Barak H. Obama

“Obama seems to be making a concerted effort to f*ck up on the world stage lately:

White House holds off on decisions on Afghanistan - dithering about looking like an imbecile is the worst thing Obama could do right now

Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence - deplorable”

“Mutt, the little moonbats are way too busy #&%!$ing about "you lie" to pay attention to anything their messiah does.”

“Oh boy, look what leaked out right after obama ditched missile defense:

Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.”

“You're a genius Mutt. Do you think Obama just cut n run from the missile defense system without getting something in return?”

“And what do you think that was?”

“Well it better be good, I mean the Brits cut a mass murder loose for some deals on oil. I am hoping BO can get some low cost fuel for selling out our allies.”

“Aw Crap!   He's a-runnin' an' a-cuttin'!”

“A deal with the Ruskies to stop pedaling their wares to the Iranians and to help put the screws to China to do the same.”

“And why would Russia do that when the cut was mostly symbolic in nature, rosey? When we're supplying Poland with a metric sh*t-ton of weaponry and training, and with other missile defense systems capable of filling in for ground based interceptors, what real concession was there?

And if you're right, why then has Russia's official response so far been to link it to the deal made, what, last month, to allow US military supply transit through central asia to Astan?”

“Rosey...I wonder how old you actually are? See I grew up in the age of "SALT" (Surrender a Little at a Time) and the treatys that the Russkys would sign and then break.

Nah I remember the great Reagan Walk in Iceland.”

“It's all just circuspection on my part. I think your last point, Mutt, is a good one.

XL, you grew up?”

“MAhvelous. Now they'll recycle all their moth-eaten (yet hyperintelligent) Iraq bumperstickers.

Oh Goody.”

“He's coming to the city I work in on Monday to give a speech. Crap, the morning commute is going to be a nightmare that day.”

“I'm actually still feeling this one out, rosey. I mean there's no doubt he's blundered on Astan front, but this one's a bit more complex.”

“russia very well could offer up thier dealing arms to the mid east as a trading point. they have an outlet in venezuela now.”

“
Trading Places: From Ex-Lobbyist to Market Watchdog

Scott O’Malia lobbied for an Enron-like firm that manipulated energy prices. Why has Obama named him to be a top regulator?

— by David Corn and Daniel Schulman
Thu September 17, 2009 3:00 AM PST

During his confirmation hearing last year, Scott O'Malia, a Republican Senate aide nominated to be a commissioner on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, testified that while working for an energy firm years earlier, the "Enron debacle" had opened his eyes "to the very serious consequences of...inadequate oversight." O'Malia, who'd been nominated by President George W. Bush, added, "I learned firsthand the devastating impacts a flawed market design can have on consumers and markets." What he didn't tell senators was that he'd learned all this as a lobbyist for a company engaged in Enron-like misconduct that had pushed for deregulation of energy trading. His appointment to the CFTC, an important watchdog agency that oversees the trading of agricultural and energy futures, was subsequently blocked for reasons unrelated to his nomination. But now O'Malia is back. The former lobbyist has been nominated to the CFTC once again, this time by President Barack Obama, who's following a traditional practice and allowing the top Senate Republican—in this case, minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—to select candidates for certain seats on independent agencies.

”

“

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/”

“MAN what is next with this CLOWN? He gonna have to do the "rehab" route, and shave his head...*(LOL)”

“ROTFLMAO...well Barry O went to Copenhagen to lobby for Chi Town (motto "Your Kids will DIE to go to school here") for the Olympics.

Lets see, more Americans out of work, Two Wars and rising terrorist threat, businesses closing left and right.....

OH Great Idea Barry

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDFmMzExYjlmZGFjMmU0NWNhOTkzODdhYzY4MzJlMTc=

The cost of Obama’s trip will not be close to $1 mil. It is well over $10 mil if it is a dime. The figures you quoted (accurately) are for flying a VC-25 (Presidential 747). Presidential trips require both 747s, as one is a backup. However, the costs soar when you realize that from the moment a POTUS indicates he wants to go somewhere, dozens, if not hundreds of people start preparing every detail. These details include security, communications, protocol, logistics that boggle the mind and transportation that most people never see. Several Air Force cargo planes of equipment are loaded and flown to the destination with armored limos, security personnel from the Secret Service and the relevant military branches, fuels specialists, etc. A National Airborne Operations Command Post 747 from Offutt AFB, NE will accompany him to keep POTUS in constant communications in case of national or word emergency . . . We are now up to three 747s, multiple cargo planes and costs for personnel who fly commercial ahead of POTUS. If FLOTUS flies separately, add a C-32 (757) for her and her staff, entourage, hangers-on etc, with attendant security, logistics, etc. Add a few more million dollars, though many personnel in Denmark will cover preparations for both POTUS and FLOTUS.



There is one other HOOT of a line in the article.

Bottom line, this seems like small potatoes for a president with a full plate. As Ed puts it, "Barack Obama has decided to put his international influence on the line not to push for more support in Afghanistan or sanctions on Iran, but to act as Salesman in Chief for Chicago and its Olympics bid for 2016."”

“Texas had no special treatment last time.”

“This is rich:

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid. - link

Afghanistan is in dire need of attention and here's Obama concentrating on the f*cking olympic games (and loses the bid anyway - ouch!LOL) and chastizes the head general for bothering him with the war.

What an a$$hole.”

“Reagan was celebrated for staying away from his specialized experts by letting them handle things. McCyrstals life is the military- what do you think he'll want a smaller war? More than one a$$whole wanders these deep waters of the past eight years.”

“Heck, in Tejas, they celebrate the little amount of time they spend in legislation. I think this spirit was transferred to D.C. with the last Commander in Chief.”

“Salebored, Reagan didn't try to vote "present" when confronted with critical policy decisions.”

“
CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Oct. 5, 2009 – 12:13 p.m.

Lobbyists Stew After Being Bounced From Boards
by Keith Koffler
CQ-Roll Call Group

A tide of anger and dismay is rippling down K Street as the Obama administration implements a new policy limiting the roles of lobbyists on federal advisory committees.

The policy change, described by the White House as the next step in President Barack Obama ’s drive to limit influence-peddling in Washington, could affect hundreds of lobbyists who serve on the panels, which were created by Congress in the 1970s to provide private-sector advice to the government.

By removing a key point of access to the administration, many lobbyists will be less useful to their clients, who will be forced to appoint others to take up the slack. And the information about federal government intentions gleaned from committee meetings will now be unavailable to many lobbyists as they strategize on how to work various issues.

“There is fury,” said a lobbyist who sits on one of the committees. “Absolute fury.” K Street veterans say they sit at the intersection of policy wonk-dom, Washington savvy, and the needs of business, and are therefore best suited to populate the panels.

But the White House views the move as a key step in rolling back what officials see as the open-door policy for K Street created in previous years. According to a senior White House official, the panels have been excessively dominated by lobbyists. “It is one of the ways special interests have historically shaped policy to the detriment of the public interest,” he said.

The policy was announced quietly Sept. 23 in a blog post on the White House Web site by the White House special counsel for ethics and government reform — also known as the “ethics czar” — Norm Eisen. “The White House has informed executive agencies and departments that it is our aspiration that federally-registered lobbyists not be appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions,” Eisen states. He goes on to say that “it is our hope” that lobbyists already on the panels not be reappointed.

The Commerce Department and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative took the White House “aspiration” to heart almost immediately, telling members of the panels in a letter last week that lobbyists will no longer be appointed to panels and that those on them will be out as the committees are rechartered in 2010 and 2011.

The letter, obtained by Roll Call, was signed by Commerce Department Industry Trade Advisory Center Director Ingrid Mitchem. It states: “If you are requesting consideration for reappointment, you will need to send to me a supplemental statement in writing, by letter or via e-mail, affirming both that: 1) you are not a federally-registered lobbyist, and 2) that you understand that if reappointed, you will not be allowed to continue to serve as an ITAC member if you become a federally-registered lobbyist at any time during your appointed tenure to the committee.”

”

“LOL...yeah I see this lasting a week or so...then they will have "non lobbyist" lobbyists...and act "SHOCKED I say SHOCKED" that this person was a lobbyist.”

“
What’s your Slumlord Association called?

It’s going to suck if the boss doesn’t have his usual insider access. Perhaps they can utilise some other former HUD insider.

But that operative may be obsolete — the football player bit the big one.

”

“NOLA ACORN office received $625,000 in contracts from city, HUD to repair low-income housing, develop new units in poor neighborhoods. No work was actually performed to fulfill the contracts, office address was a vacant lot

T*ltypoo approves of ACORN”

“ROTFLMAO...hey tilty how'd the protest go yesterday? LOL

Did you make the Mayor's Prayer breakfast the other morning? Resurrection was a great place to have it.”

“A cowboy from Texas attends a social function where Barack Obama is trying to gather more support for his Health Plan.

Once he discovers the cowboy is from President Bush's home area, he starts to belittle him by talking in a southern drawl and single syllable words.

As he was doing that, he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The cowboy says, "Y'all havin' some problem with them circle flies?"

Obama stopped talking and said, "Well, yes, if that's what they're called, but I've never heard of circle flies."

"Well Sir," the cowboy replies, "circle flies hang around ranches. They're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around the back end of a horse."

"Oh," Obama replies as he goes back to rambling. But, a moment later he stops and bluntly asks, "Are you calling me a horse's ass?"

"No, Sir," the cowboy replies, "I have too much respect for the citizens of this country to call their President a horse's ass."

"That's a good thing," Obama responds and begins rambling on once more.

After a long pause, the cowboy, in his best Texas drawl says, "Hard to fool them flies, though."”

“LOL..Ain't it so.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/top_twenty_things_obama_doesnt_1.html

Top Twenty Things Obama Doesn't Say
By Jill S. Sprik
Despite countless speeches and news conferences, did you ever hear President Obama express the following ideas?

1. Not everything is a federal issue; some things are for the states to decide.



2. I hear what you're saying and you have a good point.


3. One of the beautiful things about our constitution is the liberty given to individuals to pursue their dreams. There is great opportunity in our country to succeed.

4. In an effort to stimulate job growth and despite the objections from my party, I am working with Congress to reduce taxes for small businesses.


5. I am saddened by the cycle of poverty that exists in our major cities, and here is a way we can empower the next generation to break the cycle and fulfill their God-given potential....


6. The folks at the town hall meetings and those who came to Washington on 9/12 were exercising one of the greatest rights we have as Americans, freedom of speech.


7. Stop already with all forms of ‘cult of personality' behavior. I am a public servant, just like all those who have served before and all who will come after my term is complete. It's not about me, it's about the country.


8. I heard a great message Sunday morning at church.


9. History teaches us that evil exists in the world; for this reason the United States must remain strong, ready to defend itself and its allies.


10. I didn't realize a communist was part of my administration. It won't happen again.


11. The billions siphoned out of health care into lawyers' pockets never healed a single person.


12. No other country on earth offers its citizens the opportunity to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as does the United States of America.


13. The experts have looked at the proposed (fill-in-the-blank) program, and when it is extrapolated out beyond just the initial offering there is clear evidence it will cost too much money and will eventually fail.


14. I disagree 100% with the Cloward-Piven strategy of increasing the welfare rolls and overwhelming the financial system, and I am not affiliated in any way with the implementation of such an idea.


15. I don't know the answer to your question but I will give it some thought.


16. The goal of my presidency is not to implement a political ideology, but to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.


17. Every person has value regardless of age, gender, color, physical characteristics, or any other factor.


18. Any healthcare bill I sign must include a provision to exclude the rationing of care, keep the door open for competition among insurers, and promote the opportunity for our young people to pursue an education in the medical fields to ensure future supply meets future demand.


19. It is important for legislators to remember that what helps someone in the short-term may actually hurt them in the long-term, and we must avoid this kind of scenario.


20. It has become clear to me after meeting with military experts that their recommendations should be implemented in our current situation; this is not an area in which politics can be allowed to interfere.

The list could continue, but you get the point: by not saying the kinds of things that show recognition of individual and state rights, by not listening to what a variety of voices can contribute to the discussion, by an unwillingness to be taught, and by a lack of humility, there is little evidence our President wants our individual, local, state, and national success. Instead, he seems intent on implementing an agenda.


It's sad, really. This is someone who has the power and authority to do great things that could open the floodgates of opportunity for our country. The right path in economic and foreign affairs could be more readily determined if his agenda was set aside.


Pity the Americans who can't find jobs, can't feed their families, whose dreams have been destroyed by an economic crisis that could be remedied if someone who truly wanted to make things better would choose to do so.


Mr. Obama has thrown a lot of people under the bus. I wonder if someone would do the same to him if he dared to deviate from his current role as Messiah of the Progressive movement and instead became the President of the United States. ”

“A woman applying for a job in a Florida lemon grove seemed to be far too qualified for the job. The foreman frowned and said, "I have to ask you this; have you had any actual experience in picking lemons?"She replied: "I've been divorced three times and I voted for Obama."”

“brrrupp ting!”

“haha theres an ad for "progressive" on the thread! coinkydink?”

“booooo!”

“Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.”

“LOL....”

“Yup, that's him. Congrats.”

“

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: “A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Just over a year into his tenure, America’s 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington’s ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons – from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel their [economic] pain”, to the apparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis – and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington – most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office – each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people – Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama’s brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans – like the president. And barring Richard Nixon’s White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

“It is a very tightly knit group,” says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. “This is a kind of ‘we few’ group ... that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep.”

John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama’s Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

Among the broader circle that Mr Obama also consults are the self-effacing Peter Rouse, who was chief of staff to Tom Daschle in his time as Senate majority leader; Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff; the economics team led by Lawrence Summers and including Peter Orszag, budget director; Joe Biden, the vice-president; and Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. But none is part of the inner circle.

“Clearly this kind of core management approach worked for the election campaign and President Obama has extended it to the White House,” says Mr Podesta, who managed Mr Obama’s widely praised post-election transition. “It is a very tight inner circle and that has its advantages. But I would like to see the president make more use of other people in his administration, particularly his cabinet.”

This White House-centric structure has generated one overriding – and unexpected – failure. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion – not Capitol Hill. But for the setback in Massachusetts, which deprived the Democrats of their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, Mr Obama would by now almost certainly have signed healthcare into law – and with it would have become a historic president.

But the normally liberal voters of Massachusetts wished otherwise. The Democrats lost the seat to a candidate, Scott Brown, who promised voters he would be the “41st [Republican] vote” in the Senate – the one that would tip the balance against healthcare. Subsequent polling bears out the view that a decisive number of Democrats switched their votes with precisely that motivation in mind.

“Historians will puzzle over the fact that Barack Obama, the best communicator of his generation, totally lost control of the narrative in his first year in office and allowed people to view something they had voted for as something they suddenly didn’t want,” says Jim Morone, America’s leading political scientist on healthcare reform. “Communication was the one thing everyone thought Obama would be able to master.”

Whatever issue arises, whether it is a failed terrorist plot in Detroit, the healthcare bill, economic doldrums or the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan, the White House instinctively fields Mr Axelrod or Mr Gibbs on television to explain the administration’s position. “Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

Perhaps the biggest losers are the cabinet members. Kathleen Sebelius, Mr Obama’s health secretary and formerly governor of Kansas, almost never appears on television and has been largely excluded both from devising and selling the healthcare bill. Others such as Ken Salazar, the interior secretary who is a former senator for Colorado, and Janet Napolitano, head of the Department for Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, have virtually disappeared from view.

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”

In addition to hurling frequent profanities at people within the administration, Mr Emanuel has alienated many of Mr Obama’s closest outside supporters. At a meeting of Democratic groups last August, Mr Emanuel described liberals as “f***ing retards” after one suggested they mobilise resources on healthcare reform.

“We are treated as though we are children,” says the head of a large organisation that raised millions of dollars for Mr Obama’s campaign. “Our advice is never sought. We are only told: ‘This is the message, please get it out.’ I am not sure whether the president fully realises that when the chief of staff speaks, people assume he is speaking for the president.”

The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side.

The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama’s “G2” visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”

Then there are the president’s big strategic decisions. Of these, devoting the first year to healthcare is well known and remains a source of heated contention. Less understood is the collateral damage it caused to unrelated initiatives. “The whole Rahm Emanuel approach is that victory begets victory – the success of healthcare would create the momentum for cap-and-trade [on carbon emissions] and then financial sector reform,” says one close ally of Mr Obama. “But what happens if the first in the sequence is defeat?”

Insiders attribute Mr Obama’s waning enthusiasm for the Arab-Israeli peace initiative to a desire to avoid antagonising sceptical lawmakers whose support was needed on healthcare. The steam went out of his Arab-Israeli push in mid-summer, just when the healthcare bill was running into serious difficulties.

The same applies to reforming the legal apparatus in the “war on terror” – not least his pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre within a year of taking office. That promise has been abandoned.

“Rahm said: ‘We’ve got these two Boeing 747s circling that we are trying to bring down to the tarmac [healthcare and the decision on the Afghanistan troop surge] and we can’t risk a flock of f***ing Canadian geese causing them to crash,’ ” says an official who attended an Oval Office strategy meeting. The geese stood for the closure of Guantánamo.

An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

The White House declined to answer questions on whether Mr Obama needed to broaden his circle of advisers. But some supporters say he should find a new chief of staff. Mr Emanuel has hinted that he might not stay in the job very long and is thought to have an eye on running for mayor of Chicago. Others say Mr Obama should bring in fresh blood. They point to Mr Clinton’s decision to recruit David Gergen, a veteran of previous White Houses, when the last Democratic president ran into trouble in 1993. That is credited with helping to steady the Clinton ship, after he too began with an inner circle largely carried over from his campaign.

But Mr Gergen himself disagrees. Now teaching at Harvard and commenting for CNN, Mr Gergen says members of the inner circle meet two key tests. First, they are all talented. Second, Mr Obama trusts them. “These are important attributes,” Mr Gergen says. His biggest doubt is whether Mr Obama sees any problem with the existing set-up.

“There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b6b4700a-10fb-11df-9a9e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1”

“Well they're all very, VERY smart so I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually.

Odd......nowhere in the article (unless I missed it) does it say that Daddy-O is trying to force programs and policies the majority of Americans don't want. It only indicates he may be going about it the wrong way.”

“You can tell this guy has no clue when he writes this:

Historians will puzzle over the fact that Barack Obama, the best communicator of his generation, totally lost control of the narrative in his first year in office and allowed people to view something they had voted for as something they suddenly didn�t want,� says Jim Morone, America�s leading political scientist on healthcare reform. �Communication was the one thing everyone thought Obama would be able to master.


There is nothing puzzling about it.

The guy had NO experience.

Uh ... remember? We kinda mentioned that BEFORE he got elected.”

“A majority of health insurance companies are opposed to health care reform, that's for sure.”

“And violin complained about the hubris of the Bush admin. Sheesh.

Good thing Obama could just default to Bush's successful foreign affairs policies while he stumbled and mumbled through his domestic policy disasters.”