Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, September 25, 2016

WASHINGTON — You wonder if President Obama sometimes finds himself singing a variant on Kermit the Frog’s anthem about the burdens of being green: It’s not easy being Barack Obama.

This is not simply or even primarily a matter of color, although the president’s racial background has been a source of both opportunity and trial. As the first African-American in the White House, he has won an unprecedented level of support in the black community and the good will of enough white Americans to build a national majority.

Yet it’s undeniable that racism lurks beneath so many of the preposterously false charges against him — that this son of Hawaii wasn’t really born in the United States, that he is a secret Muslim who “hates America,” that he’s animated by a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview. Within the African-American community, his persistent emphasis on responsible fatherhood, a key theme of his recent commencement address at Morehouse College, is sometimes cast as a way of pandering to white prejudice by hectoring a community to which he owes a large and still unpaid political debt.

That’s just the start of it. Even more peculiar is an ongoing confusion over how he thinks and what he stands for.

Some of this is Obama’s own doing. He has been a master, as good politicians are, at presenting different sides of himself to different constituencies. In 2008, he was the man who would bring us together by overcoming the deep mistrust between red and blue America and the champion of progressive change, the liberal answer to Ronald Reagan.

Also like most successful politicians, Obama probably saw no contradiction between his two politically useful selves. Since so many of the red/blue divides are based on misunderstandings — as he said in 2004, blue-state folks worship “an awesome God” while red-staters care about their gay friends — getting past them would be easy enough. This, in turn, would open the way to a forward-looking approach to government. In 2012, he thought his re-election would “break the fever” on the right.

  • Interesting article. There is no question, judging by what has happened in the past, that the GOP is much more effective in demonizing their opponents, distorting their records, and convincing those incapable of reaching logical conclusions based on analysis of record than Democrats. In all fairness the attacks against Barack Obama are neither unprecedented nor unique, although there is no doubt that his race has added a new dimension to the determination of some to destroy a man who has achieved more in 4.5 years than most of his predecessors did in 8.
    From Carter to Clinton, every single Democratic president in recent history has been the target of vicious attacks. Many of those attacks were successful and resulted in some not being re-elected, others did not dissuade mainstream America from re-electing an incumbent president based on facts rather than the facile hyperbole used by ideologues who thrive on the naive and ignorant.

  • itsfun

    Why is it, that everyone that disagrees with Obama’s policies or his way of passing bills is automatically a racist?

    • latebloomingrandma

      I live in the north in an area where there is much overt, verbal racism. Much stereotypical opinions about black people. Some news organizations and politicians may not be racist, but they know how to feed into this narrative to those susceptible people. For the long term Republicans in Congress—McConnell, etc.,, my opinion is that the hatred of the President comes from the fact that he came out of nowhere fast. He was a state senator, then a rookie US Senator, created an unbelievable stir and inexplicably was elected. Many men lust after this position for years, how could this neophyte be the President; probably because the “unreal” Americans elected him How dare he!. They are determined to bring him down, destroy his legacy, and show the people that we made a terrible mistake. See—he was not worthy to be president.
      But—-IT’S NOT WORKING ! How exasperating for them.

      • itsfun

        I too am from the north. I am sure you are right about some people in what you say. Sadly, that is the case with both parties. Just look at the names Bush was called when he was President. The same with Carter and Clinton. We will always have that from all long term politicians. The lust for power is great. Obama was a rookie Senator, he only was there for 2 years, one of which he spent campaigning for President. I understand the lack of experience arguement. I just don’t like people playing the race card everytime they don’t agree with Obama.

        • neeceoooo

          A lot of opinions on this discussion page will admit they don’t like him because he is African American.

        • Allan Richardson

          I was one of the people who “called Bush names” but it was never based on race (he and I are the same race: white, in terms of the political dialogue; HUMAN, in the more important sense), only on his policies, the way he got into office, and the fact that he was obsessed with starting a war against the country that did NOT attack us on 9/11, using that as a battle cry that turned out to be as false, yet as effective on uninformed voters, as “Remember the Maine!” was in starting war against Spain (more modern research revealed the Maine blew up due to a defective boiler, but blaming it on a Spanish bomb was enough for the Hearst papers, the Fox of those days).

        • plc97477

          The names baby bush got called were not stupid ones like the names Obama gets. He has been called both fascist and socialist by the same person in the same speech. Obliviously unaware that they are ends of a spectrum. baby bush got called names he deserved for things he did not names that mean nothing.

          • itsfun

            name calling is name calling. Who gets to decide what names a person get called?

          • plc97477

            I someone steals your wallet to you get to yell thief as he runs off? You can tell the truth about someone with out “calling him names”. Sometimes the truth needs to be told. If you would wave good bye to the guy with your wallet then you can complain about name calling.

    • holyreality

      While opposing policies, or leadership style is not racist, opposing anything he does for no reason beyond the latest FOX meme can usually be boiled down to that black guy in the White House.

    • Allan Richardson

      Could it be that some of those people who disagree with his “policies” once promoted the SAME policies, but now that it is HIS idea and not just THEIRS, they are not only in disagreement, but they demonize him AND everyone who agrees with him? Could it be that these people disagreed POLITELY with previous Democrats, and were willing to make deals for the GOOD of the country, but they would rather LET AMERICA “BURN” than work with this man?

      Could it be the coded racial talk such as “Obozo”, “Sambo”, “Muslim Kenyan”, “anti-colonialist”? And as for the last, the United States WAS a colony of Great Britain, and fought against their colonial empire; shouldn’t an AMERICAN be, by DEFINITION, an anti-colonialist? Or is it the race thing again: that WHITE residents of a colony SHOULD be independent (and, by the way, free to keep their slaves after the empire freed all of its slaves in 1836)? But NON-WHITE residents of a colony should REMAIN colonists and not complain about it?

      And not everyone who disagrees with President Obama is a racist; the LIBERALS who disagree with his APPEASEMENT of the right wing are not racists, and we have no desire to call him racist names; only some of the conservatives (or PSEUDO conservatives) who refer to him NOT as a President who happens to be black, but as a N_ who is President, but not legitimately, because he is black, are racists.

      Search your soul; which are you?

      • itsfun

        I have never called the President any names, either privately or publicly I think he is the American dream. He came from being raised by a single mother and grandparents. He had almost nothing as a child and has worked and earned everything he has and is. I just think he is a terrible President. He goes to foreign countries and apologizes for my country being great. He seems to blame the US for many of the world problems. He has one of most flawed administrations ever. Sometimes I think he doesn’t know the difference between the truth and lies. He bribes Congress to get his own way. He talks compromise, but he is a my way or the highway guy. He allows Americans to be killed and then blames amateur films on Utube. He allows a Attorney General to tap the phone lines of reporters and threaten reporters and then has the same Attorney General investigate himself. That is a joke. He says he knows nothing about the scandals around him. The bottom line is he is the boss and it is his responsibility to know these things and stop them. I think he would be a fine guy to sit in a sports bar with and talk sports. Because I or many like me think he is a miserable President, does not make us bigots.

        • Allan Richardson

          I respect the fact that you, at least (but not some of the other anti-Obama people) are not motivated by race, and do give him (grudging?) credit for being a self-made man. But you may have (if you watch Faux Newz a log, you certainly have) heard biased opinions about this President. Remember, the Republicans declared their goal to destroy him BEFORE he even got started. It is not true that he apologizes for America being great and free; he HAS, on certain occasions, apologized for some of the things America has DONE, and indicated that he does not plan to treat all other countries as inferior to ours, as a certain other President did just before him. If we Americans ARE ladies and gentlemen, this is appropriate, because a gentleman DOES apologize for doing something wrong.

          You say he “bribes” Congress to get his own way, but that is exactly how bills have ALWAYS been passed in this country; but when others have done it, we called it “compromise” before that somehow became a dirty word. He talks compromise, too often in my opinion, because the other side is SO fanatical that compromise almost always means that our side gives up EVERYTHING and their side gives up NOTHING. It is as frustrating as trying to bargain with the USSR during the Cold War. He has gotten tougher lately because, in case you didn’t notice, he was re-elected by a 5 point majority, and that majority WANTS him to get something done even if the obstructionists in Congress want to stop him.

          You said he “allows” Americans to be killed; The previous administration had DOZENS of attacks on our embassies abroad, some involving deaths, but who blamed Bush for even one of those? The fact is that, just as you cannot fight a war without some casualties, you cannot post diplomats in countries with certain groups of extremists without running the risk. He did not blame the attack on an amateur film AFTER hearing the full story; the people on the site, being unaware of any planned attack, but knowing that violent riots in OTHER Arab countries WERE provoked by the film, started out with that as a working hypothesis. Actually, I believe he should not have said ANYTHING about the reason for the attack, since the CIA had a classified spying post near the consulate, but that was not supposed to become public knowledge. You don’t say on TV how much you know about an enemy, and sometimes you have to “let” an event happen to protect your other secrets. (An incident in wartime illustrates this: Great Britain had cracked the German code and had decoded a message that the city of Coventry, with a great cathedral, was to be bombed, but Churchill decided that sending fighters to protect it would tip off Germany that their code was cracked, so they “let” the Luftwaffe bomb Coventry).

          In case you were not aware, the FBI has been doing surveillance on people since it was founded in the 1920’s, and not always on orders from the AG (often it was ON the AG, or the President, or members of Congress, on orders of J. Edgar Hoover, to feed his blackmail files). In this case, it was NOT tapping the phones; it was recording the NUMBERS of the people who called the reporters, and those the reporters called (this used to be called “pen recording” because of the mechanical device that was once used to record numbers dialed with the old rotary switches).

          I voted for him twice because I have been convinced by facts that his policies (to the extent that he has not been blocked in implementing them) are for the good of the vast majority and are intended to spread freedom to more people. This would include spreading freedom from financial fear as a result of getting sick to most of the 30 million Americans who were uninsured at the start of his first term. It would also include wanting to stop banks from defrauding consumers and the public, then getting big bailouts. It would also include wanting to make birth control (and the regular relationship with a doctor that accompanies it) available to poor and working poor women, which SHOULD make their husbands happier not to lose them to serious diseases and not to struggle with too large a family.

          The only thing his opponents seem to favor is NO. As in, NO medical insurance for people whose employers do not want them to have it; NO increases in the minimum wage; NO to reasonable tax increases for the very wealthy (which is NOT “punishing productivity” but only paying for the infrastructure that helps compnies to be productive); NO protection of the environment from pollution (never mind global warming; just the fumes from fossil fuels and the fact that we will one day run out of them); NO protection of workers from having jobs sent overseas, and many other NO positions. If we had Republicans like the ones before Reagan, the President could deal with them and find common goals (like helping the COUNTRY, not just helping THEMSELVES); I might have even VOTED for some of them. But we no longer have two POLITICAL parties, we have one political (i.e. willing to make a deal) and one IDEOLOGICAL party (i.e. even knowing the choice is between NOTHING and HALF of what they want, insist on NOTHING in hopes of wearing down the rest of us and getting EVERYTHING).

          Check on the “facts” from Faux Newz and you may find more to like in President Obama than you thought!

        • charleo1

          Liberals, or Progressives, do not always play the race card.
          We disagree with Obama, because we want him to be more,
          my way, or the hwy. Constantly, he is asking, no pleading for bipartisanship. Consistently, he has incorporated GOP amendments in the final version of a bill. Usually, weakening the bill, and usually getting the same zero votes from the GOP. And this is important. From our side of the isle, we see one Party working the problems. And, a GOP that apparently thinks it has only one problem. And no obligation to work on
          anything else. And so, they spend 100% of their time, and energy, deciding what would be the best way, politically speaking, to oppose, Obama’s latest effort to try to solve some of these problems. Like put more people back to work. Come up with plan to reduce the deficit. Do something to keep Wall Street from wrecking the economy again. Address our healthcare crisis. Where rising costs are bankrupting business, and driving public debt. With perhaps, 50 million of us, without a dime’s worth of insurance. Accessing the most expensive system in the world, in the most expensive way possible. Not our problem, says the GOP, then in the next breath, complain the debt is out of control. And act like they
          have no idea how it got that way. Obama’s President. It must
          be his debt. But, the economy is one thing. But there are just a pile of lies, more lies, and damned lies, that continue to circulate. Like, his supposed apology tour. There is nothing in the Cairo speech that apologizes for anything. It’s available on line. Obama never says, we’re sorry, or please forgive us,
          or the Iraq war, that set relations back 40 years, was our
          fault, and we’d sure be pleased if you see your way clear,
          to give us another chance. It’s not there! Well, you claim
          he has one of the most flawed administrations ever. Really?
          Are you new to the Country? Did you witness the administration directly preceding the one you say, is the
          worst ever? This is where we don’t always play the race card. But, claims that President Obama always blames
          America. Or, he bribes Congress to get his way. With what
          does he bribe them? Rides on Air Force One? He allowed
          four people to be killed. I don’t see why they don’t say he
          killed the Ambassador himself. Because he hates America, and is really a Muslim, All that shit, is pure garbage. And it’s
          gotta come from somewhere.

          • itsfun

            Lets see more of my way or the highway. So you don’t believe in the 3 branches of government. You just want the President to be able to do whatever he wants. I believe that is called a dictatorship. Obama trying to lower the deficit. He has made it about 17 trillion now. He doesn’t have a clue. Energy cost; he vetoes a pipeline that could save citizens hundreds of dollars. Healthcare is a great idea, but not the way it is written now. It is turning out to be another large tax. With my company my deductible for a year now is $300. With the wonderful plan coming in, my deductible is predicted to become $6000. My co-pay is expected to go up 40%. That doesn’t help me, it just takes money out of my pocket. I am not one of the 2% everyone complains about. My salary is just average. I don’t know if you saw it or not, but a high ranking Social Security executive just took the 5th in front of Congress. The WH so far has given 5 different time frames for what happened in Benghazi. The Justice department threatens to jail a reporter for doing his job. No threats or trying to intimidate the press here. No violations of the 1st amendment here. Fast and furious??? Like I said before I believe he is a good guy and would enjoy going to a sports bar with him and drink a couple of beers and talk sports. I just believe he is a miserable leader. He hired his local cronies to run the government, instead of hiring pros. That’s the same mistake Carter made. We will never agree on this, you think he is a great president and I think he is terrible. I guess that’s the American way and we are lucky we can post things like this.

          • dancerboots

            The amazing thing about President Obama…he remembers his promises and tries to keep them. Deficit and debt are two different things. Deficit is the lack of money to pay the bills. He started off with a $1.2 trillion deficit and promised to half it. He did that!. In fact more than any President in history as they all added to the deficit except Clinton. Also decreased our interest debt almost in half..This is a BIG deal!!!
            The first black President…the First president that was able to pass healthcare reform since LBJ…the First president to ask for less war powers as he addressed our nation a few days ago and ask Congress to declare the war on terror over and close GITMO and bring the detainees to the U.S and give him the funds to transfer the over sixty detainees already declared innocent. Congress said NO!
            And if your deductible increased and your co-pays..why do you blame Obamacare?..This is just the private health insurance companies attempt to gouge the public before the AHCA is enacted in 2014 to prevent such things.
            Fast & Furious..we should be furious as ISSA used the Congressional hearings to go after Eric Holder KNOWING FULL WELL Congress had the answer to the problem of guns flowing into Mexico..pass a law that prevents the sell of multiple semi-automatics in one purchase transaction and close the loophole in gun shows that allows unimpeded purchase of these weapons by anyone.

          • labrown69

            Nice healthcare reform by the way. Too bad the insurance company lobbyists wrote it. Maybe you should try looking at this sh*t without your “rose colored glasses”?

            Obama was on record as opposing gay marriage until the polls changed. This guy is an opportunist and nothing more.

            Obama has prosecuted more whistle blowers than law-and-order Republicans
            John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.

            2008 – Direct quote; “To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in
            ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We
            will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in
            far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can
            and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network
            of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will
            respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven
            century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own
            detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court.” – Barak Obama

            2012 – All discussion of this topic stops. Obama administration
            maintains the use of indefinite detention and makes use of proxy
            detention and rendition and the report by Eric Holder states it as
            official policy.

            Regarding Warrantless Surveillance/Patriot Act:

            2008 – Obama rhetoric constantly reaffirms his support of constitutional
            protections and judicial oversight on any and all surveillance programs
            involving Americans. He rejected and condemned warrantless wiretapping
            under Bush and Obama rejected the use of national security letters to
            spy on citizens who are not suspected of crimes. He rejected the
            tracking of citizens purely because they oppose a current policy.

            2012 – the platform is initially silent on the issue, but then failed to
            reform the PATRIOT act when they had a majority in both house of
            congress. Since that time we have the signing of the NDAA.

            Regarding Racial Profiling –

            2008 – Flatly rejected.

            2012 – retains the FBI’s Bush-era guidelines.

            Regarding Gitmo

            2008 – We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo bay.

            2012 – Um. Yea we’re gonna keep it open and continue using it.

            The NDAA is nothing more than a defacto repeal of the entire Constitution and a declaration of martial law into perpetuity.

          • dancerboots

            The NDAA is an appropriation of funds bill for the Department of Defense. In the bill is the Detainee Matters Title X. It states that all U.S. citizens are excluded from being detained under military law (an amendment introduced by Sen. Feinstein and accepted/approved). Senators Graham and McCain wanted the military to police our streets for terrorists and to declare the U.S a battlefield. This would-if approved-allow military law to be used for persons caught in the act of hostility carried out on U.S. soil instead of charging them with a criminal act and arrested with the protection of the Constitutions writ of habeas corpus and other rights.You can access the archives of the Senate floor sessions as they (McCain and Graham) debated on the detainee matters on this bill and Breitbart contributed their words to the President. The President threatened to veto the bill as it is against the posse comitatus act…the military cannot police our streets/also for the ambiguous language in the bill (on Detainee Matters). This attachment to the NDAA was referring to one group..Al Qaeda. It was passed with a large majority bi-partisan vote in both the House and Senate (and is passed every year) The bill specifically states no funds can be used for the closure of Gitmo or transfer of its prisoners…even though funds were allotted for this use under Bush and over 500 detainees transferred to other countries to be tried and/or jailed). The NDAA was veto proof. The President could have vetoed it and held up funds to the department of defense for a few months (as the bill was introduced and voted on). He did the right thing signing it knowing full well it may cost him the presidency. The far right wing presented it as an indefinite detention to be used on U.S. citizens..there is no such wording in the bill and the indefinite detention is under military law..created for conventional wars as an enemy combatant was captured during battle, held in a POW camp without trial and held until the war was declared over and released. The war on terror has not been declared over. President Obama ask for Congress to pass this piece of legislation a few weeks ago and fund the closure of Gitmo and the funding to transfer those detainees already found innocent out of the prison. He also ask that Congress repeal the AUMF..the Authorization For The Use of Military Force passed a week after 9/11/2001 that gave the presidency unlimited power to go after Al Qaeda. Evidently, many in Congress (that passed this act and Bush signed) were fine with giving the presidency unlimited war powers until Obama and now use it against him for the act they passed and he uses to rid us of terrorist on foreign soils.

          • labrown69

            And you believe this? While the LAPD and the Army have having joint maneuvers with Black Hawk helicopters over Los Angeles? I am supposed to be impressed because it has “bi partisan support” from a congress who is bought and paid for and because Diane Feistein was convinced? How about “the slip comes with the sail boat”?

        • Pelu Maad

          The fact that you list all that crap as a case against Obama makes you a bigot. The president doesn’t allow the AG to tap phones….a court does. There are no “scandals”….only controversies ginned up by the bigots at FOX under head racist in charge, Roger Ailes. Your conviction of America’s greatness is standard for white supremacists…..I could go on, but you probably wouldn’t get it anyway…

          • itsfun

            Holder went judge shopping to get a judge to sign. He had to go to 3 judges. Then he says he knows nothing about it. You must believe that Holder never talks to Obama. Holder himself said the leak is the 3 most serious one he has seen in his career of 37 years. You really believe Holder wouldn’t tell the President of the 3rd most serious security leak of his career? You believe the President knew nothing of the IRS singling out conservative groups? The IRS is part of the executive branch of our government. The President is the executive branch. So if the President knows nothing about what is going on in the executive branch of government, who is running the show. This shows either complete incompetence on the part of the President, or he knew what was going on. You can call me all the names you want, it won’t change the facts that are coming out.

          • Pelu Maad

            Remember the “facts” on Fast and Furious….???? How’d that work out for your bigot cult? Are you really proud of Darrell Issa…..Is he your idea of a patriot?

          • itsfun

            Is all you can do is call people vile names?

          • Pelu Maad

            Depends on the type person. I have no respect for “conservative” rhetoric repeating bigot trash…..

          • plc97477

            I am sorry but we do get tired of trying to talk to people only to have them hit us with more lies. The so called scandals have not shown there is anything there. I doubt they will but we will see.

          • itsfun

            Thank you: I have never lied on any of my posts. I do post my opinions that I believe to be true. The “scandals” do worry me because of what it can do to my country. I do believe that Eric Holder lied to congress on his role in getting the reporters information. I also feel if he did do this, he should resign. I worry about the IRS problem also. The IRS comes under the executive branch of our government. The President is the one responsible for the executive branch of our government. I feel he should have a better handle on what is going on with the agencies that directly report to him. I think he needs to fire the top executives of the IRS. I don’t think these are the kinds of actions that can be forgiven or just transfer the people to other agencies. I think the President must make getting to the bottom of these things a priority. We must get our own affairs in order before anything else. The whole world is watching this. if they see a chance of coverup in any way, it is bad for the future of my country when dealing other countries.

      • Pelu Maad

        “Obamacare” was a heritage Foundation-Mitt Romney idea….

        • labrown69

          There were dramatic differences so to state that without the proper qualification is dishonest

          • Pelu Maad

            LOL…..seriously…can we just ignore each other now?

          • plc97477

            Good luck I hope that works for you.

    • Pelu Maad

      Mostly because racists are too cowardly to “come out”…..they hide behind whining and accusing anyone who brings up the subject of being the racist? Or….it could be completely innocent…..people who object to EVERYTHING Obama does may not realize they’re racist? Surely you’ll agree that most opposition to Obama is race based….?

    • plc97477

      Where do you get this automatically a racist from? They are not automatically a racist just a lot of them seem to be.

      • itsfun

        I get a lot of it from this forum. Every time I post something I don’t like that Obama does, I get called a bigot, racist, troll, etc. I’ve said many times, I think he is a good guy. A good father and family man. He would be a good guy to go to a sports bar with and have a couple of beers and watch sports. I just think he is a terrible President. I also am very disappointed with his staff, and have no trust in people like Holder.

  • labrown69

    I voted for him twice. I can tell you how “in an era of hyper-partisanship he avoids traditional labels” …. he does it by being wishy-washy on issues, betraying those who voted for him and by being a Wolf in Sheep’s clothing. Thus while he throws woman bones on “reproductive choice” and throws the LGBT community bones on equality, he provides a smoke screen behind which the banks can continue stealing the homes of hard working Americans and Wall Street can continue stealing America’s wealth and it’s future faster than any country or economy can produce. He is a sociopath and lies without a conscience.

    • latebloomingrandma

      Your last sentence—n0—-I think you described Cheney.

      • ChristoD

        Cheney has gone from being a respectable SecDef under Bush I to a hyper NeoCon under Bush II. He is also a first class narcissist who is so into himself that he doesn’t recognize that all but 10% of the US voting population wants him to vanish from public life. He is like a green fly in summer. A nasty pest that that needs to be vanquished via a slap of America’s hand.

        • BDC_57

          Cheney is evil

          • Pelu Maad

            Let’s just be glad Cheney has ZERO charisma…..

      • holyreality

        ANY politician reaching the upper levels of public office must pass the smell test. If you don’t stink, you are then too honest to play by the rules of those who pull the POTUS puppet strings.

        • That reminds me of Jimmy Carter, a man with such strong religious values, including unequivocal commitment to help others, that he was incapable to doing the nasty things that must be done to succeed and survive in the world we live in.

          • holyreality

            While he was one of my favorite ex prez’ I hesitate to beatify him.

            He was negotiating with Iran, arms for hostages. If he had brought them home, Reagan was toast.

            Only it was Reagan’s boys who bribed the Ayatollahs with a better deal who held them until Ronnie the Raygun was inaugurated.

            This bit of ignored history bolsters the Reagan mystique if not his brand, but it certainly put Carter in the ranks of the biggest loser. Look up the word failure on any GOP website, and Jimmy’s face stares back.

          • labrown69

            Carter was the epitome of ineptitude. Canceling and politicizing the Olympic Games to punish the Russians for doing exactly what we are doing now in Afghanistan was beyond stupid. Here is a guy who bristles at the sound of “one tiny Jewish state” and has the obscene temerity to use the inflammatory term “apartheid” but never makes mention that this tiny Jewish state is surrounded by hostile barbarians with countries that won’t even allow a Jew a passport to visit and does not bat an eyelash when some murderer in a Kafya calls the entire Middle East, Muslim land. Carter belongs in a nursing home.

          • Pelu Maad

            Are you eagerly awaiting the resurrection of David Duke?

          • labrown69

            David Duke? I thought David Duke hated Jews. Are you an idiot? I suggest you wear a bib so you don’t drool on yourself.

          • Pelu Maad

            My bad….I never encountered a Jewish redneck before. What was that Jewish Defense League psycho’s name…????

          • labrown69

            Only Jewish psychos don’t approve of radical Islamists who blow up buildings and cut the heads off of journalists? Ya learn something new every day. Most Jews are not radical and merely want equality……………………………………………for EVERYONE!

          • Pelu Maad

            My 4th great grandfather was the first hazzan of congregation Beth Shalome in revolutionary era Richmond, VA….Isaac Hillel Judah. I agree pretty much with Gush Shalom and Uri Avnery when it comes to Israel today…..Netanyahoo and the Israeli right are extremely radical….the successors to the apartheid Afrikaaners…..

          • labrown69

            I am not an observant Jew. I am only Jewish by birth however nothing Israel has done or is doing justifies their genocide and Israel is surrounded by hostile nations who won’t even give a Jew a passport to visit and who have made the so called Palestinians pawns despite not wanting them in their own countries and in some instances having expelled them. If the Arabs had wanted peace they could have had it any time in the last 40 years. That is not what they want and it has never been what they want. Terms like apartheid and Afrikaner are gross hyperbole. Enough of this foolishness. You are an antisemite straight up.

          • Pelu Maad

            “so called Palestinians”….and you wonder why most of the world agrees “Zionism is racism”….???? Taking their land isn’t enough….you have to take their humanity too? I see almost NO difference between Israel and apartheid South Africa.
            Oh yeah…I forgot to mention…ole Isaac owned my 4th great grandmother….the mulatto Lettie…….

          • labrown69

            What OTHER former European colonies would you like to restore Adolph? Rhodesia? Maybe the Belgian Congo? Oh I see, the only former colony you wish to restore to it’s previous owner is Israel. LMAO Go play your Ukelele asshole!

            The whole idea of a Palestinian nation and a Palestinian people is an invention of Arab propaganda. Arafat was himself an Egyptian. The only people tohave lived continuously on the land “from time immemorial” are Jews.

            So many others have conquered, ruled, thrived and ultimately perished there that the list would take hundreds of pages. A mere sample would include:Byzantines, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Kurds, Abbassids (Iraqis),
            Egyptians, Kharezmians (Genghis Khan), Mamluks, Mongols, Latins (Crusaders),Ottomans, French and English.

            It is not and never was “Palestinian land.”

          • labrown69

            The Palestinians want their own country. There’s
            just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It’s a made up word.
            Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like “Wiccan,”
            “Palestinian” sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before
            the Israelis won the land in war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, and there were no
            “Palestinians” then, and the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there
            were no “Palestinians” then. As soon as the Jews took over and
            started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to
            the “Palestinians,” weeping for their deep bond with their lost
            “land” and “nation.” So for the sake of honesty, let’s not
            use the word “Palestinian” any more to describe these delightful
            folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they’re being
            taped. Instead, let’s call them what they are: “Other Arabs From The Same
            General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish
            Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of
            Eternal Struggle And Death.” I know that’s a bit unwieldy to expect to see
            on CNN. How about this, then: “Adjacent Jew-Haters.”

            Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own
            country. Oops, just one more thing. No, they don’t. They could’ve had their own
            country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp
            David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and
            garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to
            figure out some way to make a living. That’s no fun. No, they want what all the
            other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead
            Jews, of course–that’s where the real fun is–but mostly they want Israel.
            Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel–or “The Zionist Entity”
            as their textbooks call it–for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of
            Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact
            that they’re the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on
            God’s Earth, and if you’ve ever been around God’s Earth, you know that’s really
            saying something.

          • Pelu Maad

            Netanyahu graduated from high school in Philadelphia….”previous owners” my ass…..racist imperialists in the traditional mode.

    • ChristoD

      My guess is that you voted for him zero times. NADA, ZILCH. In fact, you are nothing less than a fraud for being so obvious in your attempt at denigrating a VERY intelligent and competent President who will be judged as exceptional by historians. Your description of him is 180 degrees off the mark. He is a centrist of the first order and has DEMOSTRATED this by NOT forcing his beliefs on us because frankly, he can’t. He understands very well what he would LOVE to get done but can’t because of the fanatics that are the Republican party and is therefore INTELLIGENT enough to settle for a COMPROMISED law or position. The ‘hyper’ label should be reserved strictly for the right while ‘defending the status quo’ should be reserved for the left. Your description of him being a sociopath is laughable coming from someone who would vote for him ONCE let alone TWICE. Take off your sheep’s clothing and next time don’t be so disingenuous and be a MAN and admit what you REALLY are.

      • labrown69

        Christo – you are not a constituent but rather an ass kissing sycophant in a fan club. Most of all you are dead wrong both about me and the president. Even the Reagan administration indicted 1200 bankers after a much lesser scandal. Obama and Holder have indicted none and five years into this lawless narcissists term, they might as well have given Lloyd Blankfein the Congressional Medal of Honor. The financial services industry is our defacto government.

        • labrown69

          PS: This site attracts the lowest common denominator of the far left. Those so naive that they simply can’t believe that anyone could vote for the lessor or two evils and still criticize the same person they voted for. You are putty!

          • Pelu Maad

            There is NO “far left” in this country….and not much “left” at all….once you turn off FOX and AM radio….

          • labrown69

            What would morons like you do if there was no Fox? Just think … you would have to become informed about what the heroes you worship were actually doing and not doing.

          • Pelu Maad

            The heroes I’m currently worshipping were Hawaiian guitar players in the 20s and 30s…..What would a moron like you do without programmed idiot talking points? Can we let it go now?

          • labrown69

            Yes! And good choice of music by the way.

        • ChristoD

          Ass kissing sycophant, eh ? Lawless narcissist ? Thanks for saving so many folks from whatever you are saving them from. Scum bag ? Naïve moron like me ? Nothing to do with the Republicans ? Refused to lift a finger while millions of folks sleep with children in their automobiles ? Useful fool like me ? Man you are some type of ass—- labrown69 and speaking of narcissists look in the damn mirror Mr Homesaver….my ass.

          • labrown69

            Lets cut to the chase. You did not believe I voted for Obama twice because you are so busy focusing on the other guy being worse that you have lost sight of the quality of your own representation. Your comments toward my comments demonstrate one thing beyond a doubt and that is that you are oblivious to how your government works and/or what your own candidates are and are not doing. Republicans can obstruct many things but they do not obstruct Holder’s DOJ from bringing suits against bankers or forcing banks to either modify loans as they promised to do in exchange for being saved from bankruptcy or more to the point, obeying existing law which would have prohibited most foreclosures entirely and kept millions of Americans in their homes rather than falling prey to the very crisis the banks themselves manufactured. I am a professional in this field and I know what I am talking about. I have helped many people fight the banks and win and I have done if for free.

          • dancerboots

            It was the Republicans in Congress that have watered down the Dodd/Frank regulations that would hold these banks accountable..The Stock Act passed last year to prevent insider trading for Congressional members..watered down .by the corrupt Republican politicians. The same Republican party that repealed the Glass Steagall Act, while in power/had the majority under the Clinton Administration. The same Party that passed legislation to eliminate regulations for the Savings and Loan industry that was used by the corrupted power hungry money managers. Republicans removed the regulations that prevented commercial banks from invested their customers money in risky investment adventures that brought down the savings and loan industry. The same regulations that Reagan favored. It wasn’t that the Obama Administration didn’t try to bring criminal charges against some of these bank officials…it was the jurors that found them innocent…check it out. When bringing a person up for charges in a criminal case,,the evidence must be beyond a reasonable doubt (as if the big wig bank officials had no clue how to cover their butts). Bringing them up for charges under civil law was more effective as only a preponderance of evidence was needed..they would not face jail time but be fined instead.

          • labrown69

            Sorry Dancer – it was Bill Clinton who enthusiastically signed the Phil Gramm legislation to repeal Glass Steagall with the strong support of none other than Chuck Shumer and many other hard left Dems so lets not revise history. It was also Clinton again who a year later in 2000 allowed derivatives and default swaps to bypass all government oversight and be sold over the counter outside the purview of the SEC or the CFTC. As for your equivocating rationalizations about “why the Obama administration has failed to bring charges” you are without a clue. All one must do in order to know beyond a shadow of doubt that forgery and perjury was committed is watch 60 Minutes.

            It is PRECISELY BECAUSE BLINDLY RABID PARTISANS LIKE YOU MAKE EXCUSES THAT THESE CROOKS continue to have a field day picking the American pocket despite breaking law. It is easy to proove beyond any standard that laws were broken. Major felonies that you or I would do hard time for. Even Bush prosecuted Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skiling. Obama has not taken his thumb out of his ass long enough to even consider it and by the way, the Dems have also been complicit in gutting Dodd Frank. I was very disappointed to see that after defending Barney Frank throughout 8 years of Bush administration that when he finally had all three houses of government, Frank had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the most minimal reforms that bear his damn name. He is corrupt and so is Dodd.

            BofA settled a civil claim that it had lied when they
            “sold” mortgages advertised as meeting government standards.We all know by now that the loans “lacked documentation and underwriting.” But what is still to come out is WHY they lacked documentation and WHY the loans lacked underwriting.

            The documentation was absent simply to hide the fact
            that the bank was pretending to have ownership or an
            insurable interest in the loans and mortgage bonds. The true
            transaction was between the investor/lenders and the
            homeowner/borrowers. BofA stole or misused the identities of
            both the lender and the borrowers so that it could sell the
            loans many times under guise of exotic derivative
            instruments called mortgage backed bonds.

            If fully documented, the lender would have shown up as
            the investors, which is as it should have been. BofA never
            put up a dime for the funding or acquisition of any of the
            loans. Its claim of ownership and an insurable interest was
            a blatant lie, inasmuch as they actually had no risk of
            loss, which is why there was no underwriting standards
            applied either.

            I would suggest you track the pleadings of this U.S.
            Attorney and pick up some pointers along the way. He is
            definitely on the right track. As for now, the focus is on
            the bad mortgage bonds, bad loans, and lack of documentation up at the lender level. Once that veil is penetrated it will be revealed that the borrower was defrauded using the same misdirected
            documentation using appraisal fraud as the principal
            leverage point.

            But the real stuff is going to hit the fan as more and
            more people realize that this standard practice in the
            industry allegedly to “protect” the investors, invalidated
            the chain of title and there has been no effort to correct
            the problem. When it is revealed that the investors were
            cheated out of their money by a use of proceeds that crosses the borders of fraud, and that the terms of the bonds werenever intended to be satisfied, just as the terms of the
            loan were never meant to be satisfied or secured, then we
            will have justice peeking its head out over the mess.

            In the end, legally, there will be privity or a
            relationship only between the investor/lenders and the
            borrowers and that there transaction was supposed to be
            documented and recorded. Instead the banks documented and
            recorded a different transaction in which the intermediaries
            looked like the principals and were therefore able to do
            “proprietary trading” in which they took investor money from
            one pocket and put it into another.

            That is what opened the door to huge “profits”
            (actually theft proceeds) on the way up and on the way down.
            These banks are now buying the same houses from themselves (using another affiliate entity) and then reporting theresults to the investors so they can write off the loss.
            They are going to be the largest landowners in history as a
            result of this PONZI scheme.

            The investors were duped into thinking that all the
            intermediary entities were being used to protect them from
            liability from claims of deceptive and predatory lending
            practices. In actuality the investors were already protected
            because their agents committed intentional acts of
            malfeasance and crimes that were specifically prohibited in
            the documents and other representations the investors
            received.

            Just like the Too Big to Fail Myth, the investors are
            operating under the myth that if they assert themselves as
            lenders, they are going to get sued. That too is untrue. If
            they assert themselves as lenders, then they are going to
            show proof of payment, something the megabanks can’t do
            because they used investor money instead of their own.

            If the investors assert themselves as lenders they
            will see that money is missing from the investment pools and
            that in fact the investment pools were never funded at all.
            They will realize that they have a legitimate claim for
            repayment of loans, and a legitimate claim for civil or
            criminal theft against the banks who intentionally diverted
            the documentation and the money from the investors and fromthe borrowers.

            That will leave the investors and borrowers with (1)
            an obligation that is mostly undocumented and (2) unsecured.

            But the borrowers are more than happy to allow a mortgage if
            it reflects fair market value. This is what will give the
            investors far more than the current process in which the
            banks have a stranglehold on the mortgage modification
            process (for mortgages that are invalid from the start).

            If you pierce through the veil of PR and utter
            nonsense flowing out of the banks and their planted articles
            in every periodical around the country, you will find your
            lender and you will find out the balance due because both of
            you (homeowner and investor) are going to want to know what happened to all the insurance money, credit default swaps and Federal bailouts that were promised, paid, but not
            delivered.

            Because the mega banks were mere intermediaries
            pretending to be lenders the entire current scenario is
            going to turn upside down. Ultimately, the insurance, CDS
            and bailouts were in fact bailouts of the homeowners and
            investors. When they are applied correctly according to
            common sense and the contracts that were executed,
            practically none of the mortgages will have the balance
            demanded by the intermediary banks who claim but do not own the mortgages or rights to foreclose. Thus practically no
            foreclosure was correct by any standard, no credit bid was
            valid at auction, and no eviction was legal.

            As these facts are revealed and accepted by a critical
            mass of people, the Too Big to Fail Myth will be put to the
            test. The nonexistent assets on their balance sheets will be
            reduced to zero. What will really happen is simply that the
            mega banks will collapse inward and the thousands of other
            banks that are unfairly under the thumb of the bank
            oligarchy will be able to pick up the pieces that are left
            and return to normal banking, with normal profits and normal
            bonuses.

            Allowing the mega bank to retain the money they stole
            is like throwing a steak to a dog. Now that they have a
            taste of unlawful profits driving their profitability
            upward, they will only want more. Our job is to make sure
            they don’t get it. The Obama administration was surprised by
            the quick recovery by the banks. The truth, as it will be
            revealed in the coming months and years, is that there was
            no bank recovery because there were no bank losses. THAT is why the banks grew while the rest of the economy tanked.

            Theoretically it is impossible for the bank profits to
            go up while the stock market and the economy is going down
            the drain. Their profits are supposed to come from being
            intermediaries in commerce, not principals.

          • labrown69

            Despite the pronouncements by (scum bag–>)
            Eric Holder, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States,
            and the obvious reticence of the Securities
            and Exchange Commission, the vast majority of securities attorneys
            believe that the banks were (a) trading on inside information and (b)
            committing securities fraud when they funded and then traded on
            mortgages that were too toxic to ever succeed.
            The first, trading on
            inside information, is regularly prosecuted by the justice department
            and the SEC. It is why Martha Stewart went to jail in rather flimsy
            evidence.

            If Wall Street had in fact followed the plan of securitization set
            forth in their prospectuses and pooling and servicing agreements,
            assignment and assumption agreements and various other instruments that
            were created to build the infrastructure of securitization of debt —
            including but not limited to mortgages, credit cards, auto loans,
            student loans etc. — then Wall Street would be right and the justice
            department and the SEC might be stuck in the mud created by the 1998
            law. But that isn’t what happened and therefore the premise behind the
            apparent immunity of Wall Street Banks and bankers is actually an
            illusion.

            Starting with the issuance of the mortgage bonds, most of them were
            issued before any mortgage was originated or acquired by anyone. In
            fact, the list attached to the prospectus for the mortgage bonds said so
            — stating that the spreadsheet or list attached was by example only,
            that these mortgages do not exist but would be soon be replaced with
            real mortgages acquired pursuant to the enabling documents for the
            creation of the REMIC “trust.” But that is not what happened either.

            In no way did the Banks follow the terms of the prospectus, PSA,
            assignment and assumption agreements or anything else. Instead what they
            really did was create the illusion of a securitization scheme that
            covered up the reality of a PONZI scheme, the hallmark of which is that
            it collapses when investors stop buying the bogus securities and more
            investors want their money out than those wishing to put money into the
            scheme. There was no reason for the entire system to collapse other than
            the fact that Wall Street planned and bet on the collapse, thus making
            money coming and going and draining the lifeblood of capital worldwide
            out of economies and marketplaces that depended upon the continued flow
            of capital.

            The creation of the REMIC “trust” was a sham. It was never
            formalized, never funded and never acquired any mortgages. hence any
            “exempt” securities issued by it were not the kind intended by the Act
            signed into law in 1998. It was not a mortgage-backed security, or
            credit backed security, it was an illusion designed to defraud anyone
            who invested in them. The purpose of issuing the mortgage bonds was not
            to fund and acquire mortgages but rather to steal as much money out of
            the flow as possible while covering their tracks with some of the money
            ending up on the closing table for newly originated or previously
            originated bundles of mortgages that were to be acquired. That isn’t
            what happened either.

            Wall Street bankers put the money from investors into their own
            private piggy bank and then funded and acquired mortgages with only part
            of the money while they made false “proprietary trades” in the
            “mortgage bonds” that made it look like they were trading geniuses
            making money hand over fist while the rest of the world saw their wealth
            decline by as much as 60%-70%. The funding for debt came not from the
            unfunded REMIC “trusts” but from the investment banker who was merely an
            intermediary depository institution which unlawfully was playing with
            investor money. The actual instruments upon which Wall Street relies to
            justify its actions is the prospectus, the PSA, and the Master Servicing
            agreement — each of which was used to sell the investors on letting go
            of their money in exchange for the promises and conditions contained in
            the exotic agreements containing numerous conflicting clauses.

            Thus the conclusion is that since the mortgage bonds were issued by
            an unfunded and probably nonexistent entity, the investors had “bought”
            an interest in an incoherent series of agreements that together
            constituted a security or, in the alternative, that there was no
            security and the investors were simply duped into parting with their
            money which is fraud, pure and simple.

          • dancerboots

            http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-1999/s105

            Fifty four Republican Senators voted for its repeal (for the Graham(R)Leach(R)Bliley(R) Act) and forty four Democrats voted against it. One Democrat Senator voted in favor.

            In the House..208 Republicans voted in favor and 152 Democrats.

            Again, a law suit is not Sixty Minutes (I watched that episode). It is very difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries did find the plaintiffs had not proved their case and found the defendants (banks and their CEOs) not guilty.

            You may find this article interesting:
            “While you were reading about the NSA today (and the NSA, of course, was reading along with you), the House of Representatives passed several pieces of legislation with bipartisan majorities.

            The House passed the South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act 404 to 0. It passed the Rattlesnake Mountain Public Access Act 409 to 0. And it voted to gut Dodd-Frank by a vote of 301 to 124. Thankfully, at least, the big banks aren’t as popular as Rattlesnake Mountain.
            The Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, or–as former Golden Sachs programmer and current Occupy Wall Street activist called it—the “Intimidate the CFTC ACT”–changes
            how derivatives are regulated. One should immediately see warning lights by the word “certainty” with its echoes of the language that banks and polluters always use when they want to gut regulations–in the name of certainty, never self-interest. The bill first would force the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the
            Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to “harmonize” their rules governing derivatives, i.e., adopt the weaker rules of the SEC. However, there’s more danger in the bill because it would exempt foreign trades from regulations.

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/12/1215805/-Which-73-Democrats-Just-Voted-to-Gut-Dodd-Frank-Today

        • Pelu Maad

          Obama was never a strong “black” champion. He and Holder are both assimilationists more interested in fitting in than rocking the boat.

          • labrown69

            They are both opportunists who work for the banks.

          • Pelu Maad

            From my perspective they’re casualties….just like Michael Steele and that Lt. governor candidate in Virginia. Lacking a solid identity and associated values…they blow in the wind….

          • labrown69

            You can say that again. He was never any kind of champion. He blows with with wind and does what is best for himself at that moment. Obama has prosecuted more whistle blowers than law-and-order Republicans
            John Mitchell, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft.

            2008 – Direct quote; “To build a freer and safer world, we will lead in
            ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. We
            will not ship away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in
            far-off countries, or detain without trial or charge prisoners who can
            and should be brought to justice for their crimes, or maintain a network
            of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law. We will
            respect the time-honored principle of habeas corpus, the seven
            century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own
            detention that was recently reaffirmed by our Supreme Court.” – Barak Obama

            2012 – All discussion of this topic stops. Obama administration
            maintains the use of indefinite detention and makes use of proxy
            detention and rendition and the report by Eric Holder states it as
            official policy.

            Regarding Warrantless Surveillance/Patriot Act:

            2008 – Obama rhetoric constantly reaffirms his support of constitutional
            protections and judicial oversight on any and all surveillance programs
            involving Americans. He rejected and condemned warrantless wiretapping
            under Bush and Obama rejected the use of national security letters to
            spy on citizens who are not suspected of crimes. He rejected the
            tracking of citizens purely because they oppose a current policy.

            2012 – the platform is initially silent on the issue, but then failed to
            reform the PATRIOT act when they had a majority in both house of
            congress. Since that time we have the signing of the NDAA.

            Regarding Racial Profiling –

            2008 – Flatly rejected.

            2012 – retains the FBI’s Bush-era guidelines.

            Regarding Gitmo

            2008 – We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo bay.

            2012 – Um. Yea we’re gonna keep it open and continue using it.

          • Pelu Maad

            I’m not gonna read all that….I get it….you hate Obama and you think you can rationalize it.

          • labrown69

            No, you don’t get it. I voted for Obama twice and I am disgusted with his betrayal.

          • Pelu Maad

            I voted against the RepubliKKKans both times…strictly a matter of the lesser evil. I admit…I didn’t expect Obama to be such a devoted apostle of Bush.

    • holyreality

      Some “socialist” indeed a poor one at that.

      Of course a “socialist” would rein in Wall Street malfeasance instead of help them do it.

      Lying to us while doing otherwise is more akin to sociopath, Kudos for your analysis.

      • Pelu Maad

        A socialist would push single payer universal health care reform.

    • dancerboots

      The President gets little praise for what he does do and even then little thanks. Take the LGBT community as for the first time a President states they should have the same rights as any couple and should be allowed to marry to be eligible for those rights. He allowed the significant other to visit their loved one in the hospital. And when they whined and complained,,..he had been working for over a year to get DADT repealed He did that because he did not forget his promise to them and used the pentagon as well. The Pentagon said give us nine months to survey our troops on their views about the repeal of DADT. The survey showed that few in the military had a problem with a gay person serving. president Obama took that survey and manged to get the repeal of DADT during the lame duck session prior to the entrenchment of the Tea Party.
      The President has always been a staunch supporter of women’s reproductive rights even before he became President. Allowing birth control with no co-pays in the AHCA…so many provisions in ACHA that assist women to access healthcare and for their children that will be free. I agree with ChristoD. You are a fraud or the dumbest commenter on this thread.

  • charleo1

    Last week we revisited Ronal Reagan, because of some comments Peggy
    Noonan, a former speech writer for Reagan, and now, a newspaper columnist,
    had made on, “Meet The Press,’ or one of the Sunday morning shows. Well,
    Ms. Noonan, was just so upset, near tears, it seemed, over the scandals. But,
    when reminded, Ronald Reagan had had his share of scandals, Iran-Contra,
    Marines killed in Lebanon, the, 80 billion dollar, S&L, junk bond, scandal……
    Peggy was much more forgiving. Chalking them up, as just plain ol’, “bad luck,”
    Then, Carter’s failed mission to free the hostages out of Iran was? Something
    the Right Wing still likes to talk about, to this very day. Bush taking the Country to
    war, and being wrong, was more, just plain ol’, bad luck? I guess. Because there
    was no, 24/7, Congressional investigation. Unlike Fox, that at this very minute,
    has Eric Holder’s picture, testifying before some investigative panel, on a constant loop. No sound. So we can’t hear what Holder is saying. That’s because the host
    of the hour, is talking to an, “expert,” who’s, “expert,” opinion, is always the same.
    It’s bad. It’s very, very bad. So, there is no parity between the Parties, in this regard. At least since Clinton, this is the way the GOP conducts itself, any time the man
    in the big White House, is not a Republican. Of course with Barack Obama they
    have been miserable. It was early in his first term, when one pundit ask, “By
    demonizing Obama so thoroughly, with the Country facing so many crisis.”
    “It’s going to be hard for Republicans to explain to their base, why they must
    work with Obama at all, as they surely will have to.” Pundits are often wrong.

  • dancerboots

    We had one of the most important and defining speeches given by our President on national security last week. It was as if no one heard what he had to say..exactly like the heckler he respected more than she respected him..Nothing new! Here is a President that ask Congress to give him (the presidency) LESS war powers by repealing the AUMF (the Authorization for The Use of Military Force passed a week after 9/11/2001). The AUMF gave the presidency unlimited war power to go after Al Qaeda. He ask Congress to declare the war on terrorism over. He ask Congress to address the use of drones. He ask Congress to allot the funds to close Guantanamo and the funds to transfer the detainees found innocent (around sixty of them) out of this prison and to bring the remaining detainees into the U.S. to be tried under civil/criminal law and the protection of the Constitution. He ask for this the second day he was sworn into office in 2008. Ironically, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, many of the Republican and Democratic candidates favored the closing of GITMo when ask.

    Yet, I watched a discussion on RT yesterday, presenting Obama as an Imperial President with a weak defender of the President and the opposing guests spewing lies again as if he had not heard or watched what President Obama had to say. This guest pointed to Libya and the U.S. role..as imperialistic. Did we occupy this country/take it over/ interfere in their election after Gaddafi was eliminated? Obviously not, as the people favored the Muslim Brotherhood. Did we occupy/take over Egypt when Mubarak stepped down? How about Iraq? Have we occupied them and enforced our government/placed our governmental officials as leaders of their country? Instead we send them money and allow American contractors use it to improve their infrastructure and have neglected our own.

  • Archie’s Boy

    Okay children, back to the article. Obama is out of tune with what’s called for (see Dionne’s closing paragraphs). Once again his temperament (never piss anyone off, never *get* pissed off, keep a friendly profile) gets in the way of what he needs to do, which is confront and kick ass. He shies so much away from confrontation he’d rather cut off his right arm (wait, he’s a lefty, his *left* arm). He’s constitutionally incapable of getting into a brawl with the Republican recalcitrants running Congress, so they keep trampling him over. He simply can’t accept the fact that you cannot reason with the unreasonable (which is all he really is willing to do), and that’s what gives the Repubs their power.

    • Pelu Maad

      Obama’s lived his entire life trying to prove himself despite his tainted blood. Sounds harsh but that’s the thinking he probably encountered even from relatives. He’s a white guy cursed with “black” appearance. This could be a teaching moment for the country.

      • labrown69

        You’ve been watching too many Dinesh D’Souza movies

        • Pelu Maad

          LOL…..you seem to have mistaken me for right wing trash…..You should GO AWAY now….

      • Archie’s Boy

        “Tainted blood”??? Buddy, you have a tainted mind.

        • Pelu Maad

          Obama’s spent his whole life dealing with people who think of him as having tainted blood…..it’s not my fault white people think like that, dumbass…