This is pretty simple

I have a few more thoughts about the D'Souza piece. It's not that I merely disagree with his conclusions, it's that I can clearly see that he's carrying the party's water at the expense of intellectual integrity.

It's completely, utterly, intellectually dishonest for D'Souza to write these opening sentences, without any acknowledgment whatsoever of the epically depressed economic conditions in which Obama's policy choices have been made:

Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history. Thanks to him the era of big government is back. Obama runs up taxpayer debt not in the billions but in the trillions. He has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy. The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.

The President's actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike.

Those actions might be bizarre if they were done in the midst of an economy perking along. D'Souza surely knows this and yet chooses to omit mention of the economic conditions.

How about this:

The rich, Obama insists, aren't paying their "fair share." This by itself seems odd...

Oh yes, so very odd. It's almost as odd as our country's 1950's tax policy. Apparently, we've had Kenyan anti-colonial, socialist policy-makers fathered by Obama's dad in our past but just weren't aware of it.  (From dshort.com here.)

D'Souza actually wrote these sentences:

Obama railed on about "America's century-long addiction to fossil fuels." What does any of this have to do with the oil spill?

Yes indeed.  What ON EARTH could be a reason someone would reflect on fossil-fuel consumption in the midst of an oil spill.  I just can't figure that out either.  It surely must have something to do with one's (completely absent) father's view of colonialism, because there just is no other explanation for such a thing.

If you don't think D'Souza is playing a dangerous game of pushing buttons to cause Rethugs to salivate, then ask yourself this: What is the point of including the dollar figure in this sentence: "He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center."

The point, of course, is to repeatedly connect Obama's name to expenditures. Nevermind that this isn't government money being spent. Doesn't matter. It's a signal to generate the desired Pavlovian response: "Obama spends my hard-earned money. There he goes, spending another $100 million, this time on Muslims."

D'Souza uses the words "odd" and "bizarre" to characterize Obama's behavior. These are word choices calculated to fit the rightwing meme that Obama is a foreigner (and of course we all know foreigners are threatening to our well-being). Seriously, why else would D'Souza call it "odd" to discuss dependence on fossil-fuel at the site of an oil spill? Why else would he use the word "bizarre" to characterize stimulus spending that was voted on by Congress (none of whom shares Obama's father)?

As The Economist put it this way in reaching the conclusion that D'Souza is deranged:

There's no need to search for abstruse reasons why an extreme movement conservative like Dinesh D'Souza might oppose raising taxes on the rich or defend privilege in access to education. And it's not surprising that a centrist liberal like Barack Obama thinks people earning more than $250,000 per year ought to be paying more taxes. In fact, that conviction is shared by a majority of the American electorate. If Mr. D'Souza finds it bizarre, it's not Mr. Obama who's out of touch with America.

Incidentally, who isn't anti-colonialist? Is there a pro-colonial movement afoot in the Conservative party?

Oil subsidies

This is a topic we covered ages ago. Kate Sheppard, writing at Ezra's WaPo blog, discusses the subsidies that flow to the exploiters of fossil fuels.

Even that [$39 billion over 10 years that would result from Obama-proposed cuts to subsidies] would only be a fraction of what we hand over to fossil fuels every year. The government spent $72.5 billion on fossil fuels between 2002 and 2008, an analysis from the Environmental Law Institute found last year. The government directly spent $16.3 billion on petroleum, natural gas, and coal products, and gave the industry another $53.9 billion in the form of tax breaks.

As I was saying...

McCain/Palin in a squeaker, global warming is a fraud, Ayers wrote Barry's book, and ACORN is a corrupt organization.

Three out of four ain't bad.

Nobel

You know how I love Pres. Obama, but even I don't think he's earned the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet.

Update:

Unemployment and accountability

I see that Mankiw has been keeping an eye on unemployment relative to the predicted path in the report supporting the stimulus plan, like I have been. Apparently, he started this in May. He's doing it better too, of course. I swear I hadn't seen his May post when I posted in June and September.

Bringing home the bacon. Or not. (Three bacon posts in a row. Thank you very much.)

Here's where we're at on unemployment: 9.7% for August 2009. (This is from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.)

And to refresh recollections, here's the projected unemployment graph from the Romer/Bernstein report used to justify the stimulus bill. (This is the third time I've posted this graph. Previous posts on the topic from June 5, 2009 and January 16, 2009.)



I'll leave it to economic historians to say whether the stimulus has helped with unemployment. This much is clear: we have not seen a downward turn to the unemployment rate yet; the report projected that we would see a relatively sharp turn by now. Of course, things may have been worse than was understood when the report issued in January 2009 and the stimulus money may be being spent more slowly than the plan provided.

Sarah's family

Can I just say to Sarah Palin that, under Obama's plan, her parents and Trig are welcome to keep their current health care coverage. Sorry to spoil her frothing and ranting fun.

Status check on bailouts

I haven't checked these numbers, but according to Tim Fernholz at Tapped today, here's the current tally on bank bailout money:

Even the limited transparency has allowed federal regulators to examine the weird compensation practices at the banks, creating a prototype for real financial regulation. And for all the talk of taxpayer money and expense, we may end up being surprised by how relatively cheap the bailouts ultimately are -- keep in mind, for all the talk of spending, the Obama administration's policies will still result in a lower deficit than if Bush administration policies had been kept in place, that banks are paying back their loans, plus interest, and that ultimately the cost of the bailouts will be much lower than its sticker price, especially if management of the program continues to improve under congressional and public pressure for higher returns. Of the $1.1 trillion in bailout money being tracked by ProPublica, only $583 billion has been committed, even less has been spent, and $77 billion has been returned.

That picture will only continue to improve as banks continue to pay the loans back. I don't know whether the bailouts were a good idea, but it's useful to keep the actual dollar amounts in mind when considering the topic.

TPaw

TPaw is starting to use more colorful, more incendiary language as he tries to make his presence felt on the national stage. He compares Obama to Bernie Madoff; that should get him a mention on Limbaugh, shouldn't it?

I've said it before: I don't understand why conservatives aren't more interested in him. He's smart, politically skilled, a true believer in conservative economic principles, hasn't cheated as far as anyone knows, hasn't gone AWOL at any time during his governship, kept the job until the end even though it is no fun right now. That's a lot more than you can say for certain other Rethug hopefuls. He got elected and re-elected in Minnesota by downplaying the social issues that would have ignited opposition. Maybe that's why the national crowd doesn't pay any attention to him, but I think that's why he's your answer. I think you all are missing the boat. (I know, I know; he's a little dull. But I would have thought you believed you were about substance over style.)

Update: I should note that his pronouncement that Minnesota has "avoided new taxes" is an example of his political skill. All kinds of "fees" have been implemented or raised to generate revenue. When is a fee a tax?

Twitter gaydar

I may have found the lowest form of Twitter entertainment. There's a website that reviews a Twitter user's feed and determines how hetero the user is. Mine is:



That makes me gayer than Adam Lambert:

adamlambert is 73% Hetero

and Barack Obama (or whomever writes his tweets):

BARACKOBAMA is 61% Hetero

and Ezra Klein (Is Ezra gay? Haven't heard):

ezraklein is 78% Hetero

I suspect that it's being thrown off on my score because I follow "hotgaymess" who does a really good job of tweeting links to articles about gay political issues (but with an occasional link to free gay porn clips).

Still, I'm more hetero than MoDo:

maureendowd is 18% Hetero

and Ira Glass:

iraglass is 1% Hetero

Update: Sorry, formatting is all goofed up. Looked fine in preview.

There was no a**-gazing

No, Pres. Obama was not staring at the 16 year old's a**. Video here.

Re: Growing in Office

I missed this yesterday but Ms. Dowd sees things a little differently.

Growing in Office

I think I expressed somewhere on this site last summer or fall a fear that President Obama might end up just being a marionette of Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid. Stephanie told me I was all wet though I’m sure she used kinder language to the effect of, “Wait and see, I think you’ll be surprised.”

I’ve been slowly coming to the hopeful realization that I may have been dead wrong at least on the defense/War on Terror front. (I won’t yet say foreign policy because I’m not yet convinced the President won’t take us down a protectionist path. I am also worried to death about Israel though I’m not really sure there is anything to be done on that front as long as we’re tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m certainly not there on the domestic front—and I do blame President Bush for setting the terrible precedent last fall.)

VDH (his Works and Days site is shown on the right) has been all over this for months. I haven’t posted about this as I wanted to see whether any patterns were emerging. I’m beginning to think there are. The reversal on the release of the prisoner interrogation photos being the most recent though the President could really end all discussion by executive order under FOIA if his critics are correct.

Michael Barone seems to be coming to the same conclusion. From JWR today:

I choose to believe the non-cynical explanation. As commander in chief, Obama looks soldiers and CIA personnel in the eyes and shakes their hands, knowing that some of them might die following his orders. It's a terrible responsibility. Look at how the presidency aged Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — or Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Listen to Roosevelt's D-Day radio broadcast that in its entirety is a prayer (think of the uproar if Bush had done that!), in which his voice is almost cracking. He knew that thousands of Americans following his orders would die, as more did in the next few days than have in six years in Iraq.

I believe Obama is taking this responsibility seriously. And in doing so he has found himself not indicting but validating the decisions his predecessor took, and any conscientious executive would have taken, to protect the nation.

Obama's Monologue

Here is Pres. Obama's monologue at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Good material delivered in a Carson-esque manner.

Buchenwald

LJ, perhaps you could go with Obama to see Buchenwald.

Well done, Mr. President

It doesn't go far enough but, per the WaPo:

President Obama will seek to extend the controversial D.C. school voucher program until all 1,716 participants have graduated from high school, although no new students will be accepted, according to an administration official who has reviewed budget details scheduled for release tomorrow.

Re: Presidential respect

I'm sure this won't satisfy all, but a reporter at Slate comments on the habits of reporters standing (and not standing) for the president:

The discrepancy in treatment is all the proof a Republican needs to show that the press shows special deference to the new Democratic president. It's a distorted picture, though. We stood all the time for President Bush. Reporters customarily do so to show respect for the office of the presidency. In the East Room of the White House, we stood not only when the president came in but to ask questions. Some reporters said thank you to the president even before asking their questions. This practice continues under President Obama.

There are different rules for the briefing room though, which is the place both events on the video took place. It's more informal. (CBS's Mark Knoller talked to Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who confirmed that no offense was taken when the press didn't stand in the briefing room.) It's not that there is a no-standing policy, exactly, but more that the question is unresolved. The press didn't stand for Bush in February but did when the president visited the briefing room for the last time. When he held press conferences in the Eisenhower Old Executive Office Building, the press did stand. Same with the Rose Garden. (On foreign trips, it was confusing. We stood when the host country's press corps often didn't, but once in Tanzania the roles were reversed for some reason, and the U.S. press had to stand quickly to catch up with the local Tanzanians.)

[Update to add a little more; JUMP]
Why, then, didn't the members of the press stay in their seats when Obama walked in last Friday? Unlike the Bush planned press conference in February, Obama's visit was a complete surprise (you hear fewer clicks because not every photographer is there), which meant the natural instinct to stand when a president enters the room may have kicked in. As you can see from the video, they also ruined the shot, which means standing not only invited grief from conservatives but from their colleagues, too.

Presidential Respect

There's a clip on youtube showing the press corps standing for President Obama and not standing for Pres. Bush last year. I have no idea if it is true or not but, if true, underscores a trend I've noticed over the last 30 years that I loathe...disrespect for the office.

I'm going from memory here but I think I noticed that it was under the Reagan Administration that the press stopped referring to "the President" and started referring to him as Mr. Reagan, though they certainly still addressed him as, "Mr. President."

It's one thing for bloggers/columnists/talk radio/average joes to refer to the President (or any past president for that matter...if I had a chance to address either President Carter or President Clinton, I'd still address them as "Mr. President") but hearing or reading a straight report that refers to the President as Mr. ___________ bugs the heck out of me. I don't even like it when columnists, etc... don't use the formal terminology.

Shoot, when talking to a retired judge I still address her as "Your Honor."

Maybe I'm wrong but I seem to recall a higher respect for the office in the past.

ACORN Nevada

Nevada AG has filed a complaint against ACORN for voter registration fraud stemming from an incentive system for canvassers that required each canvasser to yield a quota of completed registration cards to keep their jobs and cash bonuses for higher numbers of registration cards. Larry Lomax, a county registrar of voters described: "This is individuals ripping off their bosses because they have quotas to make." From the article:

Officials insisted today that the fake voter registrations did not translate into fake voters making it to the polls.

"This is a case of voter registration fraud, not voter fraud," said Miller. "There is no evidence that there was any voter fraud in the last election."

Here was my take on McCain's allegations about ACORN shenanigans in Florida on October 15, 2008:

ACORN operates on a shoe-string budget and has some lazy employees who have defrauded ACORN by taking a paycheck and not doing their jobs. (By all means, root them out and charge those folks with crimes.) Republicans are trying to use this to delegitimize Obama's win. Here's hoping for victories so resounding that this ploy won't work.

US Nuke Capabilities

This can’t possibly be right, can it? From Frank Gaffney:

Today, in the words of Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the United States is “the only declared nuclear power that is neither modernizing its nuclear arsenal nor has the capability to produce [emph. mine] a new nuclear warhead.”

Not content with the slow demise of America’s deterrent, the denuclearizing Johnnys are making a new push for another arms control initiative – one wisely rejected by a majority of the U.S. Senate a decade ago: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Ratification would effectively preclude the United States from ever validating its nuclear arsenal via the only tried-and-true means: actual explosive detonations. Even now, thanks to the unilateral U.S. moratorium on such testing adopted in 1992, there are grave and growing uncertainties about the reliability of our obsolescing weaponry.