The Cuyahoga Rough Writers Blog

How could anyone ever blame Obama for anything?

Today’s Opinion page in the Plain Dealer delivers a piece by Edward Wasserman, a newspaper editor and journalism professor, rife with complaints about President Obama receiving blame for the response to the continuing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Well, alright, he isn’t exactly complaining about Obama getting blamed for the response, but rather, the initial spill itself.  Details being the inconvenient things that they sometimes are, it is in this point that Mr. Wasserman’s argument dissolves.

 

Among the targets of Wasserman’s contempt is Peggy Noonan, opinion columnist for the Wall Street Journal, who on May 29, 2010 published an opinion piece, titled “He [Obama] Was Supposed to be Competent.”  The entire point of the article, which Wasserman either completely missed or consciously chose to ignore is that President Obama’s administration (at that point) had spent 40 days attempting to feign ignorance of anything happening in the Gulf, in the hopes that a shocked public would lay blame for the catastrophe solely at the feet of British Petroleum.  Nowhere in this article, nor in any other cited by Wasserman, is President Obama being accused of causing the initial spill itself.  Many people are critical of the lackadaisical oversight of drilling operations that led to the disaster, both by BP and the federal government, but those are problems that predate President Obama’s inauguration, and fair minded people understand that.

 

In Mr. Wasserman’s mind, it is unfair that a president he so admires be subject to the political realities that everyone else in his position has been, and will be again.  Was it fair that George W. Bush received all of the blame for the slow response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005?  Of course it wasn’t, just as it wasn’t fair that Mayor Nagin didn’t receive the level of criticism that he deserved for epically botching the evacuation of New Orleans in the days leading up to the storm.  It wasn’t fair that then-Governor Kathleen Blanco didn’t receive the same kind of outrage that President Bush did for waiting until after the hurricane had passed to declare a state of emergency, allowing the federal government to legally act.

 

People like Wasserman are easily hoisted on their own intellectual petard.  So blinded by his holier-than-thou belief in his own moral superiority and his insistence that Barack Obama shares is moral clarity and intellectual prowess, he not only gets the argument wrong, but more importantly forgets that history has a way of repeating itself.  The lesson to be learned in how journalists are interpreting the response of the Obama administration to this disaster has little if anything to do with the predictability of the news media – Republican or Democrat, if you are president when a crisis this massive happens and you don’t handle it properly, you are going to be pilloried by the press.  The lesson instead is the same as it was in August of 2005, as Noonan herself observes in her aforementioned opinion piece: “When you ask a government far away in Washington to handle everything, it will handle nothing well.”

And just for a laugh, check out how BP handles a different kind of spill.

Local Republicans Stage Tea Party Protest Of The Obama Pork Package

 1 Public Square (Just opposite Tower City)
 Friday, February 27th
 12pm-1pm

Why protest?

We have to send the politicians in Washington DC and especially our local US congressmen that voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Stimulus bill) a message. We are not happy with them having run roughshod over us, ignoring our concerns, and ramming this bill down our throats that will beggar future generations of Americans. If we just sit by, complacent and apathetic, nothing will change and the people governing us will continue to wreck our futures.

Stimulus Bill:

The president stated that there is “no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." Well, that’s just not true, as the Cato Institute was able to find a few economists who disagreed:

The spending is neither timely, targeted, nor temporary.

• Why is that only a small portion of it will be spent right now?
• Congressional Budget Office has released a report saying that only 23% of it will be spent in FY 2009. Only 74% will be spent by the end of FY 2010.
• This is more an appropriations bill, not a stimulus plan.
• How will the following provisions stimulate the economy?
• $15 billion for expanding the Pell Grants
• $1 billion to for community development grants
• $4.2 billion for “neighborhood stabilization”
• $2 billion for federal child-care block grants
• $4 billion for job-training programs
• $650 million for Digital TV coupons

The list goes on:

A big chunk of the stimulus package is designed not to create wealth but to spread it around. It contains $89 billion in Medicaid extensions and $36 billion in expanded unemployment benefits—and this is in addition to the state-budget bailout

Didn’t President Obama say that the bill that passed has zero pork? Does the following not look like pork to you?

• $4.5 billion for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• $850 million for Amtrak
• $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship
• $1.7 billion for the National Park System
• $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund
• $7.6 billion for “rural community development programs”
• $150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases
• $150 million for “producers of livestock, honeybees, and farm raised fish”

The stimulus bill also supports protectionism, in the form of the Buy America provision, which has never been shown to have helped an economy. Senator Sherrod Brown is a huge supporter of this silly provision which states that capital goods must be bought from US suppliers, even if they are up to 25% more expensive than goods bought internationally. Protectionism has NEVER worked. When the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act passed in 1929, within 3 years international trade fell to a third of what it had been, and likely was responsible for spreading the Great Depression around the world.

***

Learn More & Join The Movement Here

Campbell Brown: Obama breaks promise on campaign finance

(CNN, CNN?, Yes CNN) -- You may have heard that Wednesday night Barack Obama will be on five different TV networks speaking directly to the American people.

He bought 30 minutes of airtime from the different networks, a very expensive purchase. But hey, he can afford it. Barack Obama is loaded, way more loaded than John McCain, way more loaded than any presidential candidate has ever been at this stage of the campaign.

Just to throw a number out: He has raised well over $600 million since the start of his campaign, close to what George Bush and John Kerry raised combined in 2004.

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It's funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama's own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama's financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, "a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue -- who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now."

For this last week, Sen. Obama will be rolling in dough. His commercials, his get-out-the-vote effort will, as the pundits have said, dwarf the McCain campaign's final push. But in fairness, you have to admit, he is getting there in part on a broken promise.

Gee, I hadn't noticed.  Thanks for pointing it out.  Get used to it.

See the interview the Obama campaign doesn't want you to see

The Obama campaign was so upset by this interview of Joe Biden by Barbara West on Orlando's WFTV that they have excommunicated the station.  Watch and see why...

<

How dare she criticize The One!?

Obama Allies; "Bring Back Ohio" Resorts To Sleazy Tricks

Bring Ohio Back, the liberal special-interest group trying to rally Democrats behind Barack Obama, is using "violence" to launch a negative attack on Republican John McCain.

The group is mailing to voters a glossy flier featuring a picture of a battered woman who is suffering from a busted lip, black eye and bruised forehead.

The picture is accompanied by the claim that McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act.

The flip side of the flier adds the charges that McCain "thinks it's OK to say no to protecting Ohio women and children" and that he supports the position that "women who are the victims of sexual assault should pay for the rape evidence kits and medical exams."

BOB, which is also airing four humorous ads about McCain, grossly misrepresents McCain's record in the fliers. It also mirrors false claims made in ads elsewhere by Planned Parenthood.

An examination of McCain's Senate record and a analysis by PolitiFact.com of the Planned Parenthood ad shows the following:

McCain voted against a crime bill in 1994 that included the Violence Against Women Act. The act itself called for states to provide free forensic exams for rape victims. But McCain opposed the crime bill because it included extra spending McCain deemed unrelated to crime and it contained a ban on so-called assault weapons.

PolitiFact points out that nine months earlier, McCain supported the original bill, which included the Violence Against Women Act, when it passed the Senate 95-4.

McCain has supported reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

A McCain spokesman called the BOB mailer "one example of the many extreme attacks against John McCain that have never been repudiated by Barack Obama."

McCain's campaign also provided copies of McCain testimony in 2005 praising the 1994 Act. McCain made the statements when he introduced a companion bill to provide protections for Indian women.

The BOB flier is classic cherry picking of a politician's record.

Bring Ohio Back, the liberal special-interest group trying to rally Democrats behind Barack Obama, is using "violence" to launch a negative attack on Republican John McCain.

The group is mailing to voters a glossy flier featuring a picture of a battered woman who is suffering from a busted lip, black eye and bruised forehead.

The picture is accompanied by the claim that McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act.

The flip side of the flier adds the charges that McCain "thinks it's OK to say no to protecting Ohio women and children" and that he supports the position that "women who are the victims of sexual assault should pay for the rape evidence kits and medical exams."

BOB, which is also airing four humorous ads about McCain, grossly misrepresents McCain's record in the fliers. It also mirrors false claims made in ads elsewhere by Planned Parenthood.

An examination of McCain's Senate record and a analysis by PolitiFact.com of the Planned Parenthood ad shows the following:

McCain voted against a crime bill in 1994 that included the Violence Against Women Act. The act itself called for states to provide free forensic exams for rape victims. But McCain opposed the crime bill because it included extra spending McCain deemed unrelated to crime and it contained a ban on so-called assault weapons.

PolitiFact points out that nine months earlier, McCain supported the original bill, which included the Violence Against Women Act, when it passed the Senate 95-4.

McCain has supported reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

A McCain spokesman called the BOB mailer "one example of the many extreme attacks against John McCain that have never been repudiated by Barack Obama."

McCain's campaign also provided copies of McCain testimony in 2005 praising the 1994 Act. McCain made the statements when he introduced a companion bill to provide protections for Indian women.

The BOB flier is classic cherry picking of a politician's record.

***

See Full Plain Dealer Article

The Deep Ties Of Obama & ACORN

Presidential Debate Moderator, Obama Supporter?!

Today, we will take a step away from the "bailout" talks and get into the next presidential debate.  The liberal media bias is at an all time high and it is directly effecting this election.  We found the article below, just shocking. 

(Real Clear Politics)My dictionary defines "moderator" as "the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting." On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.

But there is nothing "moderate" about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She's so far in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out.

In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on Jan. 20, 2009 -- a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.

The title of Ifill's book? "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." Nonpartisan my foot.

Random House, her publisher, is already busy hyping the book with YouTube clips of Ifill heaping praise on her subjects, including Obama and Obama-endorsing Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick. The official promo for the book gushes:

"In 'The Breakthrough,' veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power... Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Sen. Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the 'black enough' conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history."

Ifill and her publisher are banking on an Obama/Biden win to buoy her book sales. The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the "Age of Obama." Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the "stunning" McCain campaign and its "bold" path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day -- and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation's sole vice presidential debate?

Yeah, I just registered 6.4 on the Snicker Richter Scale, too.

Despite the protestations of her colleagues that she will be fair, Ifill has appeared on numerous radio and TV talk shows over the past several months to cash in on her access to the Obama campaign. She recently penned a fawning cover story on the Obamas for Essence magazine that earned much buzz. The title? "The Obamas: Portrait of an American Family." A sample of Ifill's hard-hitting investigative journalism, illustrated with Kennedy-esque photos of the Obamas and children posing at home on the back porch and by the piano:

"Barack Obama is sitting in the back of his rented luxury campaign bus with its granite counters and two flat-screen TVs. The Illinois senator's arms are wrapped around his wife, Michelle, whom he doesn't get to see much these days. At this very moment he is, of all things, singing."

During the Democratic National Convention, Ifill offered her neutral analysis on NBC News before Michelle Obama's speech: "A lot of people have never seen anything that looks like a Michelle Obama before. She's educated, she's beautiful, she's tall, she tells you what she thinks and they hope that she can tell a story about Barack Obama and about herself."

During the Republican National Convention, the PBS ombudsman fielded numerous complaints about Ifill's coverage of Sarah Palin's speech. Wrote Brian Meyers of Granby, Ct.:

"I was appalled by Gwen Ifill's commentary directly following Gov. Sarah Palin's speech. Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust. Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance. I am disappointed in Ms. Ifill's complete disregard for journalistic objectivity."

Like Obama, Ifill, who is black, is quick to play the race card at the first sign of criticism. In an interview with the Washington Post a few weeks ago, she carped: "[N]o one's ever assumed a white reporter can't cover a white candidate."

It's not the color of your skin, sweetie. It's the color of your politics. Perhaps Ifill will be able to conceal it this week. But if the "stunning" "Breakthrough" she's rooting for comes to pass on Jan. 20, 2009, nobody will be fooled.

See Full Real Clear Politics Article

Ohio: The Big Electoral Prize in '08

Ohio is ground zero in the unpredictable 2008 U.S. presidential election. The Buckeye State is the closest thing to a must-win for both John McCain and Barack Obama.

Several days of interviewing a dozen top Democratic and Republican politicians underscores what voters say and polls show: Ohio is dead even and saturated with attention. (The interviews were conducted before Friday night's debate).

There is a case that Obama, who needs to win 18 more electoral votes than Democrats captured in 2004, can win without Ohio's 20 electors, assuming he holds all the states that voted Democratic four years ago. He could then carry Florida or some combination of Iowa, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico. That leaves little margin for error.

Republican McCain has even less. His only credible winning scenario, without taking Ohio, is to carry every other Republican-leaning state and pick up New Hampshire. That's a long shot.

Republicans and Democrats say the intensely contested 2004 Ohio presidential race, where George W. Bush edged out Democrat John Kerry, is the starting model for this election. The dynamics feature the economy -- a devastating picture in many parts of the state even before the recent financial crisis -- and an ingrained cultural conservatism...

Republicans note the economy wasn't terrific four years ago either -- the jobless rate was 6.2 percent -- and say that election is instructive. Kerry focused on the major population centers and achieved all his targets, running up huge victories in Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, Akron and other cities.

With brilliant grassroots organizing and micro-targeting, though, the Bush campaign did even better in 72 of the 88 generally less-populous Ohio counties. Almost 900,000 more people voted than in the previous election, and this was one of the few places where a larger franchise benefited the Republicans, with Bush winning the state by 118,000 out of 5.7 million votes.

``We did a good job in 2004; we're better this time,'' says Bob Bennett, the longtime Ohio Republican Party chairman. ``I'm not over-confident, but I feel confident about this one.''

Bennett and other Republicans say that with McCain's appeal to independent voters, and his selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate to energize the conservative and rural base, the ticket can match Bush's 2004 performance.

One new element is no-fault absentee voting, which means as many as a third of Ohio citizens will cast ballots before Election Day. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner predicts overall turnout will ``easily'' exceed 80 percent of registrants, suggesting three-quarters of a million more voters than the huge outpouring last time...

Republicans concede that Obama will do better in urban areas, pulling out blacks and younger voters. Still, they say they doubt that will be enough to offset their margins, especially in southern Ohio counties.

The largely unspoken issue is race. Strickland takes on the matter directly, asking voters: ``What's the elephant in the room'' in this election?

He says when the subject is raised it usually produces a constructive conversation about racial hopes and fears...

The driving force in that scenario remains the economy. ``Ohio comes down to the economy versus race,'' says Timothy Hagan, a Democrat and Cuyahoga County commissioner.

If you doubt the stakes, look at the schedule. McCain announced his choice of Palin in Dayton, and rarely does a day pass without a presidential or vice presidential candidate in Cleveland, Columbus, Lima, Zanesville, Wilmington or Steubenville. Everyone sees it going to the wire.

``It may be well into election night,'' says Kevin Dewine, the deputy Republican Party chairman, ``before anyone calls Ohio.''

***

See Full Bloomberg Online Article

Suspending Campaign! Why McCain is Ready To Lead

Democrats had dared Sen. John McCain to show leadership on the Wall Street crisis and he stepped up. He put his campaign on hold Wednesday and challenged Sen. Barack Obama to postpone Friday's debate, which Democrats had hoped to turn into a forum on failed Republican economic policies.

Less than a month after he canceled the first night of the Republican National Convention, Mr. McCain again flashed his signature maverick style, declaring President Bush's proposed $700 billion bailout dead and, as he's done so often in the past, said he could help broker a bipartisan deal to cut through the political clutter.

Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama refused to cancel the debate, but Wednesday night accepted an invitation from President Bush to a bipartisan summit on the economic bailout package that also will include Mr. McCain and other top members of Congress and the administration.

In rejecting Mr. McCain's debate postponement, Mr. Obama said the Republican showed his own limits rather than real leadership.

"It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once," Mr. Obama told reporters in Florida. "If it turns out that we need to be in Washington, we've both got big planes - we've painted our slogans on the side of them - they can get us from Washington, D.C., to Mississippi fairly quickly."

Mr. Obama's campaign said he called Mr. McCain at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, proposing a joint statement on the economic situation. The two men again spoke privately at 2:30 p.m., but minutes later, Mr. McCain then went much further and told reporters that he wanted to postpone all politicking.

The McCain campaign said last night that Mr. Obama's refusal would not affect their plans. The Arizona senator announced that he was canceling his political commercials and would return to Washington after a final nonpartisan speech Thursday to the Clinton Global Initiative. He also said he was suspending fundraising, though the link on his Web site for contributions to his campaign compliance fund still worked Wednesday night.

Mr. McCain said top leaders from both parties should meet and hammer out details of a bill that that they would then present to their colleagues as the best solution possible - exactly the way he has crafted deals on other major issues, such as judicial nominees and immigration.

"I am confident that before the markets open on Monday, we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people," he said. "All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."

It's the second time in less than a month that he's tried to show leadership by canceling a political event. Just weeks ago, he pulled commercials and scrapped most of the first day of the Republican National Convention, saying he didn't want to distract from the relief efforts surrounding Hurricane Ike.

***

See Full Washington Times Article

Dems Get Early Start On Blame For Obama Loss

WASHINGTON (CAP) - The Democratic Party has gotten an early jump on determining who to blame for losing the upcoming presidential election, according to several top Democratic analysts.

"Typically the Democrats don't start assigning blame until several weeks before they lose the election - a month, tops," said Bob Monks, a senior analyst at New School Communications. "The fact that they're starting this early is reflective of the party's new sense of determination, albeit a losing sense."

According to Monks and other analysts, the Democrats' self-flagellation process actually began even earlier, perhaps as early as Sept. 5, immediately after the Republican National Convention. As evidence, they point to several recent Huffington Post headlines: "Wait, what happened?" (Sept. 5); "OMG, we're gonna lose this frickin' thing" (Sept 8); "Why does this always happen to us? Why?" (Sept. 10); and "We hate ourselves and we wish we were dead, again" (Sept. 13).

But this week, the party seems to have wasted no time in trying to shift blame for the inevitable loss away from themselves and onto other sources.

"I'll admit it's a challenge determining exactly where to place the blame," said West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association (DGA), citing election fraud and "swiftboating" as two likely possibilities. "And of course with this election, we also have racism," he added. "We're feeling we really may have a winner with that one."

Several Democratic operatives who declined to be named also pointed to the possibility of blaming the loss on an offensive remark that vice presidential candidate Joe Biden is bound to make in the coming weeks. "It's only a matter of time before he compares Sarah Palin to a Hooters Girl," said one operative.

Several observers have pointed to Republican vice presidential candidate Palin as an obvious source of blame, but DNC chairman Howard Dean declined to comment on Palin's role in his party's upcoming loss, preferring instead to emit a frightening, high-pitched scream.

Republicans, for their part, are following the Democrats' lead by getting a jump on taking credit for their upcoming victory.

"My campaign advisors really did a terrific job," said presumptive Republican President John McCain. "But I really give credit to the American people, who realize that I'm going to wrest power from the old, big-spending, do-nothing, country-second Republicans, and give it to us, whoever we are."

According to several high ranking GOP officials, the Republicans also plan to start next week on blaming the Democratic Congress for everything they won't be able to get done while in office.

For his part, presumptive Democratic loser Barack Obama expressed consternation at the turn the process has taken. "This is exactly what we're trying to change - the politics of cynicism. The American people know that this isn't over until it's over," said Obama. "That being said, it's over."

IN OTHER NEWS
Memo Reveals Miley Cyrus As Original McCain VP Pick