You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2009.
Or as my kid used to say way back: Halloween already?
Check the Critterati gallery at the New Yorker – and especially my favorite page in it with the best of all dogs: Boongo as the Invisible Man
AP – surprises us now and then with legitimate news stories. Such as it’s analysis of the stimulus report issues by the White House . They actually go and verify facts and note that
The government’s first accounting of jobs tied to the $787 billion stimulus program claimed more than 30,000 positions paid for with recovery money. But that figure is overstated by least 5,000 jobs, according to an Associated Press review of a sample of stimulus contracts.
And they give concrete examples.
Now we know that the White House is not afraid to speak truth to err…power – and disseminate..err- distinguish between truth and untruth. So, in this spirit, they immediately respond to the AP piece with the famous “we were going to say that next week” defense (which I must say, I prefer to their “at least we’re not Bill Clinton” one
In what Politico calls “slamming the AP story”, the White House informs us that AP is wrong, because, the errors that they found…well, they re errors, but we found them too, so there!
Not only did they find them too, but they were going to correct them too:
Virtually all of the errors found by the AP had already been found by our review, and were already corrected in an update to be loaded onto Recovery.gov this week,”
See? No problem.
Except for a question still on my mind: AP found those errors by looking at a sample of the big report. Did the White house just happened to look at the same sample, or were they going to upload a correction of the whole thing?
In other words, this vaunted correction – will it be complete, or does the evil media need to publish another article about another sample?
Maybe that’s what passes for slamming these days, after surrendering to Fox. And to the Chamber of Commerce too
Meanwhile, can Obama eat his waffle in peace?.
Update
It’ seems there’s more to get at. According to Political Punch
Assuming their number is right — 160 billion divided by 1 million. Does that mean the stimulus costs taxpayers $160,000 per job? Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to the vice president, called that “calculator abuse.”
He said the cost per job was actually $92,000 — but acknowledged that estimate is for the whole stimulus package as of the end of 2010.
92,000??? Does that waitress “who’s still on the job” according to Biden makes that? Or is it Goldman Sachs who gets to buy a new pair of shoes?
You’d think that once the primaries disposed off, Obama & comp would stop with the blame Clinton already.
But not when they are in defensive mode. Faced with accusations that they provide perks for donors, their first defense is
Democratic and White House officials shrugged off the documents as part of normal “donor maintenance” (oh, what a concept!) that does not provide contributors with any quid pro quo. And they insisted that current donors are getting fewer perks than they did during Bill Clinton’s term, when nights in the Lincoln Bedroom became controversial.
Which is a great defense considering that once the big clamor to get the list of guests who slept in the Lincoln bedroom, no connection with actual donors was found – so the story eventually died of lack of air – not that anyone retracted or apologized. In fact, it was W who lavished influence on his donors – even if the media duly covered it up.
Which makes this other story a study in hypocrisy
When does a President stop blaming his predecessor and start taking responsibility for his own actions? To be fair, that has been an eternal question in the American context, but it does seem as though Barack Obama has a crutch that he refuses to put aside. Economy? Blame Bush! Media? Blame Bush! Afghanistan?
I have to laugh – as throughout the first term, W never ceased blaming “his predecessor”. They even tried to move the date the recession started from March 2001 to March 2000 for this purpose. So, whiny as it makes Obama look, it’s a bit karmic too. Until of course, he joins the “blame Clinton” chorus.
Amazingly, Valerie Jarett, speaking for the White House promised us that “they” are going to be speaking truth to power.
After the Freudian slip in the video at the link at 0:50
“we have to disseminate“…we have to distinguish between truth and….
at mark 1:23 she said:
The administration said clearly: we are going to speak truth to power”
In all fairness one cannot reproach Obama & comp for lack of comprehension – it’s not like they ever did that – in their political life.
let’s just go to today’s example in cowardice:
Chuck Todd: White House Didn’t Really Tell Reid Not To Come Crying To Us
This is the latest denial in the healthcare game. The apparent quote the WH mouthpiece hurled on MSNBC is retracted, but the friendly commenter has to conclude:
It’s also worth adding that the jury is still out on whether the White House will lend a hand getting the opt-out to 60 votes if Reid’s team signals a need for the White House’s assistance.
Truth to power indeed.
In the same vein, the first mayoral debate actually broadcasted in NYC, Bloomberg defined middle class as “people who go to work and take public transportation”
Later, when asked about people calling him “out of touch” – he said: “that’s not what I hear when I take the subway or read my e-mail”
See? Touching commoners AND middle class.
According to Political Punch, there’ll be a full 2 weeks to a month until a decision on Afghanistan is rendered and the Nobel peace prize laureate won’t send 40,000 troops.
president is leaning towards sending more troops to Afghanistan, though not as many as Gen. Stanley McChrystal requested, 40,000.This isn’t a matter of the president looking to send fewer troops, they say, but more of a consideration of a range of options as alternatives to McChrystal’s strategy, options that do not require as many troops.
In other words, it will be a Goldilocks strategy – not too big, not too small. Just right.
And why would those options have to wait until Obama’s return from Asia?
And what of the resignation of US official over the war?
“I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States’ presence in Afghanistan,” he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department’s head of personnel. “I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end.”
Oh, man, just wait until November 7. or 11. or 20. It will all make sense then, after Obama delivers the bestest speech on war!
Sixteen Americans also refused to wait, getting crushed instead by a falling hellicopter
in one of the bloodiest days since the 2001 invasion.
during a pre-dawn battle with insurgents.
Their timing sucks! It’s a good thing that our “news organizations” who want to stay that way, won’t report it. And who is going to go all peacenick on us? Fox?
And after all, it’s not like Obama is not busy now – he just allowed senators to prevail on him over his beloved bipartisanship – he needs some rest for the victory lap he’ll need to do afterwards – unless public option gets washed away through amendments.
Politico notes that some see through the wishy-washy posturing
“Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option,” wrote Green, whose group has posted an online petition to pressure the White House.
“President Obama will be judged by many of his biggest 2008 supporters on whether he fights for a strong public option at this critical moment,” he added.
Not Your Sweetie 
Recent Comments