Quote of the Day

"Bush was president during the financial meltdown, the Obama team has turned that around pretty well." 

~Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol

...:blink, blink:...

President Obama's Weekly Address - May 19, 2012

Congress Must Move Forward, Not Back On Wall Street Reform

**UPDATED** Relatability

POSTED BY JHW22

Hilary Rosen created quite a firestorm last night. In my view, the firestorm is more about the offense people perceived rather than the truth she put forth. Her phrasing was inarticulate, but her point was relevant.

Yes, I know the Obama administration is wanting people to back away from Rosen's comments. I understand that. But guess what? I don't always agree with the administration and in this case, I'm going to take a stance as someone a little more knowledgeable on the issue than Axelrod or President Obama.

I am a Stay-at-Home Mom -- a SAHM. But not married to a millionaire. And I think Rosen's comments were valid: the wife of a millionaire should not be revered as a "surrogate" for her husband on women's economic issues. We can share being moms and the regular concerns that go with that. But the relatability stops there. I think it's MORE than acceptable to call out Ann Romney as being out of touch with women who make the work/family choice because of economic requirements. Good for her for choosing to stay home to raise her kids. But she can't relate to moms whose choices are made for them by economic realities.

I also notice a trend lately. Seems that when women get mad and start debating, the issue we're debating is called a "distraction". Sorry folks, but talking about how women provide for their families, whether they can or want to stay home or work outside the home, how she manages to pay bills, save for college, pay for activities, etc IS AN ECONOMICALLY RELEVANT DISCUSSION!

The war isn't between SAHMs or moms who work outside the home. The war is on women who are consistently being pushed back -- in policy and discussion. Mitt Romney is SO out of touch on women's issues that he is sending his wife out to defend him and speak for him and gather information for him.

All Rosen was saying, and I agree, is that as lovely as Ann Romney may be, as wonderful of a mother as she may be, she will NEVER be able to relate to me or the millions of other women who didn't have the luxury to make the "choice" she made. That's a point we should all be ready to state again and again. It's not a personal attack. It's a reality that must matter in the debate over women and our economic role in America and the fact that the Romneys have no business speaking for the average family.

UPDATE:

Since I posted, Ann Romney has said "my career choice was motherhood." Seems to me that is as rhetorically offensive as Hilary's implication that being a mom isn't a job. But I haven't heard anyone criticize her implication that women who don't stay home, don't choose motherhood. But that's OK. I also find it interesting that Ann Romney also said we all need to respect the "choices" mothers make. Oh, so she's pro-choice?

Also since my original post, the Catholic League Tweeted

Lesbian Dem Hilary Rosen tells Ann Romney she never worked a day in her life. Unlike Rosen, who had to adopt kids, Ann raised 5 of her own.

And I haven't heard any outrage about that.

Hilary Rosen has also since apologized.

Here's the deal, folks, Ann Romney has had struggles. Yes, MS and motherhood is hard. But PLEASE understand that we do not relate to each other based on our struggles. We relate to each other on how we can get through those. My mother-in-law had MS and eventually had to stop working as a nurse, go on Medicaid and live in adult foster care. Her resources were limited. THAT was hard on all of us. I'm not about to suggest Ann let nannies raise her kids and, let's face it, moms who work outside the house have to rely on others to help raise their kids, but the struggles Ann Romney faced or faces today are lessened by her access to help with those struggles.

We can relate about being moms. DO NOT try to relate to me on the economics of being moms.

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 21, 2012

America is Open for Business

President Obama Speaks on the Economy

December 6th, 2011 - Osawatomie, Kansas

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 19, 2011

Creating an Economy Built to Last

GOP Obstructionism Means to an Obama End, Economy Be Damned

Today, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) confirmed pretty much what we've known all along. The Republican Party's obstructionism and its latest vote against the American Jobs Act is not because of some philosophical difference about how to govern, but a political tactic to "make President Obama look bad" in order to help defeat him in the 2012 election, and if they have to throw the American economy in the shitter to do so, so be it.



It really isn't a shock, but the fact that a member of Congress would admit that something like this is happening behind closed doors is stunning, as MSNBC host Chris Jansing expressed. So the next time you hear that both parties care for their country but just have a difference of opinion in how to run it, know that it's complete bullshit. The Republican Party would rather destroy the US (and possibly global) economy solely for the purpose of winning the White House in 2012 and then attempt to repeal health care reform.

August Job Numbers: Zero

This is bad.

The US economy created no jobs and the unemployment rate held steadily higher at 9.1 percent in August, fueling concerns that the US is heading for another recession. It was the first time since World War II that the economy had precisely net zero jobs created for a month.

But hey, that jobs speech could wait another day, right?

Seriously though, let's see what the President has to say, and how the Republican Party will react. Are they going to work with the President for the sake of the country, or are they going to obstruct anything that may help dig the economy out of the recession hole?

I know. Stupid question.

He Can Do No Right

Look, I know that if you're a Republican, to agree with anything that President Obama has to offer is a political risk. I know that everyone in the GOP has pretty much taken the Mitch McConnell tact of making President Obama a one-term president as its main and major goal, even at the risk of US economic collapse. I know that the Republican Party likes to tout itself as the party of national security. But these latest comments from Republican Senator John McCain and his personal Renfield, Senator Lindsey Graham are absolutely laughable.

"Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi," their statement reads, "but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

This statement comes from the same two Senators that were part of a delegation that considered selling nonlethal defense equipment to Gaddafi's Libya (with a little McCain bow to boot in his meeting with Gaddafi).

McCain wanted the US's "full weight" of the military airpower, and yet his own members of Congress were losing their shit just a few weeks ago, stomping their feet with a House vote to admonish the President for continuing America's role in the NATO operation and claiming a violation of the War Powers Act, and threatened to cut off funding for the operation. Does that mean that McCain and Graham would have been fine with a unilateral US strike against Libya with the "full weight" of our airpower had it only taken 89 days?

The bottom line is that the Republican Party has lost their "strong on defense" moniker and they don't like it.

The Obama administration was successful in taking out the Somali pirates that captured Captain Richard Phillips and held him hostage, but immediately afterward came the email smear campaign that the President was hesitant in authorizing lethal force.

President Obama made capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden a top priority as soon as he was sworn into  office and said so during the campaign. This was something George W. "Wanted Dead Or Alive" Bush couldn't bother with just six months after 9/11. Yet again, right wingers went to the Internet and created another smear email to claim something about which they knew nothing.

And now, with a war in Afghanistan and in the process of a methodical withdrawal from Iraq, and the President deciding to honor the US's obligation to NATO and the UN in the Libya conflict, and here are the Republicans making sure to criticize the widest range possible just to confirm they cover everything, from acting without Congressional authority, or berating Obama for letting France and England take the lead in the action, to now McCain and Graham whining about not acting quickly enough and that it took six months to ouster a dictator who held power for 42 years. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page is praising the efforts while criticizing the the naysaying GOP.

The fighting continues in Tripoli, and Moammar Gadhafi still hasn't been captured, but the triumph of the U.S.-backed Libyan rebels seems to be only a matter of time. Though you wouldn't know it from the reaction at the Council on Foreign Relations or among some GOP Presidential candidates, this is a victory for freedom and U.S. national interests.

A dictator with American blood on his hands is about to be overthrown by a popular revolt invoking democratic principles. Not a single American has died in the effort, and the victory would not have been possible without U.S. air power, intelligence and targeting as part of NATO. A long-oppressed people now has a chance to chart a freer future, a fact that is clear from the rejoicing in Benghazi.

What would we prefer: That Gadhafi stay in power?

...Yet some of the same people who said we shouldn't help the rebels now want the U.N. to send "boots on the ground," including U.S. troops. It's not clear that the Libyans want or even need such help, especially from Americans, which could complicate their own nascent attempts at self-government.

...President Obama was right yesterday to urge the rebels to pursue "reconciliation." But America's foreign policy elites have also so far misjudged the rebels, who have shown impressive persistence and coordination in maintaining a six-month military campaign.

...One disappointment is the reluctance among Republicans to praise the rebel success, perhaps for fear it will somehow help Mr. Obama.

...U.S. intervention has succeeded in preventing a bloodbath in Benghazi and soon in deposing a long-time U.S. enemy who could have re-emerged as a terrorist sponsor.

Michele Bachmann, who played the al Qaeda tune, now looks partisan to a fault.

...The U.S. military is stretched at the current moment and we can't take sides in every civil war. But the Libyan intervention shows that when the cause is just and the means are available, the U.S. can make a moral and strategic difference.

U.S. support for the rebels won't be lost on a Middle East still undergoing its own upheavals, not least on the people and governments of Syria and Iran. NATO showed it will finish a military task it started, and soon Gadhafi will take his place with Saddam in the ranks of Arab despots who will terrorize their people no more.

I believe everyone has forgotten (including Michael Steele and the Morning Joe pundits this morning) that the initial intervention is Libya was a humanitarian one, with NATO acting on the information that Gaddafi was about to unleash hell on his own people in Benghazi.

And yet, President Obama can do no right. He doesn't even read the right books on vacation. I suppose he would have gotten a reprieve on the reading list criticism if he'd included Ayn Rand's ATLAS SHRUGGED and Rick Perry's FED UP!, both also works of fiction, by the way.

President Obama's Weekly Address - July 23, 2011

A Bipartisan Approach to Strengthening the Economy

Not Even Hiding It Anymore

If there was any doubt that the Republican Party has no problem with sacrificing the American economy, the American people, the unemployed and underemployed in the country, and possibility of sending the world into a global recesssion, then look no further than at one of its shining stars. They're not even trying to hide the notion that they're selling America down the river solely for political gain.

“Does it strike you that as the unemployment rate goes up, your chances of winning office also go up?” host Carl Quintanilla asked. “Well, that could be. Again, I hope so,” Bachmann replied.

Why be part of the solution when rising unemployment numbers are helping your presidential run? Michele Bachmann has already said that she will not vote to raise the debt ceiling, despite the dire consequences that have been stated by the Speaker of the House, a member of her own party. That in itself is enough to disqualify her from consideration of the office that she seeks.

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 25, 2011

Strengthening America by Investing at Home

President Obama's Weekly Address - May 28, 2011

Brought to you by Vice President Joe Biden.

Biden on the American Auto Comeback

President Obama's Weekly Address - May 14, 2011

Expanding Responsible Oil Production in America

President Obama's Weekly Address - April 16, 2011

America’s Fiscal Future

Short on Reasonableness

POSTED BY JHW22

Just a quick post to say that Robert Reich and smart Democrats like this can kiss my fat (although, getting skinnier) ass.

Tonight on Hardball, Reich moaned pathetic about Obama being in South America instead of at home creating jobs.

A) I would expect an economics expert to understand the significance of Obama's trip to our economy and job creation.

B) It's not a Spring Break as Fox News wants viewers to believe (oh, I get it, Reich is a Fox watcher).

C) Does Reich realize Reich is doing his very own job (giving astute analysis) via ... wait for it ... satellite? Yep, a job can be done from a different place than the magic place. Jobs are not created from one chair, behind one desk, in one oval-shaped room, in one house painted white, on some street named after a state, in some country with 50 states and a shitload of towns and cities.

C.2) Does Reich think Obama needs to be in Texas to create jobs in Texas? In Oregon to create jobs in Oregon?

D) Reich titled one of his books, "I'll Be Short". Well, I think Reich is being short-minded and short on rational thought or integrity. I lean toward the latter. I think Reich SHOULD know better and chooses to add to the value-less, pathetic and unproductive crap that is a waste of valuable air time. Hey, Reich, use your on-air opportunity this way: Ask not what your President can do for you. Ask what you can do for your President. For starters, you can stop acting like a right-wing wanker and start applying some of the logic I am sure you must possess and talk about things that are relevant and not petty.

By the way, I took my copy of "I'll Be Short" back to the used book store where I bought it from the clearance section. The font was big, the spacing was large and I didn't get a thing out of it. Perhaps I am giving Reich too much credit.

In other words, and I'll be short, "Grow up, Reich".

President Obama's Weekly Address - January 8, 2011

Tax Cuts Kicking In

President Obama's Weekly Address - December 11, 2010

Protecting the Middle Class & the Economy

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 27, 2010

Giving Thanks for Those Who Serve



*Note: This week's address was made on Thanksgiving Day, November 25th.

President Obama's Weekly Address - November 13, 2010

Exports & Earmarks