Right Sentiment. Woefully Wrong Approach.

You have got to be fucking kidding me...

This is one of the worst. Front. Pages. Ever.

The Editors of the New York Daily News thought it would be appropriate to blame President Obama on the front page of their rag today, in the aftermath of the Aurora shootings.

They continue in their editorial to point fingers at the NRA and its Vice President Wayne LaPierre, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and the "millions of zealots who would sooner see blood flow and lives end than have to check a box on a gun registration form."

They have a point, but man, do they go about it in a strange way. The first half of their editorial comes across as hacky, amateurish and way over the top, describing the scene in Aurora as if the President and his opponent were right by the shooter's side.

While I understand their sentiment in pointing out the lack of enthusiasm among most politicians in legislating stricter gun laws, attempting to cast blame on Obama or Romney for not taking the opportunity to pull an Andrew Shepard "I'm gonna get the guns"moment the second they got in front of the cameras while the country was still in shock is simply ludicrous.

Look, we all know the NRA has Washington DC by the balls, but to blame 535 people on the hill and one in the Oval Office is complete misdirection. There are 4.3 million members of the National Rifle Association and staggeringly, that is a fraction of the approximately 47% of American adults that self report ownership of a gun, let alone the possibly millions of unregistered firearms in this country. But I suppose if you want to sell papers in a dying industry, it wouldn't be quite so powerful putting a crowd of a 100 million gun waving people on the cover.

I'm not happy with the Obama Administration's grade when it comes to gun laws, and yes, I wish someone would take the lead on this, whether it be Obama or Congress. But I don't remember the editors putting George W. Bush's face on the front page of the paper when the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire in 2004.

And let's not forget that at this point in time, the gun crazies - LaPierre included - think (or want the rubes to believe) that there's some vast Obama conspiracy to take away everyone's guns when there are absolutely no facts to back it up. And it continues to work. Since the 2008 election, gun sales have shot through the roof (no pun intended) for fear that Big Brother is coming for their guns and restrict or flat out revoke their precious 2nd Amendment rights. Can you imagine the wall to wall pout-rage by the RWNJs if the President had even broached the subject legislating a curb or ban of assault weapons due to the most recent tragedy? And the backlash and accusations for making political hay out of it?

We don't live in a vacuum. As much as I'd like to live in an Aaron Sorkin world, the reality is that politics plays a role in everything, including the timing of when to take on certain issues. And while I still believe that there's some time to turn the gun issue around for the Obama administration - after November 7th in a second term? - the day of a national tragedy is not the time for pulling the gun control card. And the editors of the New York Daily News know that, but chose to take a cheap shot anyway.

(Cross-posted at ABLC)

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Gingrich flatly denied [Marianne Gingrich's] story and attacked ABC News at Thursday's GOP debate. He said, "Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican."

On Friday, ABC senior vice president Jeffrey W. Schneider said that Gingrich's account was "just not true." He said in a statement, "His daughters were interviewed for our 'Nightline' story last night and we sought interviews with Gingrich or surrogates very aggressively starting Tuesday morning. We would have been happy to interview anyone they put forward."

At this point, who are you going to believe? If what Gingrich said was true, he would have been accommodating in at least having someone fight back the open marriage allegation, but the better political road would be to claim it's a witch hunt and blame the media. How very Herman Cainsian of him.

They Really Do Try, Don't They?

I never cease to be amazed at the unadulterated spin from conservative pundits and columnists who look for any opportunity to blame President Obama for pretty much anything. It's almost as if they think they're speaking to or writing for a Fox News audience with no worry about being called to account for the obvious disingenuousness they spew. Markets down? Obama's fault. Greece in financial disarray? ...Damn that Obama. Scrapping the balloons at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade this year due to high winds? ...OBAMAAAAAA!

The latest example of this comes from Washington Post opinion columnist Michael Gerson. Mr. Gerson has absolutely no problem blaming the failed Supercommittee debacle on the President. Titled "Obama Let the Supercommittee Fail," Gerson blames indifference on the part of the President for a group of twelve grown adults (yes, I'll include the Republicans on the committee as "grown-up") not coming to an agreement with a looming $1.2 trillion in cuts across the board. But amazingly, Gerson believes, or would have his readers believe, that the "supercommittee failed primarily because President Obama gave a shrug."

So what if Republicans wouldn't budge on actual revenue increases in a balanced combination with spending cuts? So what if their ultimate $300 billion tax increase offer was connected to a basic repeal of the Affordable Care Act which took over a year to pass and a privatization of Medicare? The real problem was that "these were the ingredients for a deal. But only a president can mix them and apply the heat." Yep, Obama is the cook that stirs the pot and self-motivation for 12 of an elite 100 members of our political system is of no consequence. ...Damn Obama!

The disconnect is the fact that Gerson knows that Republicans would have never agreed to anything, as witnessed by the moving of the goalposts farther and farther to the right. Ezra Klein analyzes:

If by "at fault" we mean "unwilling to compromise," we can do better than listen to the self-serving remarks of the players. We can look hard at the movement in the actual plans...

The final Boehner [/Obama] plan envisioned tax reform that would generate $800 billion in new revenues and bring the top rate down to 35 percent. In the supercommittee, the highest Republicans ever got on taxes was the Toomey plan's $300 billion, with envisioned a top rate of 28 percent. So on taxes, it's fairly clear: The supercommittee Republicans were far to the right of Boehner.

On the Democratic side, Obama eventually insisted on somewhere near $1.2 trillion in tax reform or, if the revenues were to move lower, on much less in entitlement cuts. In the supercommittee, the Democrats offered a plan with less than a trillion dollars in tax reform -- and more entitlement reforms than Obama was willing to agree to.

Boehner had about $150 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts in his opening bid in the negotiations with the president, and he went down from there. In the supercommittee, Baucus offered $200 billion in Medicare beneficiary cuts...

These steps toward compromise by the Democrats, who swallowed hard in a serious effort to get something done, were far more than anything Republicans offered. Does it surprise anyone that Republicans would take a step further to the right in an effort to sink any deal and let the usual Republican "Obama can't get anything done" talking points continue? This has been their strategy from the start. And Gerson knows this. But why point the blame at a deadlocked "supercommittee" when you can just blame the President?

I won't bore you with anymore detail in Gerson's column (you can read it for yourself to get the full frontal asshattery) except for one line. Gerson asserts that the President "is simply in over his head." This was the same accusation hurled at President Obama on the supposed failed stimulus to stop our economy from hurdling over a cliff. Sorry for the bad timing, Mike, but maybe you should read the latest CBO report:

The economy would have been in much worse shape without the 2009 stimulus — which increased employment in the third quarter of this year by as many as 3.3 million full-time jobs, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office...

...The CBO figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent-1.9 percent.

Yep, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act enacted by this "in over his head" President is still stimulating the economy a year after its "end." We now know the recession we found ourselves in was much deeper and dire than anyone had estimated and had the stimulus been even larger, we might be in even better shape today. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good villain story, right Mr. Gerson?

The Blame Game

POSTED BY JHW22

As proud as I am of President Obama, I tend to find myself falling in the rut of hating the right more than celebrating our accomplishments on the left. I guess it has something to do with the idea that if you hear ten compliments but one criticism, you're likely to focus on that one criticism.

But what Obama and his team have been doing is attempting to highlight their accomplishments by reminding people where he started from on January 20, 2009. In doing so he's accused of still blaming Bush as if poor W didn't do anything wrong and all the messes are Obama's. Fine. Whatever. But the point remains that Obama MUST highlight the past to spotlight the present. And all presidents have done it.

Let's take a look at what W was saying in his radio address about his predecessor this far into his own administration -- well, a little further actually. Let's look at December 2002 which was four months further into his own administration than Obama is now:

Good Morning. 2002 Brought Great Challenges to America, and we had many successes at home and abroad. In 2002, our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and it was pulling out of a recession that began before I took office.

Many will argue that we were NOT in a recession at the end of Clinton's administration and that the actual recession began a month or so after Bush took office. But you can see where he'd want to give some of the blame to Clinton. Sure. I'll give him that. But geez, Obama can't criticize the worst recession since the Great Depression without getting in trouble for blaming Bush.

Well, surely Bush stopped blaming Clinton by the election... right?

But a senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what he called inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

I should probably add that by "election" I meant the 2008 election. Did I forget to mention that? Yes, the Bush administration was still blaming Clinton for its financial problems in July of 2008.

We could argue forever about the nuances of who is to blame and who is just making excuses. But the point stands: all presidents put blame on previous presidents and they do it for as long as they are seeking to pass bills, get elected or keep their party in power.

As a regular ol' citizen, I plan on blaming Bush for the wars and the economy until I die or until dementia sets in. But that's just me.

During I Arrived As President

I couldn't bear the thought of sitting through another Charles Gibson interview with a Republican shit for brains sitting with his deer in the headlights wife nodding her head in agreement like a couple of old farmer folk chewin' on a piece of straw and staring out at the ranch from their front porch, so I missed the very exciting Bush "I didn't do it - it was like that when I got here" interview.

I did however catch Keith Olbermann and the lowlights.





"The Wall Street decision making was done before I got there. Blame Daddy and Bubba."

"The intelligence was bad on WMD, not my fault. So what if we chose to cherrypick only what fit into our agenda."

I can't wait until I never have to listen to this nimrod again. Just hearing his voice makes me dumber. I start running into walls and tripping over the dog. Suddenly, I become entranced with shiny things and tend to play Ball in a Cup for hours. Please President Bush, stop hurting my brain.