"It is time we rethink our heroes"

By GottaLaff

It's L.A. Times letters to the editor time:

Roosevelt then, Obama now

Re "Roosevelt was right — we need more Americans ‘in the arena,' " Opinion, April 23

Bob and Elizabeth Dole remind us of the words of Theodore Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena … who does actually strive to do the deeds."

As I read this, I could think only of our president, who is striving so valiantly to solve our problems. And the critics: the Rush Limbaughs, the Glenn Becks and, yes, many in Congress — the small men who, for power and money, do nothing but criticize, tear down and attempt to destroy him.

Sadly, too many Americans admire the critics, whose negativity serves only to destroy, rather than the doer, "whose place shall never be with those cold and timid souls" but who "spends himself in a worthy cause" because that is what brave men do.

It is time we rethink our heroes.

And our priorities. And our approach to "news". And the way we communicate. Feel free to add other rethinkitudes in Comments.

Franken Rips Into Axelrod

By GottaLaff

Agree with him or not, I appreciate Al Franken's direct approach:

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) "ripped into" White House adviser David Axelrod "during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats," according to Politico.

Multiple sources say Franken "criticized Axelrod for the administration's failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact."

"Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn't done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda -- and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown's win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn't done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president's desk."

The recent aggressive push by Obama has been a welcome one. Clarity is a good thing.

And I sure would love to have been a fly on that wall.

Palin's latest: Mr. President: Please Try, "I'm Listening, People," Instead of "Listen Up, People!"

By GottaLaff

I knew I wasn't done posting for the evening, I just knew it. I felt it in my bones. I had that sneaky little Barbie McLipSchmutz aura haunting my subconscious the way the smell of rancid soup haunts the hallways of old apartment buildings.

I bring you Fakey McGhostWriter:

We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Isn't she presh the way she completely ignored 2001-2008? Isn't that just like her... and the Tea Baggers who think like her?

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!”

Psst! Know why, Fakey? Because between no-nothings like you and the inept media that refuse to do anything but misrepresent/ignore the facts, nobody's listening.

This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies.

No. Not really. Not entirely. Not when he's constantly being drowned out by "Death panels!" and "Grandma's gonna die!" and "Socialist!"

We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results.

This from the person who eats political strategy for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and between-meal snacks.

The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Real leaders who care about America realize that free market stuff doesn't work. Real leaders who care about America don't lie. Or quit before their term is up. Or toss out bucketful after bucketful of hypocrisy (see: lobbyists, undue influence). Or lie.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs.

Want more? Your entire campaign was financed and shaped by lobbyists.

Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Um, Fakey? The bills were posted on the InterWebs for you to read. Besides, after hashing through every detail for months, thanks to your party's obstructionist tactics, everyone in the universe could have read them at their leisure during all the stalling.

Twice.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies.

Hey! I know! Let's play "Remember When...?" Remember when you had that jet and then you lied about selling it on eBay? Remember the Bridge to Nowhere? Remember all your own corporate cronies who loaded everything with so much pork, they could have replaced Porky Pig as the "Th-th-that's all, folks" mascot? Remember how it takes awhile for a stimulus package to take effect? Remember when you ran for vice president and lost?

I just threw that last one in for fun.

Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

Yes. Yes, we're still waiting for a lot of things. Know why? Because it's only been one year!

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate.

I already covered that.

Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Sounds like a 2012 candidate to me. Your thoughts?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

And we ask that you shut your pie hole, genius. Here's why: Because you have failed in every possible way, including ignoring the press, refusing to answer anything but friendly, softball questions, and have yet to listen to the American people when they let you know loudly and clearly that they did not want you anywhere near the White House.

Look who's giving whom advice.

To quote your own blog entry, "Please Try, "I'm Listening, People," Instead of "Listen Up, People!"

VIDEOS- Brennan: Cheney is wrong

By GottaLaff

Dickless McHeartStent gets officially slapped by an official Obama administration counterterrorism official:

An Obama administration official says former Vice President Dick Cheney is intentionally misstating President Barack Obama's terrorism-fighting policies or is ignorant of the facts when he criticizes the White House.

John Brennan said that the president is committed to keeping us safe, as committed as any other president, or anyone else, for that matter.

Now that's committed. It's hard to be more committed than that.

How pathetic that a former vice president of the United States is so unpatriotic, so unAmerican, so... despicable.

Brennan calls Cheney's comments disappointing and says they do not speak well of the former vice president.

Shorter version: Hey Puny, Impotent Little Dick, you lie!

UPDATE (blog title amended to reflect update):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

White House Hanukkah Party Spawns Anger

By GottaLaff

Regarding the reaction to the ObamAdministration's first Hanukkah party: Oy, gimme a break:

One bone of contention has been the guest list: Administration officials say they are inviting 550 people, just 50 less than President Bush invited to his White House Hanukkah parties. But reports in the Israeli press spawned fast-spreading rumors that the Obama White House was only inviting 400 – and that the Bush White House had actually invited twice that number. [...]

(Clarification: Troy writes in to say that he wrote his piece in response to an article in the Jerusalem Post that said the guest list would be cut in half. "My piece was about what the implications of that decision would be," he said. "The White House has now increased the guest list, which is all to the good, but I did not start the story that they cut it in half.") [...]

Mr. Bush's White House last year sent an invitation to its Hannukah party that included a Christmas tree. Yet his administration's handling of the party is being compared favorably to the performance of Mr. Obama's administration. [...]

As for the party itself: The Times reports that it will feature a Jewish student choir, children of a soldier deployed in Iraq lighting a menorah, and the presence of the president and first lady.

And, hopefully, enough potato latkes to win over the skeptics.

Much ado, seriously. I'm Jewish and I'm not offended. Besides, there are so many more important issues to worry about. The number of guests at a party is not one of them.

Oy vey izmeir. Zol zein shah!

Dueling Obama Ft. Hood speeches: "Best ever" v. "Unemotional"

By GottaLaff

Why not just have a weekly show featuring two critics arguing, ending with thumbs up or down and call it "At the Speeches"?

Exhibit A:

Was it George W. Bush’s megaphone-amplified rallying cry on the ruins of the World Trade Center? Bill Clinton’s shared grief and call for restraint after the Oklahoma City bombing? Ronald Reagan’s wrenching tribute to the Challenger crew?

President Barack Obama’s salute to the 13 dead from a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, was largely unemotional.

Exhibit B:

President Obama's speech at Fort Hood may go down as one of his best ever.

The president was able to balance his duties as Commander in Chief while consoling a nation in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy. That he was able to do this while taking away the focus on the shooter's religion was even more impressive.

It was one of those speeches that makes you especially proud to be an American.

Marc Ambinder: "I guarantee: they'll be teaching this one in rhetoric classes. It was that good. My gloss won't do it justice. Yes, I'm having a Chris Matthews-chill-running-up-my-leg moment, but sometimes, the man, the moment and the words come together and meet the challenge. Obama had to lead a nation's grieving; he had to try and address the thorny issues of Islam and terrorism; to be firm; to express the spirit of America, using familiar, comforting tropes in a way that didn't sound trite."

Chuck Todd: "That's going to be a speech that's remembered and quoted from for quite some time; struck a balance of commander and consoler; not easy."

All in all, I'd give it 3 thumbs up. The video is already out.

VIDEO- Al Gore to Dick Cheney: 'I waited two years'

Quote of the Day

"I waited for two years after I left office to make statements that were critical, and then of policy... You talk about somebody that shouldn't be talking about making the country less safe, invading a country that did not attack us and posed no serious threat to us at all."

-- Al Gore, in an interview on CNN.

Axelrod To Bush Advisers: Butt Out

By GottaLaff

vs.

Sic 'em, Axelrod!

David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, had harsh words for some of former President Bush's closest advisers during an interview with the Post's Lois Romano yesterday, dismissing as "intramural stuff" the critiques offered by the former Administration. [...]

But, Axelrod saved his strongest condemnation for the man who held his job in the Bush White House: Karl Rove. Of Rove's criticism of Obama's economic stimulus plan, Axelrod said: "The last thing that I think we are looking for at this juncture is advice on fiscal integrity or ethics from Karl Rove -- anyone who's read the newspapers for the last eight years would laugh at that."

Rove did not return an email seeking comment. But, he did pen an op-ed today in the Wall Street Journal [...]

"Mr. Obama, for all his talents, has already re-energized the GOP and sparked a spending debate that will last for years," wrote Rove. "The president won this legislative battle, but at a high price -- fiscally and politically. " White House officials have generally been loathe to criticize the Bush administration directly -- believing that the American people want to move forward, not look backward.

But, Axelrod's comments show the disdain that he clearly holds for some within Bush's inner circle.

Axelrod's disdain is in direct proportion to the disdain that BushCo has shown the American people, the Constitution, and the ObamAdministration. In fact, IMHO, his comments were exquisite, but rather subdued.

H/t: Eve

To those who make accusations about our "blind Obama adoration"...

By GottaLaff

It goes without saying, I am a strong Obama supporter, but not an uncritical one. Here are a few areas about which President Obama and I do not agree:

• Panetta: No prosecution for CIA interrogators

• Panetta may consider some harsh methods: Panetta retracted the assertion he made Thursday that the CIA had sent prisoners to other countries to be tortured. He also clarified the Obama administration’s stance on the use of so-called “renditions,” or secret transfers of prisoners to other countries. [...] Panetta made it clear that those renditions could continue, largely unchanged from Bush-era policies.
  

• The Obama administration asks Federal Judge to stay ruling, takes position that President can bypass Congress to 'listen in' on Americans' communications

• The Bafflement that is Judd Gregg as Obama’s Commerce Secretary
  

• 42% tax cuts, 58% spending... for now [I'm in wait-and-see mode].
  

• Biden Says U.S. Will Pursue Missile Plan Russia Opposes: It was unclear on Saturday if Mr. Biden’s statements on missile defense were meant to suggest that the Obama administration had decided to continue some of the Bush administration’s tougher stands on Russia or were part of a bargaining strategy. [I'm in wait-and-see mode here, too]

• Obama's energy pick endorses nukes, clean coal [Again, wait-and-see]
  

I think President Obama is a vast improvement over you-know-who, and in many, many more ways than not, he is an excellent leader. However, he was not my first choice in the primaries for a few reasons, despite my obvious admiration for him and many of his policies. This article is what dampened my initial enthusiasm.

However, that was then, and this is now. As anyone who reads this blog knows, I stand by President Obama and think he is an extraordinary man brimming with potential, loaded with intelligence, chock full-o'-great ideas, and exactly what we need at this moment.

But that doesn't mean I applaud his every move or go along with every plan. That said, GObama... with a few reservations.

Women's groups miffed at Obama

By GottaLaff

This is what happens when you're the Decider:

Obama is taking the big-tent approach to governing and wanted a Cabinet that stretches the tent wide. [...]

It might be diverse, but not everyone is happy. Some women's groups are disappointed. Among Obama's strongest backers during the election, they now say they don't have enough seats at the table.

That's because of Obama's 20 announced Cabinet-level posts, five went to women: Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary, Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Rep. Hilda Solis as labor secretary, Susan Rice as United Nations ambassador and Lisa Jackson as Environmental Protection Agency chief. [...]

Amy Siskind, co-founder of the nonpartisan group New Agenda, accuses Obama of taking "shocking steps backward" and said "this constituency does not matter to the president-elect."

Obama has said he's picking people for their skills and not pandering to special interests.

The polls show that 3/4 of Americans think he's getting it right. Bill Clinton and President [sic] Bush each had a comparable number of women in their first Cabinets.

But it's not just women who are angry with Obama's choices. Other factions in the Democratic Party are, too.

Many gay and lesbian supporters are irate over Obama choosing Pastor Rick Warren to lead the invocation at the historic January 20 inauguration. [...]

Some progressives, meanwhile, are also disappointed that Obama has tapped moderates for key positions. [...]

Obama's team privately says wait and see. They feel it's too early to criticize his choices before they've even had a chance to be sworn in.

Today a local progressive talk show host agreed with Thom Hartmann (as noted in my post about Rev. Rick Warren): If liberal Dems aren't inclusive, then they're no better than the very people they've been at odds with over the past eight years. The GOP would have nothing to do with progressives, he went on to say, and asked why we should we become the lefty version of a group like that.