Posts Tagged ‘finance’

Bush Katrina Economy Obama Haiti Economy

January 18, 2010

Yesterday on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos substitute host Jake Tapper interviewed Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Bush could not have been more gracious in praising Obama’s relief efforts.

In other words, he didn’t try to do to Obama what Obama and the Democrats so viciously did to him.

And I couldn’t help but wonder: if Democrats believed their own crap about Bush and Katrina, why on earth would they be asking George Bush to lead an effort for Haitian relief now?

It has now been six days since the earthquake that destroyed Haiti.  Obama promised an unprecedented massive effort to provide emergency relief.

Has it been organized well?

From USA Today:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. relief effort after the Haiti earthquake started too slowly and cautiously, says a retired general who led the military relief effort on the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

“The next morning after the earthquake, as a military man of 37 years service, I assumed … there would be airplanes delivering aid, not troops, but aid,” said retired Lt. Gen. Russel Honore, who coordinated military operations after disaster struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005. “What we saw instead was discussion about, ‘Well we’ve got to send an assessment team in to see what the needs are.’ And anytime I hear that, my head turns red.”

The problem, Honore told USA TODAY, is that the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, instead of the military, take the lead in international disaster response.

“I was a little frustrated to hear that USAID was the lead agency,” he said. “I respect them, but they’re not a rapid deployment unit.”

USAID immediately dispatched an assessment team and search-and-rescue teams, but there has still not been widespread distribution of food or water, three days after the Haiti earthquake.

Let’s file that as a ‘no’.

Very little in the way of actual lifesaving supplies had gone out as of the time of that article.  Has that situation improved?

Yesterday, ABC’s Tapper pointed out:

But it’s five days later, and still a lot of the relief effort, a lot of the aid has not gotten to the people who need it most.”

An exchange between Tapper and Raddatz:

So how about it, Martha? Is the relief effort getting to those who need it most?

RADDATZ: Well, we actually went with a convoy, one truckload of supplies yesterday. We arrived really early in the morning, expecting to track this truck, come back, and go out with another truck. It took us five-and-a-half hours to get these supplies where they were needed.

General Keen, the military commander, said that 70,000 bottles of water and 130,000 food rations had been handed out Saturday – four days after the disaster!  70,000 bottles of water for 3.5 MILLION people in need.  They needed 10 million bottles of water a day.

Let’s file that as another big ‘no.’

How many days did Bush get before Democrats hatefully and viciously attacked him?

Well, are they at least providing security for the relief supplies yet to come?

Another exchange during the ABC program between Jake Tapper and Martha Raddatz:

TAPPER: Speaking of chaos, Martha, we keep hearing about reports of sporadic violence. Where is the U.S. military in all this? Are they making attempts to secure the island?

RADDATZ: Absolutely not, Jake. They really aren’t. I keep hearing these numbers. There are about 4,200 American military supporting this mission, but mostly they’re out on the ships. They’re on the cutters. You’ve got the 82nd Airborne, not all of the 82nd Airborne, a brigade, about 3,500 soldiers are here. They’re expected to be here sometime next week. The Marines are not yet here, 2,200 Marines.

Jake Tapper pointed out to the US military commander for the region, General Keen, that:

General Keen, I’d like to go to you first. Martha Raddatz just reported that U.S. troops are not out there securing Haiti, even though there are sporadic outbursts of violence, some of them horrific. We heard a report of — in Petionville, a suburb of Port- au-Prince, a policeman handed over a suspected looter to an angry crowd. They stripped him, beat him, and set him on fire. We’ve also heard that some medical personnel are clearing the area because they don’t feel secure.

Sounds like another rather big ‘no’ vote.

I think I’ve amply proven the case that a week after the Haiti disaster a great deal separates what has been done from what could have been done.  I can’t help but remember how bitterly the left attacked Bush for the same failures following an unprecedented natural disaster.

This is what liberals would be saying about Barack Obama if they weren’t hypocrites: Barack Obama hates black people!!!  Barack Obama is creating a genocide of black people!!!

And Republican elected officials, if they were like Democrats, would be claiming accusing the Obama administration of “ethnic cleansing” in Haiti.

Because that’s how loathsome Democrats rolled just a few years back.  And yes, that’s right: the same Democrats who regard any criticism of Barack Obama as a form of blasphemy.

I was pointing that out last year during the Democrat National Convention when Democrats were STILL demonizing and demagoguing Bush for Hurricane Katrina.

The left ignored the fact that Hurricane Katrina was a supermassive disaster that simply overwhelmed the resources of the federal government regardless of who was in charge of it.  They ignored the fact that Bill Clinton hadn’t prepared New Orleans for such a disaster any better than George Bush did.  They ignored the fact that the heavily Democratic city of New Orleans and state of Louisiana had utterly failed to prepare, when such preparation should have been at the very core of their agenda.  They ignored details such as this:

The vultures of the venomous left are attacking on two fronts, first that the president didn’t do what the incompetent mayor of New Orleans and the pouty governor of Louisiana should have done, and didn’t, in the early hours after Katrina loosed the deluge on the city that care and good judgment forgot. Ray Nagin, the mayor, ordered a “mandatory” evacuation a day late, but kept the city’s 2,000 school buses parked and locked in neat rows when there was still time to take the refugees to higher ground. The bright-yellow buses sit ruined now in four feet of dirty water.

They ignored everything but their ideological agenda and the political axe-to-grind they had in their hands to swing at George Bush with.

And the propagandistic mainstream media helped them do it.

The same media that basically demanded that George Bush push a button and FIX New Orleans have gone out of their way to make excuses for the numerous failures in Haiti under Obama.

What is funny is that it was largely the attacks against Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina that led to the Democrat takeover of the House and the Senate in 2006.

Unemployment was 4.7% when the Democrats took over Congress.  It was 4.7% when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid assumed their respective majority leadership positions.  They have been in control of Congress ever since: and what is unemployment at now?

The Democrat Party/lamestream media narrative is that Bush was responsible for the economic meltdown because it happened during his watch.  There was never once a mention that it happened during Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s watch.  Because that particular narrative doesn’t fit their agenda.

George Bush called for reform of the housing finance market 17 times in 2008 alone — and Democrats ignored him.  They had been blocking his every effort to prevent disaster ever since Bush first tried to do so beginning in 2003.  At that time, Democrat Barney Frank led the effort to block reform, saying:

These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

George Bush and John McCain repeatedly warned that if we didn’t address the situation, we would suffer a financial collapse.

John McCain wrote an urgent letter in 2006 that read:

These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform. For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs—and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns.

In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

John McCain signed another letter that ended with these words:

With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?

Substantial testimony calling for improved regulation of the GSEs has been provided to the Senate by the Treasury, Federal Reserve, HUD, GAO, CBO, and others. Congress has the opportunity to recommit itself to the housing mission of the GSEs while at the same time making sure the GSEs operate in a manner that does not expose our financial system, or taxpayers, to unnecessary risk. It is vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that these institutions benefit from strong and independent regulatory supervision, operate in a safe and sound manner, and are primarily focused on their statutory mission. More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event either GSE should fail. We strongly support an effort to schedule floor time this year to debate GSE regulatory reform.

And they DID fail.  They massively, massively failed.

Only about a month before the whole system crashed, Barney Frank went on the record and said this:

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

They sure were, you fat, miserable, loathsome, obscene, disgusting, slobbering, lying toad.

The top three headlines under the Google search “Fannie Mae collapse”:

Freddie, Fannie Scam Hidden in Broad Daylight

Financial Markets Reeling from Fannie & Freddie Collapse and Evitable Government Bailout

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: Too big not to fail

But as our economy exploded along with the boondoggle housing finance market artificially sustained by Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats demagogued the Republicans.  And the lamestream media duly reported it as though it were all the liberal’s-god-socialist-big-government’s truth.

And thus you see how the liberal demagoguery surrounding Hurricane Katrina led to the liberal demagoguery surrounding the economic collapse.

And it just never stops.

The Obama White House has been rather shamelessly politicizing the Haitian earthquake disaster to bolster up its low support.

And even when Obama abandons Haiti to go to Massachusetts to prop up Democrat Martha Coakley’s failing candidacy, Democrats manage to demagogue over Haiti.

Bill Clinton, the Obama-appointed special envoy for Haiti, didn’t bother to go there, but focused on what was far more important: Martha Coakely’s election bid in Massachusetts.

Someone asked Bill Clinton about that, and he said that relief for Haiti and the election of Martha Coalkey in Massachusetts were “just two sides of the same coin.” The blatant and breathtaking politicization is mindboggling!!!

What would the mainstream media be saying about Republican George Bush literally turning his back on a disaster to fly north to Massachusetts to campaign for a Republican – bringing us special envoy to Haiti to do so with him – rather than turn south to deal with the Haiti disaster?  What would these demagogues who deceitfully call themselves “journalists” have said?

Even if you’re a liberal, you’re not stupid enough to realize that the media would have unleashed hell on earth to attack George Bush for such a partisan political act of abandonment.

And that’s what I’m really getting at.  The double standard between treatment of Democrats and Republicans is so massive it is positively unreal.  Obama can screw up every which way and the media will let it pass; Bush could hit a homerun and the media would declare it a foul ball and then attack him for his incredibly poor swing.

Meanwhile, of course, millions of Haitians are suffering, and not getting helped.

Just as millions of Americans are suffering, and not getting helped.

Meanwhile, the news media largely continues to spin the economy positively, even as more jobs were lost under Obama in 2009 than for any president in any year since 194o.

Update January 29:

HUMAN TRAFFICKING, FOOD RIOTS AND LACK OF MEDICINE PLAGUE HAITI
John G. Winder , The Cypress Times
Published 01/29/2010 – 10:28 a.m. CST

Mass graves. Tent cities.More than 90% of the nation’s structures damaged or destroyed. No food.Amputees and orphans left to fend for themselves.  Nearly all of the businesses gone.  No employment.  Yet it still gets worse for the people of Haiti.

Haiti’s Prime Ministery, Jean-Max Bellerive told CNN that he is receiving reports of children being stolen and trafficked as slaves, sex slaves and for the purpose of having their organs harvested to be sold.

“There is organ trafficking for children and other persons also, because they need all types of organs,” Bellerive said.

UNICEF is also reporting that children are being taken from hospitals by traffickers.

Had this happened under George Bush, with these results, the lamestream media would be attacking Bush as the most evil man since Hitler and the most incompetent buffoon since God created incompetent buffoons.

Just pointing out the obvious truth.

Advertisements

Obama Approval Index Now At ZERO% As Obama Ruins Country

June 5, 2009

The good thing is that more and more people are now beginning to realize that Barack Obama is leading their country off a cliff into an economic fiasco that we will likely never recover from; the bad news is that it may already bee too late.

Right now, we’ve got “czars” appointed by Obama that are running roughshod over entire industries with absolutely no congressional or people’s oversight whatsoever.  There are now FIFTEEN “czars” accountable to no one but Obama: a drug czar; an energy and environment czar; a health czar; an urban affairs czar; an economic czar; a regulatory czar; a technology czar; a government performance czar; a border czar, a WMD policy czar; an intelligence czar; a car czar; a Great Lakes czar; a Stimulus czar; and now a Cyber czar.  Again, Czars dominating industrustries and whole sections of the massive government infastructure who are accountable to no one but the president.

To quote J.R. Dieckmann who describes the new “cyber security czar” and in so doing denounces the entire mindset that creates them in the first place:

We have seen the tactic used by this administration over and over again — find or create a crisis, then violate the people’s liberties to deal with it. We saw it with the banking industry. We saw it with the mortgage industry. We’re seeing it with the auto industry and the energy industry, the global warming hoax, and many others. This is a president who wants the federal government to control everything of any significance. Controlling the Internet would be most helpful to him in forcing his Marxist agenda down the throats of the American citizens.

[By the way, even as Obama plunges the economy of the nation into ruin by pursuing the radical global warming agenda, a new NASA study confirms that – surprise – the sun, NOT man, has been responsible for warming.  Not that the obvious facts have ever mattered to liberals].

If you don’t think what Obama is doing is Marxism, as Dieckmann (and recently the Russian Pravda) describes it, try fascism.  Or insert your own blatantly un-American “-ism” (examples: totalitarianism, socialism).  Call it whatever you want: it’s an insult to everything America stands for.

CARACAS, June 2 (Reuters) – Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp. […]

“Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right,” Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

Maybe Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro think it’s a joke; I don’t think there’s anything funny about it.  I don’t think there’s anything funny about Obama’s using czars answerable only to him to shred the Constitution to set aside firmly established bankruptcy and contract law in order to make a political payoff to his union constituency.

Who did Obama appoint to run his nationalized Government Motors?  A 31-year old punk named Brian Deese who has never run anything but liberal political campaign propaganda:

Here’s the 411 of Mr. Deese’s “experience.”

THIS is the guy who “finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism” (in the exact words of the New York Times)?  How do we not deserve to go the way of the Dodo bird when we do crap like this?

Liberals who used to decry Bush for his imperial tactics are an insult unto themselves; Bush’s “abuses of power” are to Obama’s what a pea-shooter is to a hydrogen bomb.  Obama is continuing the things that liberals have screamed the most about (including domestic eavesdropping which he once opposed; including the right to use enhanced interrogation methods should he deem it appropriate; including the use of rendition to send terrorist suspects to countries that will employ harsh interrogations; including the use of military commissions he himself condemned; including the right to hold people indefinitely without trial that he previously had demonized.  The ONLY difference between Bush and Obama on these issues is that Bush wasn’t a pompous, self-righteous, arrogant liar and demagogue, as Obama has now proven himself to be.  Meanwhile, on top of all the “abuses of power” liberals attacked Bush over, Obama has further taken it upon himself to abuse federal power like no one before him had ever even dreamed.

Bush opened the door to this crap; Barrack Hussein has essentially driven a suicide-bomber’s truck right through that door – and is in the process of driving his bomb into the very heart of our economy, our infrastructure, and our entire way of life.

And more and more people are FINALLY starting to become angrier and angrier about it.  Not enough to stop it.  But enough to give one hope that we’re not as insane as it has previously appeared.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

June 5, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 34% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. That’s the highest level of strong disapproval and the lowest overall rating yet recorded (see trends).

The President’s ratings have slipped since General Motors filed for bankruptcy to initiate a new government bailout and takeover. Just 26% of Americans believe the GM bailout was a good idea and nearly as many support a boycott of GM products. It remains to be seen whether the dip in the President’s numbers is a temporary reaction to recent news or something more substantive.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

Obama’s approval can only go down so far no matter what he does or how badly he fails.  If he were to so destroy the United States to such an extent that it became like North Korea – a people’s socialist utopia that has so little economic production that it’s people are in a constant state of famine, having so little energy it might as well be in the dark ages – I truly believe that 45% of Americans would still vote to re-elect him in 2012.  And with most of the mainstream media still continuing to sing his praises just as the North Korean media continues to fawn over their “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-Il.

It may literally be too late to save this country from impending economic collapse.  Already $1 out of every $6 in the US economy is coming from the government.  And if Obama is able to nationalize our health care – and a further one-sixth of the economy – we will find ourselves in a position from which we will never be able to recover.  History has proven that it is impossible to terminate federal bureaucracies once they have been created.

Steven Moore, the senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page, summarizes what he calls “onslaught of the left” and concludes:

Yikes!  That’s a big dosage of economic cyanide the left wants America to swallow.   If this whole agenda goes through, in 2009 the federal budget will run the budget deficit to $2.2 trillion —  in a single year.  That’s more borrowing in twelve months than the federal government did in 200 years!

How do we possibly survive this crushing level of debt?  “Economic cyanide,” indeed.

Obama campaigned as this country’s “messiah” or savior.  But who will be able to save us from Obama, once his ruinous policies explode?

Dems Blame Bush For Deregulation: Just Another Day Of Astounding Liberal Hypocrisy

September 23, 2008

So Sen. Charles Schumer is the latest partisan Democrat ideologue to take yet another wild roundhouse swing at the Bush Administration and Republicans over the housing finance market meltdown.  But in this case, it would have served Schumer to recognize that when you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

Fox News briefly tells the story as follows:

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York says a lack of regulation by the Bush administration is responsible for the current economic troubles. The New York Sun reports Schumer says, “Eight years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ‘the market can do no wrong,’ have led us down a short path to economic recession.”

But Schumer fails to mention he has been a leading voice of deregulation. The Sun reports he championed the repeal in 1999 of the Glass-Steagall Act, the law which separated commercial and investment banking.

He also wrote an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal in 2006 which warned about what he called “overzealous regulators” and opposed a bill in 2005 that would have transformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from large investment funds into “conduits” that only bought mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them on the market.

And whatever one wants to say about the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, it must be mentioned first that it was President William Jefferson Clinton who signed the 1999 law that repealed it.

The New York Sun goes into the real nitty-gritty detail over just what astounding hypocrites Democrats like Charles Schumer really are.

The article begins as follows (the whole thing is ever SO worth reading):

Pro-Deregulation Schumer Scores Bush for Lack of Regulation
By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | September 22, 2008

As Senator Schumer attempts to blame Wall Street‘s recent economic upheavals on a lack of regulation by the Bush administration, he may have some inconvenient facts to confront.

Until the current credit crisis, Mr. Schumer had been a leading voice for deregulation: He has championed the repeal of a Great Depression-era law that prohibited commercial banks from underwriting securities; he has written an opinion piece calling for the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be “re-examined,” and he has opposed a bill that sought to reduce taxpayer risk in the event of a housing market slowdown by requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to sell their entire investment portfolios of about $1.5 trillion worth of mortgage assets.

The New York Sun article continues:

A spokesman for Mr. Schumer did not respond yesterday to a request for comment.

Mr. Schumer’s opposition to regulation is also beginning to come under scrutiny for the first time.

“He is responsible as one of the leading senators in the banking committee for much of the problems that we’re facing today,” a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Peter Wallison, a former general counsel to the Treasury Department under President Reagan, said of Mr. Schumer. “He failed to regulate where there was an opportunity to reduce the taxpayers’ liability.”

Too many people naively and frankly stupidly believe that the housing finance market meltdown is the Republicans’ fault because President Bush is in the White House and Republicans used to be in charge of Congress two years ago.  And this “They wanted to deregulate” lie is at the heart of that blame game. Republicans clearly do bear a share of the blame.  But this mess has Democrat written all over it, too.  Look at Joe Biden, Charles Schumer, Barney Frank – and yes, Barack Obama – along with a whole legion of Obama Democrats like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick who collectively took well over $300 million from Fannie Mae while cooking the books to do it.  And let us not forget Barack Obama’s National Finance Chair, Penny Pritzker, who was at the epicenter of the subprime scandal, and who paid $460 million dollars of her personal fortune to literally stay out of jail.

Barack Obama is second on the list of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign money recipients only after fellow Democrat Chris Dodd (who has also been identified taking a sweetheart deal from scandelized Countrywide); and he is second on the list of Lehman Bros’ campaign money recipients only after fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton.  And Obama, of course, got a sweetheart housing deal of his own, from convicted sleazeball Tony Rezko.

It needs to be realized that the Bush administration twice tried to regulate the housing finance industry in 2003 and 2005 – and both times were stymied by determined Democratic opposition.  John McCain joined President Bush in both efforts that would have saved our financial market, and was one of the four Republican sponsors of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.  In his statement supporting the 2005 bill, John McCain presciently foresaw the very disaster that has since overtaken the finance industry.   Democrats’ entrenched opposition to any reform that would have prevented people who could not qualify for a home loan from getting one anyway prevented both measures from succeeding.

Looking at Barack Obama’s personal exposure and the direct culpability of his closest advisers in the housing finance scandal, one thing is sure: voting for an Obama administration would be tantamount to giving the robbers the keys to the bank.

Obama Camp Says Family Off Limits, Then Attacks Palin Family

September 6, 2008

As bitterly opposed as I am to Barack Obama’s candidacy for President, I just don’t have it in me to create heinous stories about the Obamas’ two daughters, or try to destroy the Obamas’ as parents.

Apparently, that’s why I’m a Republican, and not a Democrat.

Barack Obama tried to put himself loftily above the army of liberal cockroaches who were eagerly out polluting the world with vile lies in order to advance his campaign, claiming that “families were off limits.”

But as the famous astronaut line puts it, “Houston, we have a problem.”

Obama Campaign National Finance Committee Member Criticizes Palin’s Parenting

September 05, 2008 9:27 PM

Lee Speigel

–>On the Laura Ingraham Radio show, Friday, attorney Howard Gutman — an original member of the national finance committee for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — very directly criticized the parenting of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Ingraham was taking issue with a column by Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn, asking whether Palin’s 17-year-old daughter’s pregnancy is raising “the question among the evangelical base about whether Sarah Palin has been enough of a hands-on mother.”

Pondered Quinn: “Not only do we have a woman with five children, including an infant with special needs, but a woman whose 17-year-old child will need her even more in the coming months. Not to mention the grandchild. This would inevitably be an enormous distraction for a new vice president (or president) in a time of global turmoil.”

To Ingraham, the insinuation was sexist, since no one would ask such questions of a man.

Gutman said the issue wasn’t one of gender, but one of parenting -– regardless of the gender of the parent.

“This has nothing to do with gender, whether Todd Palin was the nominee or Sarah Palin was the nominee,” Gutman said. “If my daughter had just come home at 17 years old and said, ‘Mom, Dad, I’m pregnant, we have a family problem,’ I wouldn’t say, ‘You know what we’re going to do? We’re going to take this private family problem…and you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to go on the international stage and broadcast this to the world.'”

Gutman continued, “this wasn’t a working mother issue, this was a parent issue…The proper attack is not that a woman shouldn’t run for vice president with five kids, it’s that a parent, when they have a family in need, a Down’s baby who needs them — mother or father.”

“So you are judging her parenting skills,” Ingraham said. “You’re saying you don’t think she’s a good parent for doing this job.”

“I’m saying the proper criticism is not that it’s a woman or man – it doesn’t matter whether it’s Todd or Sarah,” Gutman said. “Think of how many politicians have said it’s not the right time in my family’s life for me to run.”

Gutman cited approvingly Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., in 2004 and former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner in 2008, both of whom said they weren’t going to pursue the presidency because it wasn’t the right time for their families.

“They put their family above their career,” Gutman said. “Your responsibility is to put your family first.”

“So you’re saying she’s not putting family first,” Ingraham said.

“Absolutely not,” Gutman said. “If you take a daughter who’s got this emotional strife and subject her to the most intense scrutiny of the world at this time in her life, I think you’ve put your career above your family.”

Obama spokesman Bill Burton, asked to respond to Gutman’s remarks, said “Obviously these comments do not reflect our frequently stated views that families of the candidates should be off limits.”

Several times during the interview, Ingraham expressed bewilderment that the Obama campaign would attack Palin’s parenting. Gutman said, “I don’t give you talking points, Laura, I give you Howard points.”

Howard Gutman is an original member of the Obama campaign’s finance committee.  He is one of only 35 bundlers to raise more than half a million dollars for Obama.

Here’s what the National Review, in a piece that underscores what a hypocrite Obama has been in attacking others for having “lobbyists,” had on Howard Gutman.

Other notable bundlers include former registered lobbyist and defense attorney Howard Gutman, who in 2001 represented Susan Rosenberg a member of Bill Ayers’s domestic terror group the Weather Underground, someone who was “Lobbyist of the Year” in 2006. And there are a few more influential bundlers that seem problematic, despite the fact that they haven’t been afflicted with the lobbyist pox:

So when a guy crawls out of the Obama campaign basement and slams Sarah Palin as a wife and mother – in spite of Barack Obama’s hoity-toity “See how nice I am” ban against attacking families – and then we find out that he’s a “former lobbyist of the year” – in spite of Barack Obama’s equally hoity-toity rhetoric on lobbyists – well, that’s what they call a double whammy dose of that nasty enema solution known as HYPOCRISY.

And on top of that, we get to find out that, not only is Barack Obama friends with terrorist bomber William Ayers, but his slimeball friends are friends with him too.

When some sub-rodent vermin like Howard Gutman believes he has the character and credibility to attack an outstanding woman like Sarah Palin, you know that these people are fundamentally morally insane.

Saddleback Reveals Obama Party Ideologue, Not Courageous Change-Agent

August 19, 2008

Is Barack Obama a politician who has crossed party lines for the good of the country and who has demonstrated real courage? The short answer is absolutely not.

At the Saddlback Debate forum, Rick Warren asked Barack Obama the following question:

CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A TIME YOU KNOW A LOT — I’VE SEEN A LOT OF GOOD LEGISLATIONS GETS KILLED BECAUSE OF PARTY LOYALTY. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE YOU WIN AGAINST PARTY LOYALTY AND MAYBE EVEN WIN AGAINST YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA?

Obama’s answer is telling:

WELL, I’LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT IN FACT I WORKED WITH JOHN MCCAIN ON AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE OF CAMPAIGN ETHICS REFORM AND FINANCE REFORM. THAT WASN’T PROBABLY IN MY INTEREST OR HIS FOR THAT MATTER BECAUSE THE TRUTH WAS BOTH DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICAN SOR OF LIKE THE STATUS QUO AND I WAS NEW TO THE SENATE AND IT DIDN’T NECESSARILY ENGENDER A LOT OF POPULARITY WHEN I STARTED SAYING YOU KNOW WE’RE GOING TO ELIMINATE MEALS AND GIFTS
FROM CORPORATE LOBBYISTS. I REMEMBER ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHOSE NAME WILL BE UNMENTIONED WHO SAID, WELL, WHERE DO YOU EXPECT US TO EAT MCDONALD’S? AND I THOUGHT WELL,ACTUALLY, A LOT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS PROBALBY DO EAT AT MCDONALD’S SO THAT WOULDN’T BE SUCH A BAD THING. BUT I THINK THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET A BILL PASSED THAT HASN’T MADE WASHINGTON PERFECT BUT AT LEAST IT MOVING THINGS FORWARD.

I GUESS THE OTHER EXAMPLE FROM — I’M NOT SURE THIS WAS A MORE OF A PARTISAN ISSUE, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I FELT VERY DEEPLY WAS WHEN I OPPOSED THE INITIAL DECISION TO GO INTO WAR IN IRAQ. THAT WAS A NOT A POPULAR VIEW AT THE TIME AND I WAS JUST STARTING MY CAMPAIGN FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ADVISED ME, YOU SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS. THIS IS GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL. THE PRESIDENT HAS A VERY HIGH APPROVAL RATING AND YOU COULD END UP LOSING THE ELECTION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS.

The McDonald’s line was pretty good, I have to admit.

But Barack Obama mentions his work with John McCain to pass campaign ethics reform as the evidence of his bi-partisanship, of his crossing party lines to do what was best for the country even at the risk of his own self-interests.

What he doesn’t tell us is that he started to work with John McCain, then stabbed him in the back before taking the doctrinaire Democrat position on the bill.

John McCain was furious at Obama’s betrayal, as a Time Magazine article would indicate:

“Perhaps the two most popular members of the Senate and their respective party’s’ leaders on ethics and lobbying reform, Barack Obama and John McCain, were engaged earlier this week in a highly personal tiff on the issue. Obama, being pushed by Senate Democratic leaders to use the lobbying reform issue to help attack the GOP as elections loom in November, last week sent a letter to McCain, saying Democrats would pursue their own ethics bill rather than joining a bill created by McCain’s bipartisan task force. In a letter this week, the Arizona Senator blasted Obama. “I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics,” McCain wrote, “I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble.”

So when Obama claimed this as a moment when he crossed the party divide at the Saddleback event, he was flat-out lying.

But that was all Obama – the most liberal US Senator in the country – had to offer as an example of his bi-partisanship. So he pumped some sunshine and described his decision to oppose the war in Iraq as a courageous example of a liberal going against the tide.

PLLLLLLEEEEEEEAAAAAASSSSSSSE!!!

First of all, Barack Obama was a near-meaningless Illinois State Senator when the Iraq War Resolution was debated and voted upon. His opposition to the war meant nothing and affected nothing. And, given the fact that he was representing one of the most liberal districts in the country, it was about as courageous of a decision as a San Francisco mayor supporting gay marriage.

Barack Obama’s fellow Democratic Illinois Senator – Dick Durbin – had voted against the war.

NPR had this to say:

Obama cites the speech as an example of his political courage, but David Mendell, author of Obama: From Promise to Power, says the address was not necessarily a risky move.

“I still don’t think it was an inordinate risk here in Illinois, where you have a very blue-state crowd,” Mendell said, adding, “I might take issue with just how risky it was.”

The anti-war speech that Barack Obama points to as representing such a risk was so blase that Bill Glauber, who covered the rally for the Chicago Tribune, didn’t even bother to quote it.

It was nothing more than a doctrinaire liberal taking a doctrinaire liberal position in a radically liberal voting district. Yawn.

But I should also point out that Obama has periodically hedged his Iraq position as circumstances warranted.

The LA Times had a piece titled “Obama did hedge his Iraq war position at times,” and cited a November 11, 2007 Obama interview on Meet the Press in which Tim Russert said:

RUSSERT: You were not in the Senate in October of 2002. You did give a speech opposing the war. But Sen. Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record. And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this: In July of ’04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war. And then this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ’04. And this: “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

OBAMA: Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” during the (2004 Democratic National) convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war. And so it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

The writer of the LA Times article then points out:

But wait. Wasn’t it Obama who’s been criticizing other Democrats, specifically Clinton, for triangulation, calculating quotes and saying different things to different audiences to avoid alienating any potential voters?

In short, let me state that both the historical record, and Barack Obama’s own words, reveal that Barack Obama has neither been a politician who has crossed party lines or who has exhibited political courage.