The Obama Administration v3.

[Morgoth]

With apologies to previous staff comments, but race is off the table - period. I don't care what solutions anyone comes up with. It's NOT on the debate floor on this forum. End of story.

[purplehawk]

The President's announcement on dropping the shield:



And here is our Weekly Address for September 19, 2009:



Here's the full transcript:

Weekly Address for September 19:    

---

Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address The White House September 19, 2009 Leaders of the world’s largest economies will gather next week in Pittsburgh for the second time this year. The first meeting of the G-20 nations in April came at the height of the global financial crisis – a crisis that required unprecedented international cooperation to jumpstart the world’s economies and help break the downward spiral that enveloped all our nations. At next week’s summit, we’ll have, in effect, a five-month checkup to review the steps each nation has taken – separately and together – to break the back of this economic crisis. And the good news is that we’ve made real progress since last time we met – here at home and around the world. In February, we enacted a Recovery Act, providing relief to Americans who need it, preventing layoffs, and putting Americans back to work. We’ve worked to unlock frozen credit markets, spurring lending to Americans looking to buy homes or cars, take out student loans, or finance small businesses. And we’ve challenged other nations to join us not only to spur global demand, but to address the underlying problems that caused such a deep global recession in the first place. Because of the steps taken by our nation and all nations, we can now say that we have stopped our economic freefall. But we also know that stopping the bleeding isn’t nearly enough. Our work is far from over. We know we still have a lot to do here at home to build an economy that is producing good jobs for all those who are looking for work today. And we know we still have a lot to do, in conjunction with nations around the world, to strengthen the rules governing financial markets and ensure that we never again find ourselves in the precarious situation we found ourselves in just one year ago. As I told leaders of our financial community in New York City earlier this week, a return to normalcy can’t breed complacency. To protect our economy and people from another market meltdown, our government needs to fundamentally reform the rules governing financial firms and markets to meet the challenges of the 21st century. We cannot allow the thirst for reckless schemes that produce quick profits and fat executive bonuses to override the security of our entire financial system and leave taxpayers on the hook for cleaning up the mess. And as the world’s largest economy, we must lead, not just by word, but by example, understanding that in the 21st century, financial crises know no borders. All of us need to act more responsibly on behalf of a better economic future. That is why, at next week’s G20 summit, we’ll discuss some of the steps that are required to safeguard our global financial system and close gaps in regulation around the world – gaps that permitted the kinds of reckless risk-taking and irresponsibility that led to the crisis. And that’s why I’ve called on Congress to put in place a series of tough, common-sense rules of the road that will protect consumers from abuse, let markets function fairly and freely, and help prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again. Central to these reforms is a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Part of what led to this crisis were not just decisions made on Wall Street, but also unsustainable mortgage loans made across the country. While many folks took on more than they knew they could afford, too often folks signed contracts they didn’t fully understand offered by lenders who didn’t always tell the truth. That’s why we need clear rules, clearly enforced. And that’s what this agency will do. Consumers shouldn’t have to worry about loan contracts written to confuse, hidden fees attached to their mortgages, and financial penalties – whether through a credit card or debit card – that appear without a clear warning on their statements. And responsible lenders, including community banks, trying to do the right thing shouldn’t have to worry about ruinous competition from unregulated and unscrupulous competitors. Not surprisingly, lobbyists for big Wall Street banks are hard at work trying to stop reforms that would hold them accountable and they want to keep things just the way they are. But we cannot let politics as usual triumph so business as usual can reign. We cannot let the narrow interests of a few come before the interests of all of us. We cannot forget how close we came to the brink, and perpetuate the broken system and breakdown of responsibility that made it possible. In the weeks and months ahead, we have an opportunity to build on the work we’ve already done. An opportunity to rebuild our global economy stronger that before. An opportunity not only to protect the American people and America’s economy, but to promote sustained and balanced growth and prosperity for our nation and all nations. And that’s an opportunity I am determined to seize. So, thanks for listening and thanks for watching, and to our Jewish friends, who are celebrating Rosh Hashanah, have a happy and healthy New Year. Shanah Tovah.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by Wab

There's also the possibility that the US realises that Medvedev is still a better alternative than Putin and bringing Medvedev inside the tent will increase his prestige enough to forestall Putin's future ambitions.

It would be worth waiting to see if there's an announcement about the redeployment future sales of Iskander systems.

"Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin told Ekho Moskvy radio Saturday that Obama's move has made the deployment of Iskander short-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region unnecessary."

NYT

[purplehawk]

Talking to yourself a bit, Wab?

The President made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows today, but Fox was not on his itinerary. They weren't happy about it, either.



Just listen. You won't have to make it through the three-minute video to realize why he didn't bother with them.

[AldeberanBlack]

After his softball interview with Cheney, I'm surprised Chris Wallace has the nerve to show his face on TV again. Not to mention the footage of the FOX "News" producer cheerleading a crowd at the "9/12" gathering (which FOX inflated the attendance figures of anyway).

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by AldeberanBlack

After his softball interview with Cheney, I'm surprised Chris Wallace has the nerve to show his face on TV again. Not to mention the footage of the FOX "News" producer cheerleading a crowd at the "9/12" gathering (which FOX inflated the attendance figures of anyway).

I believe the crowd estimates for the Obama inauguration were in the 1.8 million to 2.0 million ball park. I guess Beck, Fox and the Tea Party organizers and sponsors wanted the 9/12 event to rival that crowd. They were only off by 1,930,000 attendees, though, so no problem, right?

9/12 Crowd on the Mall:    

---

Inauguration Crowd on the Mall:    

---

I don't think there's any comparison, actually. The January 20 crowd filled the Mall and beyond, all the way to the Lincoln Memorial, and down the side streets as well.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Talking to yourself a bit, Wab?

Just showing off. I was pretty sure the Iskander thing was the quid pro quo.

[ComicBookWorm]

One of the interesting things in Wallace's comments was how he almost repeated that bogus crowd number and then corrected himself.

It's not just Hannity or Beck. It's also O'Reilly and Fox and Friends. I don't know about Wallace as much since he doesn't get ridiculed as often on the shows I do watch (Olbermann and Stewart). But he does make their hit list too. And since they use clips to back up their ridicule you can form your own judgments. And I don't watch Fox since I'm getting on in years, and don't want to get a stroke. Well Wallace won't have to wonder why he's skipped in the future. I've never seen such an unprofessional temper tantrum. It was especially amusing to see him call Obama the crybaby while he fussed about not being included.

[purplehawk]

I got a tickle out of their whine-fest, too. I mean, you could watch 30 minutes of Fox on any given day and find a year's worth of reason not to bother with them. Fox serves the right; it's a Republican propaganda machine and therefore a biased venue in my opinion. I was ticked when the President gave O'Reilly an interview last year. It's good to know he does not plan to waste his time massaging Fox egos.

Conservative David Frum, a former Bush 43 speechwriter and Republican commentator, is likewise not pleased with the ugly stuff spewing from the right:

Frum writing in The New Majority "The ultimate happy ending of the story should not however close the page on this appalling episode of broadcast recklessness and political cowardice. We conservatives are submitting our movement to some of the most unscrupulous people in American life. This submission disgraces conservatism, discredits Republicans, and damages the country. It’s beyond time for conservatives who know better to join us at NewMajority in emancipating ourselves from leadership by the most stupid, the most cynical, and the most truthless."

Scott Horton has the story at Harper's: Rush, Glenn and the G.O.P. He notes that Limbaugh spent two days last week "ranting about and completely mischaracterizing an incident that occurred on a school bus in Saint Louis... " Horton includes audio of one of Limbaugh's broadsides as well as a video of Beck being Beck.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) introduced an amendment today that would allow for a weak, state by state, public option that would only be instituted if private insurers fail to bring down premiums and expand coverage on their own. Her constituency of Mainers is taking particular exception to her stance:



Snowe speaks of the public option being "universally opposed by all Republicans in the Senate," but polls coming out of Maine underscore how avidly Mainers support having a strong public option from the onset.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Snowe speaks of the public option being "universally opposed by all Republicans in the Senate," but polls coming out of Maine underscore how avidly Mainers support having a strong public option from the onset.

Which polls? Most of the polls I've seen from Rassmussen and his ilk demonstrate the opposite.

[leah49]

When did this turn into the Make Fun of Fox News thread? I get that it is not the liberals choice for news, but it is still a highly respected news channel. Obama giving it the shaft is extremely disrespectful. No, I did not hear Chris Wallace nor did I click on purple's video, but that doesn't matter. It is disrespectful for him to do the other news sources but leave off the one that doesn't bow down to him.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by leah49

When did this turn into the Make Fun of Fox News thread?
I get that it is not the liberals choice for news, but it is still a highly respected news channel. Obama giving it the shaft is extremely disrespectful. No, I did not hear Chris Wallace nor did I click on purple's video, but that doesn't matter. It is disrespectful for him to do the other news sources but leave off the one that doesn't bow down to him.

George Steph. asked a couple of tough questions of the President, so at least that interview wasn't just a long marketing blitz, in my opinion.

Along the media line, it seems the President is open to considering allowing tax exempt status to news organizations which reorganize as non-profits.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...r-bailout-bill

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

One of the interesting things in Wallace's comments was how he almost repeated that bogus crowd number and then corrected himself.

It's not just Hannity or Beck. It's also O'Reilly and Fox and Friends. I don't know about Wallace as much since he doesn't get ridiculed as often on the shows I do watch (Olbermann and Stewart). But he does make their hit list too. And since they use clips to back up their ridicule you can form your own judgments. And I don't watch Fox since I'm getting on in years, and don't want to get a stroke. Well Wallace won't have to wonder why he's skipped in the future. I've never seen such an unprofessional temper tantrum. It was especially amusing to see him call Obama the crybaby while he fussed about not being included.

That is ironic as Olbermann and Stewart are actually comedians and not journalists. Well, Stewert is funny, Olbermann only attempts to be. Stewart himself has mentioned how distressing it is that people would use his show as a source of news. I mean one show is on Comedy Central and the other on the next closest thing (MSNBC).

Niether are in any way unbiased, nor do they even claim to be, but as they are actually comedians, I am somewhat at a loss to see how their ridiculing anyone has any value in determining the actual merit of the target's claims, especially since both, well Stewert anyway, will freely admit to editing for maximum ability to make fun of any speaker with a view they don't agree with.

I seriously question the wisdom of anyone using them as an indicator of anything of consequence.

[purplehawk]

Fox News is not highly respected outside of the right-wing echo chamber. It's really a bit of a joke compared to its competitors' coverage of the news. And that's not to say those competitors are doing a bang-up job. They aren't. They're just doing a better job than Fox is doing.

Mom, I don't do Rassmussen. Rassmussen is to opinion polls what Fox is to news.

[leah49]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Along the media line, it seems the President is open to considering allowing tax exempt status to news organizations which reorganize as non-profits.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...r-bailout-bill

Before reading the article I ask the question: How does a news organization reorganize as a non-profit? Why does it matter if a newspaper fails or not? I'm not totally against bail-outs, but if a company is failing there's a reason for that. If it's because people no longer want that product you can't force them to want it. I don't agree with the president (that was his quote in the article, right?) that the news is going to be only blogospheres. We've got the radio and TV on top of internet news. Radio and TV isn't hurting like newspapers are. Magazines might be doing okay, too, since what they provide is a bit different than a daily newspaper.

If a newspaper fails journalists will be out of jobs. If they are good at what they do they can turn to other places. Enough of a following they could open up a blog. They could turn to a magazine. Do freelance work. It might be harder for a while, but not all of them will be unemployed as journalists.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Mom, I don't do Rassmussen. Rassmussen is to opinion polls what Fox is to news.

Then please present links to the polls that served as the source of your statement that "polls coming out of Maine underscore how avidly Mainers support having a strong public option from the onset."

[Wab]

Originally Posted by leah49

When did this turn into the Make Fun of Fox News thread? I get that it is not the liberals choice for news, but it is still a highly respected news channel.

In some quarters, maybe. But outside the US it is pretty much a punchline.

A good rule of thumb of how much regard an outlet is held in is to see which other organisations source it either as part of existing deals or one-offs. Fox just doesn't rate.

Obama giving it the shaft is extremely disrespectful.

So the president should be beholden to a media company? No, sorry, doesn't work that way.

Just as Helen Thomas got shifted to the back and was rarely called on during press conferences in the last White House, it's the way of the world.

[Chris]

Topic? Fox news isn't the topic, except in direct relation to Obama's choosing not to go on the Fox network (not even Fox News) Sunday morning show.

Also, thanks to this little spat about Fox, I'm not reopening the Media thread for a while

ETA: When two blues both say the same thing, you know you were off track

[ComicBookWorm]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

That is ironic as Olbermann and Stewart are actually comedians and not journalists. Well, Stewert is funny, Olbermann only attempts to be. Stewart himself has mentioned how distressing it is that people would use his show as a source of news. I mean one show is on Comedy Central and the other on the next closest thing (MSNBC).

Niether are in any way unbiased, nor do they even claim to be, but as they are actually comedians, I am somewhat at a loss to see how their ridiculing anyone has any value in determining the actual merit of the target's claims, especially since both, well Stewert anyway, will freely admit to editing for maximum ability to make fun of any speaker with a view they don't agree with.

I seriously question the wisdom of anyone using them as an indicator of anything of consequence.

Give me some credit for intelligence. I don't use Stewart as a source of news. However, it is easy to form an opinion about someone he is skewering when they run a clip showing some person acting like a fool or saying something obnoxious. The clip speaks for itself. I'm not talking about something out of context, I can tell the difference.

As for Olbermann, he also interviews people and does reporting. He mocks people during two small segments of his show. He's a liberal, so his content is in that direction (which if fine for me). Olbermann was recently told by Ted Kennedy (and confirmed by Ted Kennedy Jr. last week) that he was Ted Kennedy's main news source while he was confined at home. So I would hope that Kennedy knew news when he saw it.

Now to bring this back to topic and not annoy Chris and others. I won't watch Fox, so the only way I know what is being said there is via sources like Stewart and Olbermann (and quite a few others who also show clips, mostly uncut). Based on that I can understand why Obama chose not to interview at Fox.

Originally Posted by leah49

It is disrespectful for him to do the other news sources but leave off the one that doesn't bow down to him.

Fox didn't carry his joint address to Congress last week (nor his last primetime news conference), so what goes around comes around. He isn't obligated to interview anywhere. Nor is any network entitled to some kind of special respect. He's the President, the respect is due him, not vice versa. News sources always feel honored if the President chooses to give them an interview, since it's always his choice where to talk. Obama's objective was to get out a message he thought was important. He chose the venues he thought would accomplish his goal.

I watched all his interviews. And he was given some tough questions by all. No softball questions at all. I'm certain he expected that. But he was given a fair hearing.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm

Fox didn't carry his joint address to Congress last week (nor his last primetime news conference), so what goes around comes around. He isn't obligated to interview anywhere. Nor is any network entitled to some kind of special respect. He's the President, the respect is due him, not vice versa. News sources always feel honored if the President chooses to give them an interview, since it's always his choice where to talk. Obama's objective was to get out a message he thought was important. He chose the venues he thought would accomplish his goal.

The Fox Broadcast network didn't carry the Presidents address. The Fox News Network did.

Obama is entitled to choose which networks he wants to speak with, just as I'm entitled to call him a crybaby for complaining that the Fox Broadcast Network didn't carry his address and a chicken for being unwilling to face real questions from a network that is willing to challenge him when he misrepresents facts and distorts what's actually in the bills before Congress.

Other George Steph who asked one series of rather tough questions, Obama got the same softballs he's gotten all along, in my opinion.