Jack Welch Can't Stand the Heat

Jack Welch, who knows a thing or two about cooking the books, couldn't stand that his demented, unsubstantiated allegation that the Bureau of Labor Statistics doctored the numbers to help the Obama administration in the upcoming election via the Twitters, was being criticized from all sides* and decided to quit (along with his wife) his position as contributor to Reuters and Fortune Magazine.

Welch said he will no longer contribute to Fortune following critical coverage of the former CEO of General Electric, saying he would get better "traction" elsewhere. On Friday, Welch suggested that the Obama administration, calling them "these Chicago guys," had manipulated the monthly jobs report in order to make the economy look better than it actually is just weeks before the election. Welch has been battered by criticism since making the suggestion on Twitter.

Welch apparently ended up at odds with various journalistic institutions that placed a higher premium on providing readers with objectively rational information about the economy, as opposed to flattering an old executive who sows derangement on the Internet. According to Gandel, Welch did not take kindly to a CNN Money piece that criticized Welch's original tweet, and was further angered by a Fortune piece, "detailing Welch's record as a job destroyer."

That, poor, poor multi-millionaire. My heart bleeds.

____________________________________________
* Except the Fox side, of course. That would be lunacy.


(Cross-posted on ABLC)

The Best "Fuck You" Ever

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania on Wednesday said Obama's policy toward radical Islamists "has been nothing but appeasement."

When asked about the accusations that his foreign policy is timid and amounts to a policy of "appeasement," The President responded:

"Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaida leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that."

BOOM! goes the dynamite.

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.

Oh Noes! RWNJs Angry at Birthday Celebrating President!

It really can't get any more petty than criticizing a man for celebrating his 50th birthday. But that's exactly what the right wingers are doing regarding President Obama's birthday.

President Obama turns 50 tomorrow, but that isn’t stopping him from celebrating early.

Fresh off a bruising debt ceiling debate, and an announcement that the administration is pivoting back to a focus on jobs, Obama heads to his hometown Chicago tonight for a birthday-themed fundraiser at the historic Aragon Ballroom.

...Republicans have unleashed a barrage of criticism against the president for making the trip, accusing him of hypocrisy during tough economic times.

“With 9.2 percent unemployment, he could work on creating jobs, but I suppose the White House is thinking he should stick to the part of his job he really likes,” said RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski in an email statement.

GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney also took a swipe at Obama for the trip, publishing an online video Tuesday that highlights a spike in Chicago’s unemployment rate and falling housing prices over the past three years.

Kirsten Kukowski is right! I mean, I'm sure that if President Obama skipped the fundraiser that will take him out of town for the evening, he could easily solve the unemployment crisis. If only he weren't so callous, inconsiderate and just plain lazy. Just sit at your desk in the Oval Office and do your job, Mr. President! You'd have a plan to lower the unemployment rate to 4% by tomorrow if only you'd put in a hard night's work.

How dare the President of the United States celebrate a birthday during a national crisis!!!

Andrew Card Can Suck It

TPM: In an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel, [former Bush administration Chief of Staff Andrew] Card said that Obama has "pounded his chest" too much over the death of Osama bin Laden, particularly by going to Ground Zero earlier this week, the site of the 9/11 attacks.

"I think he has pounded his chest a little too much," Card said. "He can take pride in it, but he does not need to show it so much."

Someone might want to remind Andrew Card of this:

Question: If laying a wreath at Ground Zero and personally thanking first responders is chest pounding, how does Andrew Card describe landing on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet and declaring "mission accomplished" eight years and counting before the mission is actually accomplished... whatever their twisted definition of "accomplished" may be?

Chest pounding, indeed. Suck it, Andrew.

Hillary: Our MSM Sucks, Al Jazeera Rocks

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Circular Criticism Squad

Posted by JHW22

I have made it pretty clear that I find a lot of the "professional left's" criticisms of Obama to be short-sighted, unproductive and harmful to the party. Frankly, I could give a rat's ass if someone calls me a bot for it. I'd rather speak out for reality than be a bot for talking-point criticisms that sound good to the cynical. I try to avoid the superficial complaints about Obama because, honestly, my blood pressure goes up and I get Hulkified with no outlet for my rage. So, for the sake of my sanity, my marriage and my son's respect for me, I try to stick to reading only that criticism that is legitimate, fair and non-something-up-the-ass random.

So I was reading Andrew Sullivan today. I enjoy Sullivan because he gets it. We may not agree on everything but, for the most part, he provides sound reasoning and stays pretty calm. I like thinking about an issue without having to calm down first. He writes in a manner that lets me think from the first sentence through the last without me trying to "refudiate" each sentence along the way.

His post, "The Best Analysis of Obama's Dilemma" starts out like this:

It comes from Obama himself:

"Given how much stuff was coming at us, we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right... I think anybody who's occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion."

That sounds pretty good. I agree. I hate to agree with the President on this but I do. I'd prefer a policy be right and the American people figure out on their own that it's good, but I realize we're stupid and lazy and need to be massaged into understanding why a good policy is a good policy. I wish he weren't right but he is.

The next paragraph is about a Liberal (keep in mind that Andrew Sullivan is a Conservative):

David Corn complains that this is the kind of self-criticism that does not help before an election, and that in arguing that his biggest error was under-estimating Republican obstructionism, the president cannot also argue that he can work with the GOP, if necessary, in the next two years.

David Corn opened that particular article with THIS paragraph:

With a little over two weeks to go to the critical elections, why would the Obama White House want reporters (and voters) to fixate on what it got wrong in its first two years?

Yeah, why would Obama want reporters to fixate on something they already fixate on just fine without his help? Why would he want to state the very point they have fixated on all along? Doesn't he know that their fixations are so automatic that they will fixate on the very thing they have been fixated on just because now he mentioned it?

Perhaps David Corn is just pissed because now Obama has addressed it and that takes some of the cynicism out of the fixation. Damn. How can people like David Corn possibly criticize the President when he's criticizing himself? That's just not fair, gosh darn it. The only people who should be able to criticize are the very people who make a living criticizing. Each time Obama criticizes himself the "professional left" loses their bearing.

What I don't get is why the "professional left" can criticize Obama daily, without merit most of the time and at times seeming as if they are basing their opinions on someone else's reporting rather than doing the due diligence of thinking for themselves -- oh, but Obama can't criticize himself.

THIS is exactly the kind of crap that the left has been pulling for over a year. And it's exactly the kind of crap that has led me to avoid more and more of the "professional left". I stopped following David Corn on Twitter about two weeks ago because of shit like this. It's called stoking the fire. And as they say, if you can't stand the heat, stop reading the firebaggers. Okay, "they" don't say that but I am going to start saying it. Care to join me and create the "they"?

Say it with me, "If you can't stand the heat, don't read the firebaggers". Save your blood pressure for something that really matters. Use your precious time reading people who offer something legitimate to discuss.

Now, I need to get back to reading the rest of Andrew Sullivan and stop fixating on the firebagging.

edit: I was just reminded why I rarely watch MSNBC anymore. Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd are discussing the fact that Obama criticized himself in such a crucial time. Two people who have repeatedly criticized Obama are now criticizing Obama for criticizing Obama. Do these people hear themselves? Where's the remote?

Thoughts On The First Oval Office Address

After watching the President's address on the Gulf disaster, I was a little surprised to hear the disappointed reaction and frustration of the talking heads. And I don't mean Fox News; they will do whatever it takes to tamp down anything positive about Obama. I mean the supposed Obama Channel, MSNBC.

While this disaster could have been capitalized into a JKF style, mission to the moon moment in terms of turning our country towards clean energy, a moment that in my opinion was disappointingly missed, I realized half way through the speech, that what I was hearing wasn't directed at me. It wasn't directed at the political junkies and cable news addicts of our country. It was directed at the other 300 million people of this country. People who's sole interaction with news is about 30 minutes of a local newscast, perhaps two or three of those minutes directed at the Gulf crisis. And in that sense, I feel it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for the President.

MSNBC talking heads Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann ripped into President Obama for not being more specific in his "battle plan" for the Gulf. But if he had gone into greater detail, my guess would be that the criticism would have been that he's too professorial or too wonky. Had he revealed a plan to take BP into temporary receivership, as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has recently suggested, cries of "SOCIALISM!" would have drowned out all other points of his speech.

But what did we really want him to say? That BP is going to pay for everything? He said that.

...But make no mistake: we will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

Did we need him to mention something about prosecutions for possible crimes? Attorney General Eric Holder's already on it. Do we want a tough talker to make us feel better and then moan when he promises something that he knows (and we know) can't be delivered? Or do we want a smart pragmatist  who doesn't always shoot from the hip and later regret it?

He spoke to us like adults and didn't sugar coat the current situation.

...Because there has never been a leak of this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. 

...The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years. 

...But we have to recognize that despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response becomes, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done.

It would have been a fist pumping moment for liberals and progressives to see a tough talking, no shit taking, mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore Barack Obama beating the crap out of BP, their CEO Tony Hayward, and small government hypocrites who are now crying the government isn't doing enough. But that's not who Barack Obama is, and I wonder why we keep getting surprised when he doesn't do something the way we'd like him to do it.  And when he does say something out of the ordinary in a rare display of frustration or anger, he's vilified for it as well.

But I am also tired of the impatience (I'm guilty of it myself sometimes) of expecting the last 8 years of a clusterfuck government and 30 years of deregulation and Reaganomics to be cleaned up in 18 months.

If Obama turns out to be a one term president, it will be because we have become a country of instant gratification and not figured out that that's not how the world works. You'd think that after the "wanted dead or alive" failed promises of the past decade, we'd know better.