“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”
If only we could get more leftists to realize that the policies they push in order to “help” the poor and underprivileged more often than not end up hurting everyone – especially the poor and underprivileged that the left claims to care about so much. In the meantime, let’s enjoy this moment of sunshine from one of the worst members of Congress who will no doubt try to walk this back at some point when it’s politically convenient.
Her definition of success is apparently very similar to everyone else’s definition of failure.
“This is the laboratory of the states right here,” she told NBC’s David Gregory. “And I can tell you what has worked. What has worked is the government smartly intervening to save the auto industry; smartly, strategically, surgically intervening to invest with the private sector to create, for example, the electric batteries for the vehicles; smartly intervening with the private sector to be able to do the breakthrough technologies that the private sector doesn’t have the funds to be able to do. That’s what other countries are doing. And we’ve got to realize that these economic models that just say, ‘We’ve got to cut, cut, cut, cut, cut,’ you know, who’s applauding most is China.”
I’m not sure how Granholm can claim credit for a federal initiative to save GM and Chrysler, and the reality is that Ford is doing reasonably well these days without having been bailed out by the government. And then there’s that battery plant in Holland to do the “breakthrough technologies that the private sector doesn’t have the funds to be able to do.” First of all, the government has no funds outside of what it leeches off the private sector. Secondly, if there was an actual demand for this “breakthrough technology,” you can bet that plenty of money will make its way to that product without the government’s help.
Granholm is as dumb as a stump, an empty skirt if there ever was one, and she’s lucky that she ran for governor in a state dominated by union politics against lackluster opposition, because that’s how she got elected. The day she leaves office is the day that Michigan has a chance to grow again, barring the election of Virg Bernero as Governor, who seems to think that he can somehow by executive fiat recreate the good old days when Michigan was the only game in town for auto manufacturing and high school graduates could walk down to the employment office at GM and get a high-paying assembly line job with a big fat pension when they retire at age 55. Ain’t gonna happen.
I’ve been following the whole Andrew Breitbart vs. the NAACP/Obama Administration dustup involving the videotape of Shirley Sharrod of the USDA admitting to racial discrimination in carrying out her past duties before an audience at an NAACP event, and it’s just unpleasant. Brietbart has a point, of course – Sharrod’s admissions of racism do garner murmurs of approval from the crowd, which is awful. Critics of Brietbart have a point as well when they note that the statements made by Sharrod in the video clip released by Brietbart were tempered somewhat by her later comments in the address. But Brietbart supporters also have a point when they respond by saying that the whole point of releasing the video clip in the first place was not to go after Sharrod, but to point out the approving reaction of the NAACP crowd to the awful things Sharrod was saying. And almost everyone agrees that the White House acted too quickly in dismissing her from her job.
Opinion on Sharrod have whipsawed from her being a contemptible villain to her being a blameless victim over the course of just a few days. With reflection, it seems that neither position is totally correct; she certainly has been victimized to some extent, but she’s certainly not the angel she’s being portrayed as at this moment. I’m inclined to agree with Andy McCarthy at NRO, who comments on the contents of the full video of Sharrod’s speech, which still makes her look bad:
So, in Sherrod World, mean-spririted, racist Republicans do nasty things that “we” would never do because we have a president who, being black, is above that stuff. Still, we have-nots need to band together for “change” because a cabal of haves, desperate to keep their power, is still imposing their centuries old capitalist system of institutionalized racism — the same racism that courses through the Republican Party and surfaces on “us versus them” issues like healthcare.
Pardon me, but I think I’ll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she’s still got plenty of racial baggage. What we’re seeing is not transcendence but transference. That’s why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.
With an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy assuming overlord status in what used to be private industry and private matters, are we supposed to feel better that this particular bureaucrat’s disdain, though once directed at all white people, is now channeled only toward successful white people … most of whom — like successful black people — worked very hard to become successful? Are we supposed to forget that when the Left says, “It’s always about the money,” you don’t have to have a whole lot of money to find yourself on the wrong side of their have/have-not equation? Are we supposed to take comfort in having our affairs managed by bureaucrats who see the country as a Manichean divide beset by institutionalized racism?
At the very least, Sharrod seems to have some toxic ideas about the American political and economic system guiding her actions. Is it possible for people with toxic ideas to be treated badly? Yes. Does that mean that those people should be absolved of responsibility for or shielded from criticism of their ideas? Absolutely not.
This was obvious to many during the 2008 campaign, but unfortunately not the majority. And now we have a massive health-care “reform” disaster, all based on misinformation, obfuscation, and (mostly) outright, bald-faced lying. For instance, all throughout the process of shoving Obamacare through Congress, Obama and his cronies insisted repeatedly that the individual mandate did not represent a tax increase. Obama repeatedly and emphatically stated as much when he was confronted by George Stephanopoulos in an interview on ABC last year. But, as everyone now seems to be realizing, Obama is a filthy liar. This is evidenced by the fact that…
…under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.
DOJ argues that the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And according to the Times, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.” Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.
That’s from Peter Wehner, who goes on to note the following:
This is just one example of a systematic pattern of misinformation and disinformation related to the health-care campaign. We have seen similarly dishonest claims related to funding abortion (ObamaCare is doing exactly that), bending the cost curve down (it will bend it up), lowering premiums (they will rise), and to allowing Americans to keep the coverage they currently have (many won’t).
In many respects, the Obama administration has shown itself to be thoroughly postmodern; words have no objective meaning. Reality can be molded to the whims of the most powerful. We can each construct our own narrative.
In the case of the president, the narrative is fairly simply: whatever advances his own aims and objectives is defensible. The ends justify the means. If false claims have to be used to advance a larger truth, so be it.
The scum in Congress that passed this travesty should be thrown out of office. And we can only hope the the leader of this contingent of lying filth – Obama himself – will pay dearly for all of his “accomplishments” at the polls in 2012.
Ever since viewing his depressing and disconnected “energy” speech last week, I have been mulling whether Barack Obama actually wants to be president anymore. That was an address given by a man who looked very much like he didn’t want to be there, didn’t want to continue. He appeared slumped and worn, as if he aged eighteen years in eighteen months. His demeanor was oddly distracted.
I am not being metaphorical here – I am quite serious. The more I have thought about this, the more I am convinced Barack Obama no longer wishes to be president. The degree that he admits this to himself, I am not sure. But I rather suspect that in the small hours of the morning he fantasizes he were anywhere but 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And who could blame him? By almost any measure, he is doing a terrible job.
I suppose it might be ok to dream that he won’t accept his party’s nomination in ’12…
Look, I know you’re busy and all what with having to figure out how to best ration me out of the health care system when I get old and dumping even more money into large burning pits, but you’re starting to look like a massive tool and I wanted to point out that you might want to actually start acting like an executive and talking to the people in charge at BP instead of, you know, trying to come up with a really pithy turn of phrase to describe your outrage or sending Eric Holder and his crack team of undersea lawyers down to the gulf to clog the leak with lawsuits.
Seriously: even Chris Matthews – who seemed to be physically attracted to you for quite a while there – is now openly questioning your competency:
Don’t forget – your entire campaign was based on the supposed desire to establish open, competent governance that was responsive to the people. It’s kind of hard to argue that the “open” and “responsive to the people” parts didn’t go up in flames with the Obamacare fiasco, and at this point any faint hint of competency that still remains attached to your administration is pretty much in tatters. And that’s me being very generous.
If you’re looking for someone who might be able to give you some pointers on a way forward now that you’ve pretty much botched this thing as badly as humanly possible, might I suggest…
Please, sir, for the sake of the Gulf residents, reach out to experts who have experience holding oil companies accountable. I suggested a few weeks ago that you start with Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources, led by Commissioner Tom Irwin. Having worked with Tom and his DNR and AGIA team led by Marty Rutherford, I can vouch for their integrity and expertise in dealing with Big Oil and overseeing its developments. We’ve all lived and worked through the Exxon-Valdez spill. They can help you. Give them a call. Or, what the heck, give me a call.
I know, I know – calling her for help would be unthinkable. But a couple of weeks ago, a massive gusher of crude spewing from a destroyed well and fouling beaches from the Mississippi delta to Panama City (and potentially far beyond) was unthinkable, right? And you have, in the past, expressed a willingness to talk with evil people.
C’mon, man. You represent the party that believes that government can solve any problem, anywhere, any time. And heck, this problem is actually happening in a place that the Federal government has responsibility for. That’s you, by the way. You’re the chief executive of the Federal government. You’re looking for someone’s ass to kick? How about you get off your ass and start moving some oil containment booms into place? Work with BP and get some supertankers out there to suck up the oil. DO SOMETHING. Because every day that goes by makes you look like a bigger ass, ripe for the kickin’.
The truth is that the federal government’s response to the spill was slow and flat-footed. Perhaps Obama’s worst misrepresentation related to the government’s use of fire booms:
Now, when it comes to what’s happening on the surface, we’ve been much more involved in the in situ burns, in the skimming. Those have been happening more or less under our direction, and we feel comfortable about many of the steps that have been taken.
The real record with respect to “in situ burns” is quite different, as we noted here. In fact, the federal government had a plan to combat major spills in the Gulf that relied on fire booms to carry out in situ burns. But when the Deepwater Horizon disaster occurred, the government realized that it did not actually possess any fire booms. It obtained one from a company in Illinois and tried to borrow others from foreign governments. Meanwhile, the oil spread. Ron Gouguet, the former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oil spill response coordinator who helped craft the government’s plan in 1994, expressed puzzlement that the plan had never been implemented and “speculated that burning could have captured 95 percent of the oil as it spilled from the well.”
So today’s press conference was just another chapter in the ongoing saga of the Obama administration’s dishonesty.
I remember being disgusted with Clinton in general for being so dishonest, but this guy is worse. Just light years worse.