Tag Archives: Obama

LiveLeak.com – Obama’s buddy: I get up every morning and think…today I’m going to end capitalism

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d4_1333223471

Not-So-Smooth Operator

Something’s happening to President Obama’s relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, “Nothing new there,” but actually I think there is. I’m referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

Not-So-Smooth Operator – WSJ.com.

September 21, 2011 Limbaugh: Obama jobs bill is ‘nothing more than a wet dream tax bill’

By most calculations, the latest proposal from President Barack Obama to improve the economy has little chance of making it through Congress. And according to Rush Limbaugh, the president does not even have good intentions.

On his Tuesday radio show, Limbaugh questioned the motivations of the president with his latest jobs legislation. He called it a disincentive instead of something that would encourage hiring.

“This bill would only punish people who work,” he said. “This bill would act as a disincentive for anybody to try to improve themselves.”

According to the conservative radio host, the president’s real intention is to raise taxes.

“This is nothing more than a wet dream a tax bill,” he continued, adding that the president’s health care reform law passed in 2009 was also just a tax increase effort.

“Obamacare is not about health care,” he said. “ObamaCare is a tax bill. All Obama has done is introduce tax bills or spending bills. Nothing else.”

Read more via Limbaugh | Obama Jobs | The Daily Caller.

Laura Ingraham Obama Carter Malaise Remix Video | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze

Frankly Speaking…..

October, 7, 2010 — pasted from nicedeb

In early 2008, after I had started looking into Obama’s background, I remember thinking, “Wow, as soon as the general public hears about this, it’s going to be curtains for this guy. There is no way! He’s unelectable!”

A case in point:  February of 2008,  Cliff Kincaid wrote a stunning piece for Accuracy in Media, Obama’s Communist Mentor.

Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

(For information on Obama’s Marxist activities at Occidental College, see this 6 part interview with former classmate [and former Marxist] Dr. John Drew, conducted on the B-Cast. Obama was already a committed Marxist by the time he started college, according to Drew.)

This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.”

That was the first time most of us in the conservative media had heard of him, although he had been on Trevor Loudon’s radar screen since March 2007, when he wrote   Obama’s Marxist Mentor. Some of us thought that it was a significant story that would have legs. Unfortunately many bloggers shied away from it because they didn’t want to be seen as “red-baiters”. The MSM had no interest in it, whatsoever. Including  Drudge:

Drudge Plays Role of Censor

While Obama’s far-left support seems to be worthy of news and comment, Matt Drudge of Drudge Report fame has just rejected two paid ads submitted by my group America’s Survival, Inc. about the influence that CPUSA member Davis exerted over a young Obama. The ads featured a photo of Davis and a communist hammer and sickle. They asked, “Who is this man?,” and urged viewers to click to “Meet the mysterious Red Mentor” so they could be directed to two reports on the subject. The ads were “too controversial,” Drudge’s representative told me.

A few lonely voices in the blogosphere pounded the story, though. I mentioned him here, included Davis in my Reds Who Support Obama post, and again Another Commie For Obamie.

At this point, some shill, who claimed to be Mark Davis,  the son of Frank Marshall Davis (on his OFA page), started commenting on my posts under the pseudonym, “Kaleokualoha”.

Kaleokualoha Says:

Every person of integrity will probably agree the slander and libel are wrong, especially when the target is a dead poet who cannot defend himself. Yet this is exactly what is happening. By defaming the character of my father, Frank Marshall Davis, and exaggerating his radical influence on Barack Obama in “Obama’s Communist Mentor” and other AIM reports, bloggers seek to portray Barack Obama as unworthy of becoming President of the United States. While there are legitimate concerns regarding every candidate, their disinformation regarding my father is especially heinous.

They vilify a dead poet who loved the United States, and who was more likely to teach random acts of kindness than disloyalty to young Barack Obama. They deliberately misrepresent the values Obama may have internalized through this relationship, in a transparent attempt to smear Obama’s character. Like weeds in a garden of truth, such disinformation must be removed at their roots. Unfortunately, their Internet brigade is very efficient at spreading this disinformation. Fortunately, their credibility can be destroyed in the eyes of people of integrity, through irrefutable proof of their deliberate misrepresentation.

Some of their most egregious misrepresentations are claims that Davis was a “lifelong member of the Communist Party USA,” and that he was a “Stalinist” because he “stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact” of 1939, and that “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” These unprecedented claims were made AFTER the release of “Obama’s Communist Mentor,” suggesting they were either fabricated or discovered since February 2008. They should be challenged at their source: Cliff Kincaid (editor of Accuracy In Media in his “Media Excuse Obama’s False Advertising” column) and Bill Steigerwald, associate editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in a 7 June 2008 interview (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/mostread/s_571431.html)

That’s only about half of one comment. He wrote several long-winded, obfuscating comments on different posts. Here’s part of another one from, AP Whitewashes the Frank Marshall Davis Story:

In June 2008, however, Kincaid starts the “Stalinist” falsehood (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_571431.html). This is where Kincaid explains that he calls Davis a “Stalinist” because “he stayed with the CPUSA after the Hitler-Stalin pact” (1939). This contradicts Kincaid’s February 2008 column, which states Davis did not even JOIN the CPUSA until later. Obviously Davis could not have “stayed with” the CPUSA before he even joined the CPUSA. Obviously, Kincaid’s stated reason is invalid. Obviously, something else changed between February and June 2008, when Kincaid suddenly starts calling Davis a “Stalinist.” Davis suddenly became a “Stalinist” because Cliff Kincaid said so??

I doubt you will find any references to Davis being a “Stalinist” before Kincaid’s new label. Did the FBI or Congressional investigators consider him a “Stalinist”? I don’t think so!

The reason I bring this up is because I just finished reading yet another article in NRO, entitled, “Obama’s Communist Mentor by Paul Kenger, a researcher who, since the early 1990s, has “been absorbed with archives from the Soviet and Communist world — I’ve looked at every kind of declassified holding.”

In recent years, I’ve concentrated on an extraordinary cache of material from the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). This material is utterly damning to the American Left, especially in its vindication of the worst fears and warnings of anti-Communists. Not surprisingly, our illustrious “scholars” in the academy are studiously ignoring it.

Kenger has just written a 600 page book, called Dupes, which prominently features Frank Marshall Davis:

After an almost four-year-long sojourn in which I tried to ascertain whether Davis was a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, I determined the latter. No doubt, this conclusion — which means the leader of the free world was strongly influenced by a Marxist — will bring the unholy wrath of liberals. Yet, they should brace themselves for another kind of anger. Once they read what Davis did and wrote, they might redirect their rage. In truth, Davis’s targets were mainly Democrats, and especially a Democratic icon, Harry Truman. What Davis said about Truman was unbelievably outrageous. Worse, he said it because it was the Moscow line.

***

With the help of two super-impressive researchers, including one living in Hawaii, I procured Davis’s weekly “Frank-ly Speaking” columns for the Record. These writings flawlessly parroted official Soviet propaganda and portrayed the likes of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and other courageous Democrats as colonialist-imperialist-fascist-racist monsters. Davis even denounced the Marshall Plan. As any student of this era knows, only the Soviet Union, via the public voices of Stalin and Molotov, took this absurd position.

In column after column, Davis claimed Truman craved not only a “third world war,” but to “rule Russia.” Davis said that Truman’s “fascism, American style” was motivated by an anti-Communism that was fueled by veiled racism. Davis repeatedly asserted that the Soviet Union not only desired peace — as Stalin seized Eastern Europe, while also killing tens of millions of his own people — but had abolished poverty, unemployment, and even racism.

Such examples from Davis are so voluminous that they constitute the longest chapter in my 600-plus-page book. Summarizing them here is impossible. But here are three telling examples.

The disgusting Stalinist propaganda Davis was spouting in these articles were written in 1950.

As someone who has long studied this period, I recognized Davis’s writing immediately as the crass propaganda pushed by Communists around the world at that time. Congress thought the same thing. Within only months of the appearance of these columns in the Honolulu Record, Davis’s name was appearing in investigations of the Communist movement. Eventually, in December 1956, he was called to testify before the U.S. Senate, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In a Senate report in 1957 titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” Davis was plainly listed as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”

***

The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.

That number is consistent with those of the period. Consider the Communist-party numbers of some of the Hollywood Ten figures whom liberals laughably still defend as innocent lambs: John Howard Lawson (47275), Albert Maltz (47196), Alvah Bessie (46836).In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.

You can read Kengor’s entire piece at NRO.

Okay, so it turns out, Kaleokualoha, that your dad was indeed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a card carrying,  propagandizing Stalinist Commie.

The question is whether you are  a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, (you sure as hell didn’t dupe me)

I’ve determined the latter.

The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown – Telegraph Blogs

The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.

Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.

1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people

2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership

3. Obama fails to inspire

4. The United States is drowning in debt

5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat

6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake

7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive

8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration

9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security

10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness

There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.

This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.

via The stunning decline of Barack Obama: 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown – Telegraph Blogs.

America: Optimism on hold

By Alan Beattie and Robin Harding

Published: July 9 2010 20:40 | Last updated: July 9 2010 20:40

Mall of America
Shopped out: downtime at the Mall of America, one of the biggest in the US. Job growth remains too slow to support the rise in consumption required for a self-sustaining recovery

A month ago, it all seemed to be going so well. Growth in the US economy was picking up. The financial system was, mainly, functioning. The risk of contagion from Europe had diminished after an unprecedented €110bn ($139bn, £91bn) bail-out from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. Things were creeping back towards normality.

Then in early June, as Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, put it, the economy hit “an invisible wall”. The US had a run of bad news – disappointing job growth; unexpectedly low employment; indices suggesting manufacturing and services losing momentum; renewed jitters from Europe’s sovereign debt markets and its banks. While most economists think it unlikely this heralds the famous double-dip recession feared by policymakers, it does come at a time when America’s monetary and fiscal authorities are struggling for room to manoeuvre.

In truth, there was always a risk that growth would hiccup at this point. Fiscal stimulus and companies rebuilding inventories have given the recovery a strong push start. But those are one-off effects; the recovery must now switch to power from its internal engine. “We haven’t entered into that self-sustaining stage yet,” says Gus Faucher of Moody’s Analytics, who estimates the chance of a dip back into recession at 25 per cent.

A self-sustaining recovery needs a steady rise in jobs, wages and profits that will allow a steady rise in consumption and investment, feeding back into jobs, wages and profits. So it is worrying that private payrolls rose by only 33,000 in May and 83,000 in June – not fast enough to support a rapid rise in consumption – and both average wages and hours worked have dipped a little.

Business investment has boosted the recovery in the past few quarters but some surveys suggest it is slowing. June’s purchasing managers index for manufacturing fell from 59.7 to 56.2 – implying still rapid but slowing expansion. Nor is the housing market a roaring source of growth. Home sales and housing starts fell in May after the expiry of a tax credit. Prices appear to have stabilised but the IMF recently noted that “the backlog of foreclosures and high levels of negative equity, combined with elevated unemployment, pose risks of a double dip in housing”.

All this sounds bad. But as Neal Soss of Credit Suisse in New York points out, there is a big difference between a slowdown in growth and actual falls in economic activity. “The economy is still growing and there’s every reason to think it will keep growing,” he says.

Like many economists, Mr Soss has always thought the recovery would be slow as households have heavy debts and banks need to repair their balance sheets. One consequence, however, may be recurring alarm about a double dip. “You’ll have some speed-up scares and some slowdown scares,” he says. “But if you’re starting from a high level of unemployment, then slowdown scares are more likely to get attached to words like ‘recession’ instead of ‘deceleration’.”

The US could really do with a helping hand. Sadly, that seems elusive. If Europe thought the Greek crisis had been solved by the EU-IMF rescue package, it had succumbed to an early bout of World Cup euphoria. It may have eliminated Athens’ immediate financing needs but it did not end speculation that Portugal or Spain would follow. Nor did it quiet fears about the amount of Greek and Spanish debt held by eurozone banks.

In the past month, a familiar pattern of risk aversion has re-emerged. Credit spreads of indebted countries widened as investors fretted about the solvency of governments; equities dropped; the dollar and US Treasury bond prices rose as investors sought safe havens. This is not all bad news: higher bond prices equal lower long-term interest rates.

But more than America needs cheaper money, it needs businesses and consumers to be optimistic. “The net effect of the past month on the US has been slightly negative. The purely economic factors cancel each other out but the uncertainty, on top of a poor jobs picture, has not done any good,” says Professor Eswar Prasad of New York’s Cornell University.

Seeking to rebalance its lopsided economy, the US is embarking on a drive to double exports and thereby create 2m jobs. But plans an­nounced this week by President Barack Obama – a ragbag of bureaucratic shake-ups and trade missions – are regarded by many economists as inadequate. Far more importantly, the global environment for demand looks unpropitious.

With a strong dollar, even higher demand growth in emerging markets is unlikely to give US net trade much of a boost. The flexibility in the Chinese exchange rate announced in June was symbolically important. But the small rises allowed so far will not suck in many US exports.

Net trade boosted US gross domestic product by 1.2 percentage points in 2009 but largely because weak consumer spending caused a huge drop in imports. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Paris-based think tank, predicts that imports will grow faster than exports, subtracting from economic growth by 0.3 percentage points this year and 0.4 percentage points in 2011.

Worryingly, a combination of economic and political factors constrains US authorities. Thus any hit to confidence from events such as the Greek crisis are likely to be magnified.

On the monetary policy front, Federal Reserve officials are, as yet, not particularly concerned about the health of the recovery. They still think that the most likely outcome is steady growth over the next couple of years. But they do think the downside risks to growth and inflation have risen in recent months, and probably outweigh upside risks such as a surge in bottled-up consumer demand.

So one measure Fed officials will watch is inflation expectations, especially if inflation is very low later this year, which could be­come a self-fulfilling process. The risk of a slide into outright deflation could prompt easier monetary policy from the Fed.

The central bank thinks it has tools available for the unlikely eventuality that it is forced to act. One is buying more long-term assets such as Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities. Another is cutting the interest rate paid to banks that deposit money with it. That would increase their incentive to lend money out instead.

But no amount of monetary easing will help if banks do not extend credit because consumers do not want to spend nor companies to invest. And the weapons governments tend to use in such circumstances – spending rises and tax cuts – pose prob­lems more political than economic.

On the economic side, bond market investors do not seem worried about the effect of current deficits on US solvency or expecting Washington to inflate its way out of debt. Yields on 10-year Treasury bonds have sunk to very low levels, about 3 per cent, and expected inflation derived from the prices of index-linked bonds remains about 2 per cent.

Less happily for those in the administration who believe in continued stimulus, political support for public spending is eroding. Al­though recent primary elections ahead of November’s midterms have produced mixed results, some seemed to punish candidates for favouring Big Government.

Administration officials insist that the damage is mainly to candidates who supported the troubled asset relief programme, the federal financial bail-out, rather than government spending in general. But even continuing current stimulus is a struggle. Proposals to extend unemployment benefits and prolong aid to states are snarled in Congress. One senior administration official reports an interlocutor saying: “There are only three Keynesians left in America, and they all work in the administration.”

Alec Phillips of Goldman Sachs says: “The potential expiration of stimulus measures appears to be an increasingly important risk to growth.” As Treasury secretary Tim Geithner is fond of pointing out, for all the accusations that the US is a fiscal profligate, its deficit is due to fall more sharply in the near future than that of almost any other leading economy, from 10.6 per cent of GDP in 2010 to 5.1 per cent in 2013, compared with a fall from 5.5 per cent to just under 3 per cent in supposedly self-flagellating Germany.

Mr Phillips calculates that if the stimulus bill enacted last year is allowed to expire, including unemployment benefits, aid to states and a special personal tax credit, the effect could be to subtract 2 percentage points of GDP growth – more than half the US trend growth rate – at about the middle of next year. Even a more plausible scenario, in which the unemployment payments and tax credits are extended, would take at least a percentage point off growth throughout next year.

The US economy is not yet in severe trouble. Rises in equity prices over the past few days have comforted optimists that confidence is returning. But the economy’s sputter over the past month indicates just how fragile the recovery is and how dependent America is on generating its own demand. And if it starts to turn down rather than simply to decelerate, policymakers turning to their arsenal will find it dangerously depleted.

DOJ Attorney Resigns Over Dismissal of Philadelphia Black Panther Intimidation Case

By thomasjeffersonclubblog

Damning editorial by a DOJ attorney who resigned over the dismissed Black Panther intimidation in Philadelphia during the 2008 election. By J. Christian Adams in The Washington Times.

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

Read the rest here: Inside the Black Panther Case: Anger, Ignorance, and Lies

Obama in Crisis

By on 6.25.10 @ 6:09AM

Crisis exploitation has been President Obama’s chief political strategy from Day 1.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the Wall Street Journal in November 2008, before the administration had even entered the White House. “Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

But what about a crisis that provides no political opportunities?

This administration is brilliant at using a perceived crisis to advance pre-existing political goals. There’s a recession? Expand government, impose new regulations, dole out money to favored groups, and say the universal health care proposal is really a “jobs bill.” People don’t see the need to jump to universal care immediately? Tell stories of individuals confronted with personal health care catastrophes and claim that only the health care bill can solve them. Pass this bill now or the cancer patient gets it!

The administration showed us how to exploit crises: Propose swift action — any action — and structure proposed remedies so their success or failure cannot be measured in real time, then accuse critics of supporting the status quo.

Patience, Obama repeatedly said. Patience. Fixing the enormous mistakes of the Bush years would take time. There would be no quick fix. Don’t look for immediate results, keep gazing into the horizon. Here, I’ll show you how, just tilt your head this way, slightly squint your eyes… there, now hold that position for the next three years.

Then, without warning, a pocket of methane gas exploded on an oil rig roughly 50 miles offshore. Suddenly we had a crisis that demanded a real-time solution, not a promise of rewards to be reaped after the next election.

The president was paralyzed. He could not talk the oil back into the well. He could not stop the leak by convincing Congress to pass a bill that would go into effect four years from now. A president whose sole skill set is confined entirely to the world of politics found himself just about impotent to deal with this emergency.

“The president doesn’t get down here in the middle of this…. I have no idea of why they didn’t seize this thing,” James Carville said on ABC’s Good Morning America on May 26, more than a month after the explosion. “I have no idea of why their attitude was so hands off here.”

That’s the same complaint Gen. Stanley McChrystal made to aides about President Obama’s handling of Afghanistan, according to the Rolling Stone piece that got McChrystal fired. “”Here’s the guy who’s going to run his f***ing war, but he didn’t seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed,” an unidentified aide reportedly said.

Barack Obama being hands-off and disengaged? Who would have thought?

We have a president who in April gave a 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to a woman’s question about taxes in the health care bill, but who cannot come up with an appropriate response to an oil spill. The reason is easy enough to see. One cannot spin an oil spill. One simply has to act.

Obama seems to have internalized an axiom from the Bhagavad Gita: “The wise man never initiates any action.” If nothing else, Obama imagines himself a wise man. There is nothing he can’t give a 17-minute answer to. But his attempts to portray himself as a man of action, necessary for anyone running for president of the United States, have been comical.

Asked during a 2007 South Carolina debate how he’d respond to a terrorist attack, he said, “The first thing we’d have to do is make sure that we’ve got an effective emergency response.” Hillary Clinton, not exactly a paragon of swift-acting machismo, showed him the right answer: “If we are attacked and we can determine who was behind that attack, and if there were nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.”

When Obama said on Good Morning America that he was looking for an ass to kick, it made him look weaker, not stronger. He just isn’t the ass-kicking sort of guy. So he did what he knows how to do. He gave a speech. It was so awful, even the left panned it. Instead of acting to end the crisis, the president tried to exploit it. A huge oil spill? Use it to hype cap-and-trade! That’s not a response, that’s a sales pitch.

Americans put too much faith in the presidency. The federal government’s CEO is not a superman who can command the resources of the nation to fix any problem that might arise. But it is not unreasonable to expect him to take necessary and proper action to solve certain problems. The president cannot plug a leaking oil well that sits a mile under the Gulf of Mexico. But a good one would have the organizational and managerial skills to quickly set a swift and appropriate federal response in motion. Instead, this president uses the spill as the platform from which to launch a renewed appeal for the same old energy regulations he has been hawking for years.

Obama’s reaction to the Gulf oil spill has been so awful because he is incapable of transitioning from politician to manager. He sees the world only in terms of political opportunities. A crisis that requires action? Sorry, that’s not this president’s bag, baby.

Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Cancelled: There Will Be No Congressional Budget This Year | Republican Leader John Boehner | republicanleader.house.gov

Cancelled: There Will Be No Congressional Budget This Year | Republican Leader John Boehner | republicanleader.house.gov.