choice: the Fairness Doctrine.

It sounds so great, doesn’t it? Fairness. That means it’s fair, right? The idea behind it is that all forms of news media will be regulated to allow equal time for opposing points of view. In theory, that’s not necessarily a bad plan. But which side do you think has more capability of presenting their side of the story? My guess would be the liberal side.

Let’s shed a little more light on the subject. Take a look at how President Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of Commerce Bill Ruder viewed the Fairness Doctrine: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” Keep in mind, Ruder was operating with a Democratic President, a Democratic-controlled Congress, and a progressive Supreme Court.

Could that happen again? Surely not! But let’s look at what other Democrats are saying:

When questioned about a revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Dianne Feinstein said “Well, I’m looking at it…because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.”

John Kerry recently said, “I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there… conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements and the result is that they have been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think its been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public eye.”

Liberal members of Congress such as Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, Maurice Hinchey, Louise Slaughter, and Dick Durbin have also voiced support for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.

But in case the Fairness Doctrine falls through, you can always take the same route that MoveOn.Org and the DailyKos are taking: tell everyone to boycott conservative media. They’ve already been successful in urging Democratic candidates not to debate on Fox News channel. However, they have failed thus far in discouraging Home Depot from advertising on Fox.

Of course, they could always be honest and try starting a liberal network of their own. Wait a second. Didn’t that already happen? Oh yes, AirAmerica. How is that doing nowadays? Didn’t it go bankrupt?

Americans will get their news from where they choose to. Some choose not to use television, and that’s fine. Some prefer the internet above all. That doesn’t bother me either. I personally choose to get my news from different sources including television, the internet, and sometimes even radio. Frankly, I typically go to Fox News first when it comes to television. But I won’t refuse to look at other sources like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, or wherever. When I want news from the internet, I might just type something in a search engine like Yahoo or Google (whatever I’m in the mood for).

Regulation of mainstream media through the Fairness Doctrine or any method that denies Americans the right to choose their source of media is completely anti-capitalist. It’s just one more way that liberals across America can rear their socialistic heads.