putting him on the republican ticket when he is a liberal democrat is an insult to Mr. Reubens.

and as your words livyjr are read far and wide, someone may actually think he is a repub, at which point it could
hurt him professionally for that untruth (even in jest) to be furthered along.

I would firmly stand up for him to be Obama's VP in 2012 and then run in 2016 himself
but as a democrat, a liberal democrat.

The VA system denies older veterans like me access, rla ....

They also get money from drug companies to use older veterans as guinea pigs to test drugs on ...

That is how they get to be cost-effective ....

By denying access ....

And by using people ...

And so ...

I think that open-minded people reading my words would see him as a political independent, graham, if I am speaking about him ....

Not a republican ...

And how can the dude be hurt professionally?

Does he have a profession any more?

I've been doing a straw poll up here and nobody even knows who Paul Reubens is ....

"NOPE, SORRY, DRAW A BLANK ON THAT ONE, ALRIGHT!"

Of course, nobody can ever forget PeeWee Herman on that bike in that one movie ....

Look at the dude's face in there, graham ....

AN ANGELIC LOOK OF SHEER DETERMINATION IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY is how I most often hear it described ....

That is what makes PeeWee Herman presidential mateial here in America, graham ....

If only we can get people to look past that other stuff ....

And so ...

There isn't any part of our social system that isn't infested with corruption and incompetence...However, everything that is, is relative. The fact remains that the Va Medical system is more cost effective (gets more desirable bang for the buck) than Medicare which is more cost effective than the for profit system...

Speaking of that reality, rla, I noticed in the news today that LORD OBAMA is going to do even less environmental clean-ups than the thug George W. Bush did ...

And so ...

"Obama plans to clean up fewer toxic waste sites - EPA budget records show cuts in first two years; projects too costly now"

By DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press

First published in print: Monday, August 10, 2009

WASHINGTON -- For years, the Bush administration was criticized for not cleaning up enough of the nation's most contaminated waste sites.

The Obama administration plans to do even less.

Environmental groups and some Democratic lawmakers railed against President George W. Bush's cleanup record.

But this time, they're shying away from speaking out against a popular president who's considered an ally in the fight to clean up the environment.

In Obama's first two years in office, the Environmental Protection Agency expects to begin the final phase of cleanup at fewer Superfund sites than in any administration since 1991, according to budget documents and agency records.

The EPA estimates it will finish construction to remove the last traces of pollution at 20 sites in 2009 and 22 sites in 2010.

During the eight years of the Bush administration, the agency finished construction at 38 sites on average a year.

"Certainly, we are very disappointed that we can't get our ... numbers up," said Elizabeth Southerland, the acting deputy of the EPA's hazardous waste cleanup program, known as Superfund.

The explanation by the Obama team is the same one put forward time and time again by Bush officials: The sites on the list have become increasingly complicated, contaminated and costly.

That means it takes years for sites to reach the final cleanup stage, and as a result fewer are getting there.

Of the 527 contaminated properties still needing cleanup on the Superfund list, 40 have progressed to the point where all that's left is removing the last piles of contaminated soil, building a treatment plant to strip the groundwater of toxic pollutants, or capping a landfill so contamination does not enter the drinking water or air in surrounding neighborhoods.

At the other 1,060 hazardous waste sites still on the list, construction is finished and the last stages of the cleanup are under way -- a process begun before Obama took office.

When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson explained this trend to a Senate committee this year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., replied:

"That's the same answer the Bush administration gave us and I don't buy it."

Later, in an interview with The Associated Press, Boxer elaborated. "It doesn't matter to me who the president is."

"What matters to me is these sites get cleaned up," she said.

But not everyone is so critical of Obama's Superfund numbers.

Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and some Democratic lawmakers who highlighted how little the Bush administration did on hazardous waste cleanups are now silent.

They say it's because Obama, unlike Bush, wants to address the problem that has plagued Superfund for years -- a lack of money.

A tax on petroleum, chemicals and large companies once helped EPA pay for the multimillion cleanups.

It expired in 1995 and Superfund has been on financial life support since.

The pool of money ran dry in 2004, when Superfund cleanups that did not have a company to foot the bill ceased to be subsidized by the tax on polluters and started being paid by taxpayers.

Obama, unlike Bush, has called for the reinstatement of the tax in 2011.

That will require action by Congress.

It will also be up to Congress to set aside more money for cleanups if the tax is reinstated.

In the past, when Superfund was flush in cash from the tax, Congress did not always provide more money for cleanups.

The Bush administration "didn't make an investment."

"They weren't willing to increase the tax and they weren't willing to shift general funds."

"They were just willing to limp along," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who is sponsoring legislation to restore the tax.

THIS OBAMA AND HIS PACK OF FISCALLY PROFLIGATE DEMOCRATS ARE SPENDING MONEY LIKE A BUNCH OF DRUNKEN SAILORS ON SHORE LEAVE IN A BROTHEL ....

And so ...

"Federal deficit higher in July, $1.27T this year - Record federal deficit climbs higher, $180.7 billion in July, $1.27 trillion so far this year"

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press

Last updated: 3:05 p.m., Wednesday, August 12, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The federal deficit climbed higher into record territory in July, hitting $1.27 trillion with two months remaining in the budget year.

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the July deficit totaled $180.7 billion, slightly more than the $177.5 billion economists had expected.

The Obama administration is projecting that when the current budget year ends on Sept. 30, the imbalance will total $1.84 trillion, more than four times last year's record-high.

The soaring deficits have raised worries among foreign owners of U.S. Treasury securities including the Chinese, the largest holder of such debt.

Massive amounts of government spending to combat the recession and stabilize the U.S. financial system have pushed the deficit higher.

The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with depleted government tax revenues, also are major factors.

The July deficit reflected government spending of $332.2 billion, a record amount for any month and up from outlays of $263.3 billion in July 2008.

Of that increase, about $25 billion reflected the fact that Aug. 1 was a Saturday this year, requiring many government benefit checks to be sent out earlier and counted as spending in July.

Government receipts totaled $151.5 billion, down 5.6 percent from a year ago.

It marked the 15th consecutive month that government receipts have been lower than the same month in the prior year, illustrating how deep the recession has cut into tax receipts.

Through the first 10 months of the budget year, receipts total $1.74 trillion, down 16.9 percent from the same period in 2008.

Outlays totaled $3 trillion over the past 10 months, up 21.1 percent from the same period in 2008.

The resulting deficit of $1.27 trillion compares to an imbalance of $388.6 billion during the year-ago period.

The deficit for all of 2008 was $454.8 billion, the current record holder in dollar terms.

President Barack Obama's economic team sought to reassure the Chinese during high-level talks last month that the administration is committed to reducing the deficits once the current economic and financial crises have been resolved.

So far, interest rates have remained low as the Federal Reserve has kept the federal funds rate, a key short-term interest rate at a record low near zero in an effort to jump-start the economy.

At the end of a two-day meeting Wednesday, Fed officials repeated their view that the weak economy was likely to "to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period."

The concern, however, is that rates could begin rising despite the Fed's efforts if foreigners suddenly lose confidence in the government's ability to manage its debt burden.

In bond markets, prices fell Wednesday after a fairly weak auction of $23 billion in 10-year Treasury notes.

The Treasury Department is auctioning a record $75 billion in debt this week.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note, which moves opposite its price, rose to 3.75 percent from 3.70 percent ahead of the auction results and 3.67 percent late Tuesday.

Bond prices jumped Tuesday as stocks fell.

Investors will track demand because a drop in buyers could force the government to increase its payout.

The resulting rise in rates would raise borrowing costs for the government as well as consumers and businesses, and could end up slowing the economy.

The total public debt now stands at $11.6 trillion.

Interest payments on the debt cost $452 billion last year, the largest federal spending category after Medicare-Medicaid, Social Security and defense.

DIVIDER OBAMA AND HIS PACK OF FISCALLY PROFLIGATE DEMOCRATS ARE DIVIDING THIS NATION BETTER THAN GEORGE W. BUSH EVER COULD DIVIDE IT ...

And so ...

"Town hall anger rages on"

Josh Kraushaar, Lisa Lerer

Wed Aug 12, 2:43 pm ET

Out on the health-care firing line, senators and members of Congress continued to get battered by constituents angry over President Barack Obama’s reform plan Wednesday — with voters raising questions about everything from assisted suicide to coverage for illegal immigrants.

Lawmakers insisted over and over that the bills in Congress would cover neither — but their answers did nothing to tamp down the anger from Afton, Iowa, to Hagerstown, Md., to Rocky Mount, N.C.

In Iowa, a self-described “dumb southern Iowa redneck” told Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, “I see nowhere in the Constitution where health care is a right."

"... I want to hear it from Obama, I want to hear it from Pelosi, about how this is about ‘We the people.’“

In Maryland, a town hall by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin quickly devolved into shouting after one questioner ordered Cardin to “cease and desist” from considering health care legislation.

Cardin’s insistence that he was being fiscally responsible — “I’m not going to vote for any bill that adds to the national debt,” Cardin said — did nothing to quiet the crowd.

“That’s your answer?” one man shouted.

“You already did!” said another.

On the outside, opponents of the legislation outnumbered supporters by about a 10-1 ratio.

“Obama energized the youth just like Hitler did,” said Barbara Kelly, a substance abuse counselor from Hagerstown.

“He’s given the country away to the elitist Obama supporters."

"They don’t have to answer to anyone!”

In North Carolina, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) seemed to get a little tired of the frequent interruptions and shouting during a two-hour town hall Wednesday, snapping back at some in the crowd.

"Read it!" one protester shouted.

"How do you know I haven't read it?" the North Carolina Democrat fired back, according to the News & Observer.

Butterfield also tried to correct numerous attendees who insisted that illegal immigrants would be covered under the Democratic plan.

"They are not counted in this bill," Butterfield said.

"I am telling you they are not in the bill."

The events Wednesday seemed to continue what was seen in televised glimpses of town halls Tuesday — constituents screaming at Specter, a fight breaking out at an event by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) — that have left the impression of a popular uprising against the plan.

The outbursts have clearly rattled the White House into taking a much sharper tack in Obama’s own pitch for the idea.

But advocates on both sides of the issues are trying to assess just how deep the anger truly runs — whether 24-hour cable cameras are capturing a small but extremely vocal minority or something much bigger.

And perhaps most important, all sides are trying to figure out whether Democrats — even the ones who didn’t get screamed at during their town halls, many of which were peaceable — will have the political will to vote yes on bills in the House and Senate come fall.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter heard boos for a second day after a raucous session where he was jeered for more than an hour on Tuesday — and told reporters he thinks the protesters are “not representative of the American people.”

Specter blamed the anger he has seen on "the economy, the facts that millions of people have lost their jobs and millions of others are afraid of losing theirs."

But he said the protesters' views are "significant, and their views need to be taken into account.”

The fury of the crowd Wednesday did not match that demonstrated the day before when a man was removed after standing up and walking into the aisle to shout at Specter.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday defended the value of the town halls, saying Obama believes they contributed to the debate by allowing people to get the facts.

“If people believe for some reason that this plan is government controlled health care — which it’s not — if the president can address that each time he goes out there, and more and more people can believe the truth, that that helps the prospect of health reform,” Gibbs said.

Obama himself was one of the lucky ones whose town hall event in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday was downright placid — so much so that he had to solicit questions from opponents by the end.

But outside the hall, protesters on both sides of the issue wielded signs and traded insults, an indication that passions are running high.

Even though he didn’t get much in the way of tough questions, Obama strode the stage like a man spoiling for a fight — with answers at the ready to one of the most virulent rumors, that the bills include so-called “death panels” that would decide how much care every American could receive.

Obama tried to mock the notion as a plan “to pull the plug on Grandma” — but the fact the president had to address it head on in such a high-profile forum shows how much the White House is worried that the most damaging rumors could take hold in the public psyche.

Now the question is whether Democrats looking for cover on the issue can find some from the most popular politician in America — Obama — or whether the opponents and fence-sitters are even beyond the reach of Obama’s arguments.

He certainly tried to deliver them some talking points, including this made-for-the-nightly-news line: “For all the scare tactics out there, what is truly scary — what is truly risky — is if we do nothing.”

Obama also focused his attention on people who already have health care, saying people would no longer be able to be bounced from insurance for pre-existing conditions or for getting sick.

lIVYJR, i THOUGHT THE HEADLINE YOU ADDED TO THIS ARTICLE DIDN'T VERY WELL REPRESENT THE ARTICLE...

Well, that is cool, rla ....

And it was a spur of the moment thought on my part that summed up my thoughts at that moment, contents of the article itself notwithstanding ....

Perhaps when the article is stripped away from the headline, it makes the headline stand alone in its accuracy without the distraction of the article getting in the way of the candid thought ....

The only thing worse for America's future than the republican party is the democrat party .....

And so ....

As these ANTI-AMERICANS are being shipped in from professional health care org. financed groups there are NO protests

They are skinheads, neo-Nazis and Racists. That is what those townhall people are...this proves it...I was wondering...
also shows how the rightwing media slants things...(and it all is rightwing media)
(about the only reason anyone doesn't like Obama that I have seen)


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/12/76...ks-at-town-hall
White man rips up poster of Rosa Parks at town hall
by liberal shopper
White man rips up poster of Rosa Parks at town hall
Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 12:39:27 PM PDT
It's getting uglier. The racism is on full display, and the corporate media is hiding the truth.

Yesterday our corporate media showed images of an African American woman being dragged out of Claire McCaskill's town hall meeting, but they didn't show what provoked her.

Take a look at the video to see the rage a white man exhibits when this woman unrolls a poster of Rosa Parks to show the reporter sitting in front of her. After that attack, any African American woman would be totally within the bounds of common decency to be outraged and to push back against her attacker.

liberal shopper's diary :: ::
Among the many eyebrow-raising clips aired on major news networks yesterday... was one of a women being half-escorted, half-dragged from the building.

... the woman was provoked. She and a few other women had brought posters to the town hall, but they rolled them up after being booed and berated by the crowd. When the woman unrolled one to show to a journalist, an angry man in the crowd rushed over and tore it up. A poster of what, you ask? Rosa Parks.

The crowd booed pictures of Rosa Parks.

White people booing Rosa Parks and then ripping up her poster in public. These rightwing Republicans are racists, and they're crazy. That's just a fact at this point.



Update [2009-8-12 15:54:55 by liberal shopper]: Also, go see princss6's diary on this topic. They beat me to it but used a much more subtle headline that I didn't catch.

Update [2009-8-12 16:5:58 by liberal shopper]: Wow, Rec'd. Now you MUST go over and give princss6 mucho headbutts and skritches. Here is a link to a pootie because princss6 deserves some recognition.

Update [2009-8-12 16:20:4 by liberal shopper]: Check out this link from TPM for more info (the man was arrested for assault, the woman was escorted out) and also details of what the sign said: "First Lady of Civil Rights."

Update [2009-8-12 17:33:44 by liberal shopper]: Interview with the African American woman, Maxine Johnson. Thanks duckhunter.

And they are OBAMA DEMOCRATS, as well, graham, or they could never have been vetted to get in the door with Obama in the first place ....

And so ....

And recall graham, over in my other thread http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...howtopic=109060 the SKINHEAD that Obama Supreme Court Justice Sonia "TANEY" Sotomayor wrapped her judicial arm around to protect ...

That very public action on her part coupled with Obama's selection of her to be a United States Supreme Court Justice has shown the SKINHEADS that they have a real future with the DEMOCRAT party of America and the world ....

And the result of that is that you now see them coming out in mass support of Obama and his policies at these RALLIES he is holding across America ....

They are your spiritual breathren now, graham ....

You should have bewared for what you were wishing for before your wish was granted ....

But that is the way it always goes ....

Hindsight is always 20-20, graham ...

And so ...

the black lady with the Rosa Parks photo was at REPUBLICAN CLAIRE MCCASKILL'S TOWN HALL

Where democrats are not welcome

and only racists exist

soon the republican party will be extinct like the Whigs and other loser groups of the past
like the south after the uncivil war

where those lazy white southerners sat with their feet up reading the Wall Street Journal and making investments, while they had their slaves do all the work, where those same hire the kind gentle souls at slave wages, again, while the masters keep their feet up

Sooooo .....

Okay, graham ....

Taking your words at face value, which I always do, the black lady with the Rosa Parks photo was a RACIST REPUBLICAN, or she could not have been in there in the first place ....

And so ...

My personal opinion is that you got that backwards...However, it really doesn't matter in the long
run since what we actually end up with is Repug X Democrap which is worse than Repug + Democrap...

If the REPUBLICAN party was not dying, rla, I would most definitely have to agree with you ....

Obama's rhetoric is not divisive. His management style is divisive. It results in a let's you and him fight
method of conflict resolution...A lot was made of his Team of Enemies model that he supposedly copied
from Lincon but it is nothing more than Bill Clinton's triangulation approach...What it boils down to is
a public debate and decission making behind closed doors...Obama ends up with one group of people piling on with every bad thing imaginable and one group piling on with every good thing imaginable, and
he goes quitely about his business...whether it is ultimately the people's business or not is yet to be
determined...

You are a font of some cogent analysis, rla ....

You have come on to your stride in here in recent times, which makes for interesting reading, as you are thought-provoking ...

Which is better than provoking physical violence ...

And so ...

Thank you Livyjr.

And thank you, rla, for your continuing thought-provoking contributions in here ...

Causing people to have to consider things in a different way brings us all along the evolutionary path in a positive way ...

And so ...

You have a purpose in life in here, rla ....

One that would have been impossible to even consider back in the days when you were young ...

And so ...

As you are fond of saying, rla, everything that is, is relative ....

And beauty, as well as the divisiveness of Obama's rhetoric, is in the eye of the beholder ....

I have thought about your words above here overnight, and I have come to the conclusion that I cannot agree with you that his rhetoric is not divisive ...

And that is based on his rhetoric in these two examples from the news that I have posted right above here, where Obama seems to be threatening to call out mobs of people, as if he were the reincarnation of Clodius Pulcher of Rome, who was very famous in history for his use of mobs and mob violence in Rome to influence politics ...

I find it quite disturbing, myself, that an American president would be talking about his office being the only thing standing between "pitchforks" and the bankers, which seems to border on an extortion threat, to me ...

And the same thing with these mortgage servicers ....

Once again, the OBAMA-ITES seem to be resorting to the threat of mob violence to get their way, which again borders on extortion threats ...

As I said, the eye of the beholder ...

And so ...

AND AS OBAMA AND HIS PACK OF FISCALLY PROFLIGATE DEMOCRATS CONTINUE TO SPEND MONEY LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS ON SHORE LEAVE IN A BROTHEL WITH ALL OF HIS GIVE-AWAYS, WE HAVE ...

"Bigger federal deficit envisioned - Projection of $9 billion reflects revenue slump, could hurt Obama efforts"

By JIM KUHNHENN AND ANDREW TAYLOR ASSOCIATE PRESS

First published in print: Saturday, August 22, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration expects the federal deficit over the next decade to be $2 trillion bigger than previously estimated, White House officials said Friday, a setback for a president already facing a Congress and public wary over spending.

The new projection, to be announced on Tuesday, is for a cumulative 2010-2019 deficit of $9 trillion instead of the $7 trillion previously estimated.

The new figure reflects slumping revenues from a worse economic picture than was expected earlier this year.

The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity ahead of next week's announcement.

Ten-year forecasts are volatile figures subject to change over time.

But the higher number will likely create political difficulties for President Barack Obama in Congress and could create anxiety with foreign buyers of U.S. debt.

Earlier this week, the White House revealed that it expects a budget deficit for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 to be nearly $1.6 trillion.

The figure was lower than initially projected because the White House scratched out $250 billion it had initially added to the budget as a bank rescue contingency.

The administration ultimately did not ask Congress for that money.

Still that number, together with the 10-year projection, represents a huge obstacle for an administration seeking massive policy overhauls in health care and the environment as economists predict a slow recovery from the recession.

Even as he seeks higher revenues to pay for new climate change and health care measures, the President could face pressure to increase revenues or make deep spending cuts to tame the deficit.

Earlier long-term estimates released in February and May relied on now-outdated projections of economic growth.

Then, the White House predicted the economy would shrink by 1.2 percent this year, but the economy shrank 6.4 percent in the first quarter, the worst in nearly three decades.

"Daily Presidential Tracking Poll"

Sunday, August 23, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President.

Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14.

These figures mark the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President.

The previous low of -12 was reached on July 30.

Prior to today, the number who Strongly Approved of the President’s performance had never fallen below 29%.

Some of the decline has come from within the President’s own party.

Just 49% of Democrats offer such a positive assessment of the President at this time.

At the other end of the spectrum, today’s total for Strongly Disapprove matches the highest level yet recorded.

The 41% mark was reached just once before and that came one week ago today.

Seventy percent (70%) of Republicans now Strongly Disapprove along with 49% of those not affiliated with either major party.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve.

It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern.

Updates also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance.

Fifty-one percent (51%) now disapprove.

Of the priorities outlined by the President earlier this year, 40% of voters say cutting the deficit is most important.

Twenty-one percent (21%) believe health care should be the top objective.

While deficit reduction is seen as the most important, 67% say it is the least likely to be achieved.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...l_tracking_poll

"AP source: Obama plans to keep Bernanke at Fed"

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer

25 AUGUST 2009

OAK BLUFFS, Mass. – President Barack Obama plans to reappoint Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a position from which he guided the economy away from its worst recession since the 1930s and, the White House hopes, toward an economic recovery critical to its legacy.

Widely credited with taking aggressive action to avert an economic catastrophe after the financial meltdown last year, Bernanke will be nominated for another term as the helm of the central bank on Tuesday.

Obama plans to make the announcement on Martha's Vineyard, the Massachusetts island where he is vacationing for the week with his family.

Bernanke is expected to be at his side, said a senior administration official who discussed the nomination only on condition of anonymity because the news was not yet public.

By announcing he wants Bernanke for another term and not changing horses in midstream, Obama removes a sense of uncertainty on Wall Street.

Bernanke masterminded what is now seen as a successful strategy to lift the economy out of recession, unlock credit and stabilize financial markets, in part by using unconventional and unprecedented lending programs.

But he's not without his detractors, and the top Democrat on the Senate banking committee warned of a thorough hearing before Bernanke would take his post for a second time.

Many on Wall Street and in academic circles believe that Bernanke would be the best choice to lead the country into a sustainable recovery and would be in the best position to figure out when and how to reel in the trillions of dollars pumped into the economy to battle the crisis.

"Wall Street can rest a little easier now," said Chris Rupkey, an economist at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi.

"Having a new chairman come in at this late date would put the Fed-engineered solution to both the recovery and the exit strategy at risk."

Bernanke, appearing last week at an annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo., received heaps of praise from economists, academics and central bankers from around the world for his handling of the crisis.

In sharp contrast, just a year earlier, as the financial crisis intensified, Bernanke was under siege because of the unprecedented actions he was taking.

But his actions now are bearing fruit.

The economy is emerging out of a recession and is poised for growth.

However, the recovery will be slow and the unemployment rate, now at 9.4 percent, is likely to top 10 percent this year before it starts going down.

Even with this challenge ahead, many economists and Wall Street types believe Bernanke is best suited to deal with the challenge of lowering the unemployment rate, gradually reducing joblessness and fighting off any threat of inflation.

In remarks prepared for the announcement, Obama praised Bernanke for leading the country through the meltdown and, with his expertise on the Great Depression, helping to prevent a crisis rivaling that of the 1930s.

"Ben approached a financial system on the verge of collapse with calm and wisdom, with bold action and outside-the-box thinking that has helped put the brakes on our economic free-fall," Obama said in prepared remarks obtained by the AP.

In sticking with Bernanke, Obama is looking to reassure the financial sector as well as foreign central banks that his administration has no plans to change course on its largely well-received approach to rescuing the industry from its meltdown or its management of overall monetary policy.

Bernanke has won admiration from Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill even as some lawmakers have urged him to retain the Fed's independence and warned him not to become too cozy with the administration.

Any move to replace Bernanke could have been perceived as injecting politics into the Fed, especially if Obama had turned to Lawrence Summers, his top economic adviser, as Bernanke's replacement.

For Obama, there was little political downside in choosing to nominate Bernanke to a second four-year term.

The move displays bipartisanship and a steady, unchanging hand on the economic tiller.

Fully occupied with an attempted health care overhaul, Obama's team could little afford the distraction of changing the head of the Fed.

"The actions we have taken to stabilize our financial system, repair our credit markets, restructure (the) auto industry and help the overall economy recover have all been steps of necessity, not choice," Obama said in prepared remarks for the announcement.

"They have faced plenty of critics, some of whom argued that we should stay the course or do nothing at all."

"But taken together, all of these steps have brought our economy back from the brink."

"They are steps that are working."

Bernanke, 55, was appointed Fed chairman by President George W. Bush and sworn in Feb. 1, 2006, following Alan Greenspan's 18-year tenure.

His renomination requires confirmation by the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The news, breaking late Monday while Congress was winding down its August recess, drew a tepid — although speedy — response from Sen. Chris Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who runs the Senate Banking Committee.

"While I have had serious differences with the Federal Reserve over the past few years, I think reappointing Chairman Bernanke is probably the right choice," said Dodd, promising a thorough confirmation hearing.

"Chairman Bernanke was too slow to act during the early stages of the foreclosure crisis, but he ultimately demonstrated effective leadership and his reappointment sends the right signal to the markets."
___

Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn in Washington and Jeannine Aversa in Jackson Hole, Wyo., contributed to this report.

Keeping Bernanke signals Obama's intention to keep intack the power structure controling the Financial system
that he inherited from Bush Familly, Inc. This was his window of opportunity for starting to change it. The US is stuck with an empire that she doesn't have the will to dismantle...

He is alot better than Paulson

being that we just emerged from the greatest economic calamity since the depression, and thanks to Obama he singlehandedly turned it into
the coming boon like in the 1940s and 1950s after the depression

I think Ben deserves another term


and dear livy, who is so color enraged he is left to quote phony polls, you need to get that prejudice out of your blood
It is not good for your blood pressure

Obama has a plus 50% approval rating nationwide

that Rasmussen has found a way to for the first time in his polls game the polls justg shows how racist Rasmussen(a self-confessed Bush lover
and donator).
Rasmuseen never used to poll this way.

59% of the people approve rather than strongly disapprove of Obama

what a bunch of racist crap Rasmussen and his quoters must be sitting in


Hey livyjr- Obama will be in office another 7 1/2 years
then a woman will become president
then maybe an Asian, or an Hispanic

but an old white guy will never again be president. 43 of them ruined that forever.

Yes, graham, tis true ...

The REPUBLIC is dead ....

We are now over into the "democracy" phase of the dissolution and devolution of the United States of America, where the holder of the Office of the U.S. president will be put in there by mobs, so we can expect various two-bit actors, mountebanks, brothel operators, madams, gamblers and such to get the job ....

History repeats itself, graham ...

And so ...

Because I am NOT "color-enraged", graham, nor a racist, my blood pressure is actually quite good ....

Doctors comment on that because they are unused to seeing that in someone my age ...

How is yours, by the way?

Still up?

As to the quality of my blood, which is not polluted with prejudice and race hate and Viagra and all of that $*** that constitutes the diet of the modern American male, along with steroids to bulk them up, it is also quite good, graham ...

Which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of obese, drugged-up Americans who are half my age ....

And so ...

But thanks for asking, graham ...

That was quite civil of you ....

And God told me to tell you that of all the BLOGGERS that there are, and this includes KOS and HUFFINGTON, you are still God's favorite ....

He especially likes it when you get to going on about how God is the biggest SCAM on people that there is ....

That cracks him right up, graham, and in these lousy times, even God needs a good belly-laugh from time to time ....

And so ...

MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS ACTUALLY QUITE GOOD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, graham ...

THE DOCTORS ALL SAY THAT THAT COMES FROM CLEAN LIVING, AND WHO AM I TO ARGUE WITH THEM ...

AND IN THE MEANTIME, graham, THE OBAMA DUDE IS TANKING ...

And so ...

"Obama disapproval on health care up to 52 percent - AP Poll: Public disapproval of Obama's handling of health care rises to 52 percent"

By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:55 p.m., Wednesday, September 9, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Public disapproval of President Barack Obama's handling of health care has leaped to 52 percent, according to Associated Press-GfK poll that underscores the country's glowering mood just as the White House revs up its pitch for an overhaul.

Just 42 percent approve of the president's work on the high-profile health issue.

The survey was released Wednesday hours before his nationally televised effort to persuade Congress and voters to back his drive to reshape the nation's $2.5 trillion-a-year medical system.

Spotlighting how Obama lost ground this summer, his latest approval figures on health were essentially reversed since July, when 50 percent approved of his health effort and just 43 percent disapproved.

The poll illustrates how difficult recent weeks have been for a president who, besides tackling health care, has been battling to end a devastatingly deep recession.

Fifty percent approve and 49 percent disapprove of the overall job he is doing as president, compared to July, when those approving his performance clearly outnumbered those who were unhappy with it, 55 percent to 42 percent.

The slipping figures were an ominous sign for Obama, who by year's end wants Congress to send him legislation lowering health costs while covering millions of uninsured Americans.

Besides near unanimous opposition from Republicans, the president's proposal has divided lawmakers from his own party, with liberals battling for a far-reaching plan that would include optional government-run insurance, and moderates demanding a scaled-down version without public coverage.

The poll found that discontent with Obama's health care effort is not isolated to Republicans.

While nearly nine in 10 from the GOP disapproved of his handling of the issue, so did about six in 10 independents and two in 10 Democrats.

"How in the world can anybody look at this and evaluate it and see if it makes effective change?" Kelly Hoots, 35, a pharmacist and independent from Weaverville, N.C., said of the health care legislation.

"Who knows what's in it?"

Further spotlighting the opposition Obama is encountering, 49 percent in the AP-GfK poll said they oppose the health overhaul plans being considered by Congress, compared to just 34 percent who favor them.

People are about evenly split over what lawmakers should do next on health care:

About four in 10 say they should keep trying to pass a bill this year while about the same number say they should start over again.

Significantly, though, only about two in 10 say the health care system should be left as is, a positive sign for Obama.

"It's about time" for expanded health coverage, said Randy Yarborough, 56, a retired cabinetmaker and Democrat from Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

"Everybody ought to have it."

"Anybody who says we can't afford it or we shouldn't have government health care, you need to wake up."

There is a clear public desire for a bipartisan approach on health care.

Eight in 10 say it's important that any plan that passes Congress have the support of both parties, with Democrats, Republicans and independents all saying so by roughly that proportion.

Two-thirds say if Obama and congressional Democrats can't win support from Republicans to pass a bill this year, they should keep trying until they get it.

Obama's marks are also declining on the economy, with 52 percent saying they disapprove of how he's handled that issue.

Just 46 percent disapproved in a July AP-GfK poll, and 35 percent disapproved in April.

About half disapprove of his handling of taxes, some of which may rise to help finance his health overhaul, and of unemployment, which has been on the rise.

And 56 percent dislike his handling of the budget deficit, which has skyrocketed under the costs of the financial bailouts and a recession that has caused federal revenues to sink.

While 77 percent say health care is important to them, 92 percent said the same about the economy, more than any other issue in the AP-GfK poll.

That suggests that despite Washington's focus on the health care struggle, few voters have taken their eyes off the recession.

"They ought to scrap the whole thing" on health care, said Republican Wendy Sanders, 39, a homemaker from Kingsland, Ga.

"People need jobs."

"Do that."

The survey of 1,001 adults with cell and landline telephones was conducted from Sept. 3-8.

It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

------

AP polling director Trevor Tompson and news survey specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

AND HERE COMES ANOTHER ****ING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE .....

AND A HUGE WINDFALL FOR OBAMA'S CORPORATE SUPPORTERS AT OUR EXPENSE ...

And so ...

"Policyholders could pay more under Obama plan - Policyholders could to pay more under Obama plan as insurance companies pass on costs"

By TOM MURPHY and LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press

Last updated: 6:15 p.m., Thursday, September 10, 2009

If President Barack Obama gets what he wants in his health care plan -- covering all Americans and barring insurers from denying coverage -- some analysts say individuals could wind up paying higher premiums.

The Obama plan would impose new costs on insurance companies, which would probably then raise the prices customers pay for coverage.

Employers also would likely pass on some of their higher costs to employees.

An individual in a typical plan might have to pay up to $780 more for the same coverage in the first year of Obama's plan, estimates Erik Gordon, a health care analyst and assistant professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.

Gordon said employees now typically pay 20 to 40 percent of the premium for a typical health care package costing about $13,000 a year for a family of four, with employers picking up the rest.

Obama's plan would raise insurers' costs 10 to 15 percent if reform doesn't provide other savings, Gordon estimated.

He thinks employers would stick employees with perhaps 40 percent of the higher premium, or $520 to $780 more -- though they might also receive better coverage because of mandatory preventive care and screenings.

The president told Congress most of health care reform can be paid for by eliminating waste and abuse in the existing system.

Better screenings that prevent chronic diseases later would also save money, the administration has argued.

In his speech to Congress on Wednesday night, Obama said he wants to bar insurers from denying coverage to anyone because of a pre-existing health problem, canceling policies for sick people or refusing to cover preventive care.

He also suggested limits on Americans' co-payments and deductibles.

"We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick," the president said.

Obama would also charge insurers a fee for their most expensive policies as a way of encouraging insurers to keep costs low and keep their rates low.

In addition, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has proposed a new fee on insurers that would subsidize coverage for uninsured Americans.

The fee would generate about $6 billion a year.

Covering tens of millions more Americans would heap hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on managed care companies.

Yet insurers stand to benefit in other ways.

Consultants estimate Obama's priorities would shower the industry with at least $1 trillion in new revenue from premiums over the next decade.

Industry representatives counter that, even if insurers take in more money than they pay out, profit margins are so thin that additional taxes and fees would wind up being passed on to policyholders.

"There is no room for these taxes," said H. Edward Hanway, CEO of Cigna.

"What you're ultimately going to see if those taxes hold is everybody's costs going up, not just the new people being covered."

"The concern I have is these taxes don't do anything but add to the cost of people already insured."

Others said Obama's plan might not raise costs as much as expected if everyone is required to have insurance and receive preventive care like regular checkups or mammograms, which can save money in the long run.

Lawmakers have yet to settle on any single health care plan.

But several ideas being discussed could be a boon to private health insurers, especially if the eventual reform does not include a public plan to compete with them.

Obama reiterated his support for a public plan but did not insist on it, and industry analysts think the idea will disappear eventually.

That helps explain why analysts don't think the insurance industry faces any serious threat from the Obama plan.

The stocks of several health insurers performed better than the broader market Thursday.

Shares of Cigna rose more than 5 percent, and Humana Inc., WellPoint Inc. and Aetna Inc. all climbed at least 2 percent.

Investors are "coming more and more to the conclusion that it's really not going to hurt," said BMO Capital Markets analyst Dave Shove.

Shove noted that many insurers already operate profitably in states that have restrictions similar to those being discussed in reform proposals.

These include limits on profitability and laws that guarantee coverage for individual insurance.

Health care reform without a public option "would be fantastic" for insurers, said Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a Virginia-based health care consulting firm.

"They're going to get millions of new customers and more than a trillion in new premiums over a 10-year period," said Laszewski, a former industry executive.

"There's a reason they aren't running any negative ads."

The plan also would send new business to providers.

Another analyst, David Bachman of Longbow Research in Independence, Ohio, expects spending on doctor visits would jump $8.5 billion a year under Obama's proposal.

He also expects to see an initial increase in spending on supplies used during patient visits, amounting to roughly $2 billion per year, and billions of dollars more for diagnostic testing and prescription drugs.

Overall, Bachman said his "back-of-the-envelope calculation" indicates a 15 percent increase in spending at hospitals, 17 percent more for doctor visits and 10 to 12 percent more for patient supplies.

Insurers will then pass those increases on to customers, he said.

"They're going to raise premiums on employers, who are going to raise costs for employees," Bachman said.

"Then the fight becomes over how to best control costs."

----------

AP business writers Matt Perrone in Washington, D.C., and Damian J. Troise in New York contributed to this report.

"Wilson's rallying cry"

Glenn Thrush

Thu Sep 10, 12:44 am ET

All eyes were on President Barack Obama entering Wednesday night's address to Congress, but a little-known South Carolina Republican may have done more than the president’s combative speech to unify besieged Democrats around health care reform.

The night's defining moment — which Democrats hope to transform into a turning point — came when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" as Obama claimed his plan wouldn't offer free care to illegal immigrants.

Wilson's boorishness — for which he quickly apologized — enraged audience members on both sides of the aisle.

It also overshadowed a speech that included some of Obama's harshest attacks on his GOP critics to date, including a denunciation of "death panel" alarmists as liars — a veiled swipe at former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — and a warning to Republicans who want to "kill" reform.

"What we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government," Obama said.

"Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge."

"And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned."

"Well, the time for bickering is over."

"The time for games has passed," he added, to Democratic cheers.

The president's combativeness, coupled with Wilson's behavior, clearly energized Democrats — to the point where few were in a mood to criticize Obama's lack of specifics or the fact that he offered no ironclad commitment to inserting a robust public option in the final legislation.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), one of the upper-chamber Democrats most skeptical of the White House reform efforts, was impressed by Obama’s speech.

"I think it was a bit of a game-changer," he said.

"The speech galvanized support along the Democratic Caucus across the political spectrum, from the progressive caucus to the Blue Dogs, and everybody left determined to get something done this year," Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told POLITICO on Wednesday night.

Republicans — some of whom expressed open contempt for Obama by scanning their BlackBerrys or holding up copies of GOP bills during the speech — saw the president’s remarks as a Democratic call to arms that belied the president’s oft-repeated calls for bipartisanship.

"I was incredibly disappointed in the tone of his speech,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

”At times, I found his tone to be overly combative and believe he behaved in a manner beneath the dignity of the office."

"I fear his speech tonight has made it more difficult — not less — to find common ground."

"He appeared to be angry at his critics and disappointed the American people were not buying the proposals he has been selling."

"... If the Obama administration and congressional Democrats go down this path and push a bill on the American people they do not want, it could be the beginning of the end of the Obama presidency."

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who is running for Obama's old Senate seat, said, "He talked at us."

"He didn't listen to us ..."

"It was a missed opportunity."

Added Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.):

"I sat there tonight wondering what the purpose of this evening was."

"I was hoping to hear the president flesh out a middle ground, but instead we heard platitudes and campaign rhetoric."

But Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of Obama's most consistent critics, saw some room for compromise.

"It was a good speech, the problem is that what he wants and what they've written are two totally different things," said Coburn, an OB-GYN.

“I'm willing to compromise to get things fixed."

"But I'm not willing to put the government in charge because we don't have a good track record."

Despite the energized tone, Obama offered cold comforts to liberals, no detailed road map for reform and an endorsement of the public option that fell far short of a guarantee.

"It is only one part of my plan," he said of the option.

"To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it."

"The public option is only a means to that end — and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal."

But the fight over the public plan was eclipsed by Wilson's outburst halfway through Obama's address.

Wilson was quickly shouted down by Democrats, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi shot a withering glance at the GOP side of the room.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel demanded an apology from Wilson — as did Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

A chastened Wilson quickly obliged, issuing a public apology and calling Emanuel personally after the speech, according to a White House source.

"This evening, I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the president's remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill," he wrote in an e-mail to reporters.

"While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable."

"I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, said the remark was the latest in a long line of political attacks by Wilson.

“Joe Wilson took our state's reputation to a new low."

"I thought [Gov.] Mark Sanford had taken it as low as it could go, but this is beyond the pale," Clyburn said.

"Joe is very confrontational," he added.

"He held his first town hall meeting three blocks from my house at my kid's high school."

"Now why would he have this town hall meeting in my congressional district, three blocks from my house in my kid's high school?"

"It's not in his district."

"That's the kind of guy Joe Wilson is."

"He loves confronting people."

"So he was confronting the president, just as he was confronting me."

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, predicted that Wilson’s outburst would have consequences.

"The person who said it will pay a price,” Durbin said.

“I think the average American thinks that the president and the office deserve respect, and that was a disrespectful comment."

"They'll pay a price in the court of public opinion."

Alex Isenstadt, Ben Smith, Jonathan Martin, Manu Raju, Patrick O’Connor and Lisa Lerer contributed to this report.

"Rejection of BofA settlement a setback for SEC - Judge's rejection of SEC deal with BofA deals setback to embattled agency and its chairman"

By MARCY GORDON, Associated Press

Last updated: 7:05 p.m., Tuesday, September 15, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A judge's condemnation of the Securities and Exchange Commission in rejecting its $33 million settlement with Bank of America over bonuses at Merrill Lynch dealt a stinging rebuke to an agency seeking to mend its image after its failure to detect Bernard Madoff's fraud scheme.

The SEC must weigh its options after the judge's finding that it was too gentle with one of the biggest U.S. banks.

It must also struggle anew to gain credibility for its enforcement efforts.

The ruling also marks a setback for the SEC's relatively new chairman, Mary Schapiro.

The agency may be forced to mount a court fight against Bank of America over one of the touchiest issues of the financial crisis -- executive pay.

The case stemmed from revelations that Merrill, with the knowledge of Bank of America executives, paid employees $3.6 billion in bonuses just before the bank acquired Merrill on Jan. 1.

In his ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of New York said the SEC's accusations of inadequate disclosure by Bank of America over the bonuses must now go to trial.

Rakoff earlier had ordered the SEC to explain why it didn't pursue charges against individual Bank of America executives.

The prospect of a trial is "putting the agency in a very tough situation," said Ross Albert, a former SEC senior special counsel and federal prosecutor who is now a private attorney in Atlanta.

Albert said the agency may have to go to trial -- which "it's not clear what it would accomplish at this point" -- or possibly charge individual Bank of America executives.

Schapiro, appointed by President Barack Obama, took over the agency in January -- a month after the Madoff scandal and several months after the financial crisis erupted.

She installed a new enforcement director and took other steps with an eye toward strengthening the pursuit of fraud and protecting investors.

"The buck stops with her," Albert said.

"She is the senior official ... and anything that reflects badly on the agency is going to reflect badly on her."

Rakoff called the proposed settlement with Bank of America Corp. a breach of "justice and morality" and ordered the case to trial on Feb. 1.

Some saw the ruling as a defeat for Schapiro personally as well as for the agency.

"The first thing Mary Schapiro was trying to do when she came in" was to restore the credibility of the SEC's enforcement division, said Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America.

"This has to be seen as a pretty serious setback in that area."

Normally, the five SEC commissioners, including Schapiro, vote to approve or reject settlements with companies or individuals.

The agency's enforcement staff negotiates the deals and recommends how the commissioners should vote.

Their votes aren't made public.

In seeking approval to buy Merrill, Bank of America told shareholders that Merrill wouldn't pay year-end bonuses without Bank of America's consent.

But in its civil complaint filed in August, the SEC said Bank of America had already authorized Merrill to pay up to $5.8 billion in bonuses and didn't share that information with shareholders.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America agreed to pay the $33 million in the settlement without admitting or denying wrongdoing.

The bank has said it didn't violate disclosure rules but wished to avoid litigation with the SEC at a time of market uncertainty.

Rakoff, in his ruling, found that the settlement "suggests a rather cynical relationship between the parties."

"The SEC gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger, the bank's management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators."

"And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth," he wrote.

The SEC now must consider its next moves.

The agency could seek to renegotiate the deal with Bank of America.

But it may be hard to find revised terms that would satisfy Rakoff if bank executives weren't individually charged.

Some legal experts said the SEC can't appeal his ruling.

But it could consider filing a petition to overturn it -- a maneuver used in extraordinary circumstances when a judge is alleged to have exceeded his authority.

Or the SEC could go to trial against Bank of America.

Rakoff's setting of a trial date could be aimed at prodding the parties to come back with a new settlement or for the SEC to charge bank executives.

The SEC wasn't tipping its hand as to its likely next move.

"We believe the proposed settlement properly balanced all of the relevant considerations," spokesman John Nester said in a statement Monday.

"We will carefully review the court's most recent order."

While judges have on occasion sent back proposed settlements to the SEC and ordered them to be renegotiated, throwing an accord out entirely is highly unusual.

Rakoff's ruling "raises really important questions about what the SEC enforcement process should be doing and should be accomplishing," said Sam Buell, who was a member of the Justice Department's task force in the Enron prosecution and is now a visiting law professor at Duke University.

At the same time, the rejection of the Bank of America accord could hang over the SEC as its enforcement attorneys seek to negotiate new settlements with other companies.

IS OBAMA ACTUALLY ANTI-WAR?

"Obama 'skeptical' about more troops"

Josh Gerstein

Sun Sep 20, 9:59 am ET

President Barack Obama is warning U.S. commanders that he’s “skeptical” about whether more troops will make a difference in Afghanistan, saying he’ll approve an upcoming request only if the forces fit into a strategy to beat back al-Qaida and protect the United States.

“Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there — beyond what we already have,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way – you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration.”

U.S. generals are preparing to seek as many as tens of thousands additional troops for the increasingly unpopular conflict, but in several of his five Sunday talk show interviews, Obama made clear that he’s far from convinced about the need for a massive infusion of troops and won’t be rushed on the decision.

“We’re going to test whatever resources we have against our strategy, which is, if by sending young men and women into harm’s way, we are defeating al Qaeda–and that can be shown to a skeptical audience, namely me, somebody who is always asking hard questions about deploying troops— then we will do what’s required to keep the American people safe,” Obama said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”

Obama also said he suspects there is a predisposition among some military planners to think more troops is the answer to almost any problem.

“There is a natural inclination to say, ‘If I get more, then I can do more,’” Obama said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“But right now, the question is—the first question is, are we doing the right thing?"

"Are we pursuing the right strategy?”

“We’re not going to put the cart before the horse and just think by sending more troops we’re automatically going to make Americans safe,” Obama told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

Obama had made a focus on the war in Afghanistan a central tenet of his foreign policy when he ran for president – often holding up the decision to invade Afghanistan, home to the 9/11 plotters, as the right move compared to President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

And earlier this year, Obama announced a new Afghan strategy and approved sending 21,000 more troops to the eight-year-long war, in part to provide security for the recent national elections.

That would bring the total to 68,000 U.S. troops by year’s end.

But now the U.S. commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is preparing to ask for thousands of more troops, right at a moment when U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan are hitting a peak and polls show a majority of Americans no longer support the war.

Also, Obama is facing pressure inside his own party to bring the troops out of Afghanistan.

Obama denied a CNN report that the White House has told McChrystal to hold off on formally requesting the additional forces.

The Pentagon is preparing to give the White House a report assessing U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

Officials have said that report will not contain any requests for troop increases, but such a request is expected to come separately soon thereafter from McChrystal.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) picked up on the CNN report to question whether Obama was purposely stalling a decision on the troop increase.

He said Republicans would back the president if he decides to send more troops to the war – but McConnell didn’t answer whether he believes more troops are needed now, saying that he trusts the judgment of McChrystal and other generals.

“We think the time for decision is now."

"As Senator [John] McCain has pointed out, when you delay a decision like this, you may be arguably endangering the lives of our soldiers,” McConnell said on CNN.

“The sooner you can make that decision, the better.”

Obama said during the interviews that he inherited a war and a strategy that had gone awry.

In the ABC interview, Obama said that when he took office, U.S. efforts in Afghanistan were no longer intensely focused on Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

“When we came in, basically, there had been had been drift in our Afghan strategy."

"Everybody acknowledges that,” Obama said.

“We lost that focus for a while and you started seeing a classic case of mission creep, where we’re just there and we start taking on a whole bunch of different missions.”

Obama also told CNN that narrowing the focus of U.S. operations in Afghanistan will also improve the chances of tracking down and killing Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden.

“If we have a overarching strategy that reminds us every day that that’s our focus… we have a better chance of capturing and killing him and certainly keeping Al Qaida on the run than if we start drifting into a whole bunch of other missions that really aren't related to what is our essential strategic problem and rationale for being there,” the president said.

During his Sunday show interviews, Obama sounded so intent on avoiding “mission creep” that at one point he seemed to rule out any use of American troops in peacekeeping operations that don’t have a direct impact on U.S. security.

“The only reason I send a single young man or woman in uniform anywhere in the world is because I think it’s necessary to keep us safe,” the president said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

If Obama meant to rule out the use of U.S. military personnel to ward off genocide or humanitarian crises, that would be something of a surprise.

One of his national security advisers, Samantha Power, is renowned as an advocate of using force to head off massive human rights violations.

The reluctant approach Obama signaled toward the possibility of more troops in Afghanistan sounded broadly consistent with a suggestion his national security adviser, James Jones, made to U.S. commanders during a visit to the country in June.

According to the Washington Post, Jones, using a sanitized abbreviation for an expression of surprise, said any request for more troops was likely to cause Obama to experience a 'Whiskey Tango Foxtrot' moment.”

Obama did not elaborate Sunday on the other missions which he believes distracted U.S. personnel.

However, even as elections went forward in Afghanistan last month, his administration was stepping back from some of the Bush administration’s more ambitious goals for democracy in that country and elsewhere.

In recent months, U.S. military and diplomatic personnel have been more willing to cut deals and make alliances with regional chiefs that some Afghans regard as warlords.

There have even been discussions about trying to co-opt elements of the Taliban.

“Afghanistan is very much still a tribal area,” CIA director Leon Panetta told Voice of America last week.

“Some of the Taliban are to our discouragement are individuals who are engaging in military actions against the United States…"

"Others are those who we think more concerned about trying to establish some stability."

"So, you don’t just have one brand of Taliban.”

Obama’s comments came as resistance to more troops is also increasing on Capitol Hill.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said last week that she supports putting time limits on the U.S. military commitment to Afghanistan.

“I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan."

"I believe it will remain a tribal entity,” she said.

Others, including Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) have called on Obama to set a flexible timeline for getting out of Afghanistan – much as many Democrats did with Bush on Iraq.

Obama didn’t answer directly on whether he supported a timeline, but said his strategy contained “benchmarks” for achievements to assess the progress of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.

Could Obama become the Peace President?

Keep watching this thread, rla ....

I think that we are on the way to finding that out, myself ...

I think that Obama might be stepping into an even bigger hornet's nest here than he has with healthcare ....

And so ...

Back when John Adams was president, he refused to take the USA to war with France despite a huge clamor in this country for war ....

Adams ended up being excoriated in the press, and Tommy Jefferson labeled him a "toothless old dog", an appellation which stuck ....

Adams ended up a one-term president and Tommy Jefferson took the job away from him the next time around ....

And so ....

"Report: Troops needed to avoid Afghan failure"

By ANNE GEARAN, AP National Security Writer

21 SEPTEMBER 2009

WASHINGTON – The situation in Afghanistan is serious and growing worse and without more boots on the ground the United States risks failure in a war it's been waging since shortly after the terror attacks of September 2001, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, says in a confidential report.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," McChrystal wrote in a five-page Commander's Summary.

His 66-page report, sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Aug. 30, is now under review by President Barack Obama.

Details of McChrystal's assessment were first reported late Sunday by The Washington Post.

The newspaper posted a link to the report on its Web site, with some operational details withheld at the request of the Pentagon.

"Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall effort is deteriorating," McChrystal said of the war's progress.

While asserting that more troops are needed, McChrystal also pointed out an "urgent need" to significantly revise strategy.

The U.S. needs to interact better with the Afghan people, McChrystal said, and better organize its efforts with NATO allies.

"We run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage."

"The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves," he wrote.

In his blunt assessment of the tenacious Taliban insurgency, McChrystal warned that unless the U.S. and its allies gain the initiative and reverse the momentum of the militants within the next year the U.S. "risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible"

The Pentagon and the White House are awaiting a separate, more detailed request for additional troops and resources.

Media reports Friday and Saturday said McChrystal has finished it but was told to pocket it, partly because of the charged politics surrounding the decision.

McChrystal's senior spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, told The Associated Press on Sunday the report is not complete.

Obama is re-evaluating whether the renewed focus on hunting al-Qaida that he announced just months ago has become blurred and whether more forces will do any good.

"Are we doing the right thing?" he asked during one of a series of interviews broadcast Sunday.

"Are we pursuing the right strategy?"

A spokesman for Afghanistan's Defense Ministry said Sunday the Afghan government would not second-guess international military commanders on the need for more troops, but said that the greatest need is actually on the other side of the Afghan-Pakistan border.

"The focus should be on those points and areas where the insurgency is infiltrating Afghanistan," he said, referring to the Pakistan border region where Taliban and al-Qaida fighters hide and plan attacks.

In Congress, the war has taken on a highly partisan edge.

Senate Republicans are demanding more forces to turn around a war that soon will enter its ninth year, while members of Obama's own Democratic Party are trying to put on the brakes.

Obama said in the Sunday interviews that he will not allow politics to govern his decision.

Nor has the president asked his top commander in Afghanistan to sit on a request for U.S. reinforcements in a backsliding war.

"No, no, no, no," Obama responded when asked whether he or aides had directed McChrystal to temporarily withhold a request for additional U.S. forces and other resources.

But he gave no deadline for making a decision about whether to send more Americans into harm's way.

"The only thing I've said to my folks is, 'A, I want an unvarnished assessment, but, B, I don't want to put the resource question before the strategy question,'" Obama said.

"Because there is a natural inclination to say, 'If I get more, then I can do more.'"

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he expected McChrystal's request for additional forces and other resources "in the very near future."

Other military officials had said the request would go to McChrystal's boss, Gen. David Petraeus, and up the chain of command in a matter of weeks.

The White House discounted that timeline, but has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it.

In the interviews taped Friday at the White House, Obama mentioned concerns about the "mission creep" that befell former President George W. Bush's attempt to build and prop up a viable democratic government in a country unaccustomed to central rule and sensitive to foreign meddling.

Obama said he's asking this question now of the military regarding his plan:

"How does this advance America's national security interests?"

"How does it make sure that al-Qaida and its extremist allies cannot attack the United States homeland, our allies, our troops who are based in Europe?"

"If supporting the Afghan national government and building capacity for their army and securing certain provinces advances that strategy, then we'll move forward," the president continued.

"But if it doesn't, then I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way, you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration."

Obama spoke on CNN's "State of the Union," ABC's "This Week," NBC's "Meet the Press," and CBS' "Face the Nation."
___

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez in Kabul contributed to this report.
___

On the Net:

A link to McChrystal's summary and report is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com

"Obama lashes out at U.S. banks over student loans"

By Caren Bohan

Mon Sep 21, 1:49 pm ET

TROY, New York (Reuters) – President Barack Obama criticized the largest U.S. banks on Monday for trying to thwart legislation that would overhaul federal student loan programs.

He singled out in particular banks that have received bailout money from the federal government, saying they want to maintain the status quo on student loans because they get an "unwarranted subsidy" from it.

The U.S. House of Representatives last week approved legislation that would cut major banks and student loan giant Sallie Mae out of a large slice of the $92 billion university student loan business, shifting most lending into a program run by the U.S. Education Department.

The bill, strongly backed by Obama, will go next to the Senate for further consideration.

Some Republicans criticized the bill as a government takeover of an industry that has served students well but Obama's fellow Democrats praised the House bill as a victory for students over banks.

"Ending this unwarranted subsidy for the big banks is a no-brainer for folks everywhere."

"Everywhere except Washington, that is," Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at a community college in Troy, New York.

"In fact, we're already seeing the special interests rallying to save this giveaway.

"The large banks -- many who have benefited from taxpayer bailouts during the financial crisis -- are lobbying to keep this easy money flowing."

"This is exactly the kind of special interest effort that has succeeded before and that we cannot allow to succeed again," he said, in fiery comments distancing himself from the banks.

Many U.S. students take on crushing debt loads to pay university bills that can total $50,000 a year or more at the country's private universities.

(Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington; Editing by David Alexander and Bill Trott)

AND THE OBAMA BAIT-AND-SWITCH CONTINUES ...

And so ...

"Proposal would limit scope of new oversight agency - Geithner signals support to exempt retailers, others from proposed financial oversight agency"

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:56 p.m., Wednesday, September 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Ceding ground amid growing business opposition, the Obama administration on Wednesday signaled a willingness to exempt retailers, real estate brokers, lawyers, auto dealers, cable companies and accountants from oversight of its proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told Congress that he supports a plan by Democratic Rep. Barney Frank that would narrow the purview of the new consumer watchdog.

His remarks all but guarantee that lawmakers will move ahead with financial reform legislation less ambitious than the plan that President Barack Obama outlined in June.

"There are lots of different ways to make sure that you don't create too much unbridled authority that would be damaging" to industry competition, Geithner told the House Financial Services Committee.

The proposed agency, CFPA for short, is the centerpiece of Obama's broader effort to fix the regulatory system that contributed to last year's market crisis.

Among his top priorities is a separate regulator that could reach across various industries to defend financial consumers from fraud and abuse.

The current regulatory system focuses on banks, leaving swaths of the financial industry unsupervised.

Frank, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House panel, was an early and ardent supporter of Obama's approach.

But as the weeks passed, giving the financial industry time to launch a multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to kill the legislation, conservative Democrats joined Republicans in questioning whether such an agency would be too burdensome for local banks and businesses.

Frank responded this week with a proposal that includes a blanket exemption for retailers and other industries, even if they offer customer credit or layaway plans.

These companies, however, would still be subject to existing credit laws, including the Truth in Lending Act.

Frank's plan also would drop the administration's demand that companies offer standardized financial products, known as the "plain vanilla" option.

Obama wanted to ensure that lower-risk loans, such as a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, could compete with more exotic and costly products.

In addition, Frank would not require that lenders take reasonable steps to ensure their communications with customers are not deceptive.

This would put banks in the "untenable position of having to assess whether consumers comprehend the products and services they are being offered," Frank said in a summary of his proposal.

Steve Adamske, a spokesman for Frank, said the House proposal was not a watered-down version of Obama's plan but rather an attempt by Congress to put a finer point on it.

There were too many questions among lawmakers about which businesses would be subject to CFPA oversight and how to enforce a mandate on standardized products, he said.

While Geithner called Frank's plan a "helpful, pragmatic" approach, he said he still thinks the agency should be able to monitor any institution that provides credit.

If retailers provide credit but aren't subject to the same rules as banks, "all risk and activity will migrate to where there is no protection," Geithner said.

Consumer advocates applauded Frank for retaining the consumer agency despite pressure from the industry and some lawmakers to eliminate it from the legislation.

But Ruth Susswein, deputy director of national priorities at Consumer Action, said some of the exceptions in Frank's proposal "would be a concern of ours."

"Auto dealers and auto financing is something that we would hope would still be included under CFPA," she said.

Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America, said he was wary of Frank's proposal for an oversight board that includes banking regulators that would advise the agency's director.

"The upshot of this is that many, not all, but many of the agencies that dropped the ball regarding abuses and unfair credit would now have an oversight role regarding this agency," he said.

"Where are the consumers on this advisory board, by the way?"

Republicans were dismissive entirely of a new regulator.

"We need enforcement of existing regulation, not another layer of regulation or more government bureaucracy," said Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the panel's top GOP member.

Democrats have vowed to pass reform legislation by the end of the year, although the effort could slip into next year.

In a separate development, Frank told reporters on Wednesday that he believes the government should extend its $700 billion bank bailout fund.

The program, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, is set to expire by the end of the year.

------

Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS DAILY POLITICS BLOG:

September 24, 2009 11:16 AM By Elizabeth Benjamin

"New Yorkers To Obama: Mind Your Own Business - The backlash has begun"

Today's Marist poll finds 62 percent of New Yorkers think it was wrong for President Obama to stick his nose into local politics and pressure Gov. David Paterson not to run in 2010.

Even a majority of Obama's fellow Democrats (51 percent) agree the administration was meddling and should let New York manage its own political affairs.

When presented with the scenario that Paterson's low poll numbers will drag down other Democratic candidates, New Yorkers are unmoved.

Sixty percent continue to say the White House should butt out.

Poll respondents are divided over whether the governor will in fact impact the down-ballot races, with 43 percent saying he will and 41 percent saying he won't.

The bad news for Paterson is that all this sympathy isn't translating into a bounce in his approval rating.

In fact, the governor has lost ground, with just 17 percent of poll respondents saying he's doing a "good" or "excellent" job.

That's an all-time Marist low.

He was at 20 percent just last month.

In addition, more than six in 10 voters - 63 percent continue to say they don't want Paterson to run in 2010.

That's better than last week, when 70 percent thought Paterson should get out of the race, but it's still not an overwhelming vote of confidence.

As for Obama, his standing among New Yorkers has slipped, too.

Just 52 percent of New Yorkers think he's doing a good or excellent job, compared to 57 percent earlier this month.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/?offset=5

"OCC chief denounces part of Obama financial plan - Comptroller of the Currency Dugan denounces state consumer law allowance in Obama plan"

By MARCY GORDON, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:15 p.m., Thursday, September 24, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A top federal regulator on Thursday denounced as "radical" an element of the Obama administration's plan to overhaul financial rules that would allow states to apply stricter consumer protection laws to banks than the national standard.

The remarks by Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan marked the latest debate over the massive plan to restructure the nation's financial rules.

They also reopened the issue of federal pre-emption of state laws governing consumer protection -- something Dugan's agency has long battled over with the states.

The comptroller's office, a 150-year-old Treasury Department agency, oversees nationally chartered banks.

Other regulators, such as Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair, have criticized parts of the Obama plan.

But Dugan's broadside is noteworthy because he is an administration official as opposed to an independent regulator.

"This radical change is fundamentally at odds with the concept of efficient national standards for national products and services offered across state lines in national markets," Dugan said in an address to Women in Housing and Finance, a Washington group.

As Congress proceeds with legislation to overhaul financial regulations, its goal should be to strengthen federal rules.

"It should not be to undermine those goals by inviting every state to adopt its own rules for national banks," Dugan said.

Obama's proposal for a new consumer financial protection agency for mortgages, credit cards and other products, also would be undercut by allowing states to adopt different consumer protection rules, he said.

Dugan, a Republican appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005, is one of the five directors of the FDIC.

At times, he has diverged from Bair's views and approaches.

The FDIC is considering several costly, and never before used, options for shoring up the diminishing fund that insures bank deposits.

The agency is considering borrowing billions of dollars from healthy banks, imposing a special fee on the banking industry or tapping a $500 billion credit line with the Treasury.

Another option would be for banks to pay their normal insurance fees in advance.

Dugan said Thursday he was "very concerned" about the effect of such an upfront levy on the strained banking industry.

"Ultimately the industry has to repay it all," he told reporters after his speech.

A fee levied in advance "could cause more stressful conditions," he said.

The deposit insurance fund dropped 20 percent to $10.4 billion in the second quarter -- its lowest point since 1992, at the height of the savings-and-loan crisis.

Some analysts have warned that the fund could fall below zero by year's end because of the wave of bank failures.

The fund is now at 0.22 percent of total insured deposits, below a congressionally mandated minimum of 1.15 percent.

"Volcker: Obama plans maintain 'too big to fail' - Former Fed Chair Volcker says Obama's plans keep 'too big to fail,' may cause future bailouts"

By DANIEL WAGNER, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:26 p.m., Thursday, September 24, 2009

WASHINGTON -- A top White House economic adviser says the Obama administration's proposed overhaul of financial rules preserves the policy of "too big to fail," and could lead to future bailouts.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said Thursday that by designating some companies as critical to the broader financial system, the plans create an expectation that those firms enjoy government backing in tough times.

That implies those financial companies "will be sheltered by access to a federal safety net," he said.

Lawmakers should make clear that nonbank companies will not be saved with federal money, he said.

Emergency measures by the Fed, Treasury and Congress during last year's financial crisis created the expectation that the government would step in to protect failing companies, their bond holders and stockholders, Volcker told the House Financial Services Committee.

Volcker said he does not differ with the administration on most of its proposals, and takes "as a given" that banks will be bailed out in times of crisis.

But he opposed bailouts of insurance firms like American International Group Inc., automakers' finance arms and others.

"The safety net has been extended outside the banking system," Volcker said.

"That's what I want to change."

He said the administration's proposal to create a new system for winding down large nonbank companies would make that easier.

The administration should make it clearer that a "safety net" will apply only to traditional banks, not investment companies or others.

Investors must understand that if a nonbank company fails, stockholders and bondholders' money would be at risk, he added, while endorsing other options for these companies, including forced mergers or liquidation.

Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said the administration's proposals are intended to emphasize "that being among the largest, most interconnected firms does not come with any guarantee of (government) support in times of stress."

The administration's goal is to strengthen the financial system through measures such as requiring banks to hold more capital in reserve and tightening oversight of derivatives.

That will make it easier for the financial system to "absorb the failure" of a large firm without government help, Wolin said Thursday.

"The central objective, again, is to make the system strong enough so we can allow failure to happen in a way that doesn't cause enormous collateral damage to the economy and to the taxpayer," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told lawmakers Wednesday.

Volcker, 81, has emerged as one of the administration's internal critics.

He serves as head of President Barack Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, but has said the administration should take a slower, more methodical approach to overhauling the financial system.

Volcker served as Fed chairman from 1979 to 1987, when he tamed raging inflation, though at the cost of painful interest rate hikes that triggered a recession.

In recent speeches, he has expressed little enthusiasm for some of the initiatives under discussion in Washington, including regulating bankers' compensation.

He has said there is "ample justification" for public anger at pay practices that were "wildly excessive" and encouraged risk-taking at the expense of stability.

But he warned against too much political involvement.

In his remarks Thursday, Volcker endorsed a stricter separation between banks that hold deposits and investment banks.

He said the "safety net" should be limited clearly to commercial banks, while investment banks should be excluded.

"Commercial banks are the indispensable backbone of the financial system," Volcker said, giving consumers safe deposit accounts and financial advice.

Investment banks take on more risk and face conflicts of interest when they combine consumer financial services with major corporate dealmaking.

Volcker said it would be logical to prohibit commercial banks from trading in securities and derivatives.

The House committee is leading the effort to pass Obama's financial overhaul.

Its chairman, Barney Frank, D-Mass., on Wednesday agreed to scale down a key pillar of the financial overhaul:

A new regulator to protect consumers from unsafe financial products and activities.

Geithner endorsed the less ambitious plans, which would exempt retailers and other nonbank companies from oversight.

Referring to the meeting of global leaders kicking off Thursday in Pittsburgh, Volcker said, "A lot of what needs to be done really does require a certain consistency internationally, because these problems are global."

Leaders including Obama are expected to take up global financial regulation at the meeting.

Volcker also said he hoped the administration would work to create a national charter for large insurance companies.

That would help prevent failures like AIG's, where too many regulators oversaw different pieces of the company.

The White House decided not to take on that issue as part of this year's financial overhaul.

Frank said the issue is on the agenda for next year.

Frank and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., say they will have a bill on financial regulation ready for the president's signature by the end of the year.

Volcker said he supported the administration proposal to create a council to oversee systemwide risk, "so long as there's someone who's guiding the process."

The administration has proposed that the Fed have ultimate authority over those issues, but would have Treasury chair the council.

Volcker said that power should rest with the Fed.

He also supports a proposal to create a new position at the central bank, appointed by the president and responsible for financial oversight.

Former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt said the ability to wind down big companies is more important than who oversees risk.

"It does not matter who serves as the cop on the beat if there are no courts of law to send lawbreakers to jail," Levitt said in prepared remarks.

It's critical that lawmakers respond to the recent financial crisis with "important action," Volcker said.

"Memories grow dim, and you want to make a system where you don't have a still bigger crisis 10 years from now."

----------

AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber contributed to this report.

"Obama, the cable critic in chief"

Jonathan Martin

Fri Sep 25, 5:49 am ET

For someone who says he doesn’t watch much cable news, President Barack Obama sounded pretty familiar with the standard talk show format of left vs. right when he was asked about it earlier this year.

“It feels like WWF wrestling,” Obama explained to NBC’s Brian Williams in an interview.

“You know, everybody’s got their role to play.”

The off-the-cuff characterization was in keeping with his newly emerging role, squeezed in between East Room ceremonies and pushing for health care reform: the commander in chief is becoming the nation’s media critic in chief.

Obama isn’t just donning his Columbia Journalism Review hat to diagnose what ails the wheezing industry.

He’s attempting to isolate one particular media irritant — cable news.

This president, it seems, has an obsession with it.

The big three cable networks — Fox, MSNBC and CNN — have become a collective punching bag for Obama, usually referred to generically and always with derision.

“I know it can be easy, especially in Washington, to get caught up in the day-to-day chatter of cable television,” Obama said at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in March.

“I want to make sure everyone catches this, because I think sometimes the chatter on the cable stations hasn’t been clear about this,” he said that month about his efforts to reduce government spending.

“TV loves a ruckus,” Obama lamented at a town hall in Montana in August.

His frequent displays of cable contempt can be traced back to the very first moments of challenge in his administration, when the stimulus package started to get beat up and the White House realized it wasn’t going to win much Republican support for the initial priority of the Obama presidency.

It was then, as the president addressed a House Democratic retreat in Williamsburg, Va., that Obama bemoaned the “cable chatter” he thought was distorting the stimulus.

Since then, the phrase has become a frequent shorthand used by Obama to complain about coverage he finds simplistic, process-obsessed and generally geared more toward creating heat than light.

Not surprisingly, he employs the term most often when he’s frustrated that attention is being devoted to what he considers distractions to his agenda:

The Henry Gates police incident, rowdy town halls, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst — all made-for-cable moments that Obama has come to dismiss as unworthy diversions.

“There’s always been frustration among presidents about what’s happening in the media,” said Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief turned George Washington University professor who said he still owns his “Annoy the Media — Reelect Bush” hat from the 1992 presidential race.

“But cable has taken on this new tone — it’s particularly personal, and it’s particularly endless."

"So there’s some validity to what he says.”

Yet Sesno noted that it’s also cable that is more likely to air Obama’s town halls or Rose Garden remarks — events that are sometimes overlooked by the traditional networks or major papers.

“I doubt that he wants to unplug all the cable coverage because he’d vastly diminish his own podium,” the former newsman observed.

Administration aides say Obama does occasionally get glimpses of cable news from the many White House TVs that are always on and tuned in or when he’s flying on Air Force One.

But usually, aides say, the president is told by staff what controversy, speculation or outrage is being chewed upon that day on cable.

Obama’s private response matches his public disdain.

“It’s a lot of eye-rolling,” said one West Wing aide when asked how the president usually responds to the hot topic du jour.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president’s goal is not to bash cable but to keep supporters and those who might be swayed focused on long-range goals, rather than bogged down with less consequential issues or fleeting narratives.

“I think a lot of this stems from the election,” said Gibbs, who served as a top campaign official and frequent traveling companion with the then-candidate.

“You had primarily donors but others, too, who would get fixated by cable and get freaked out and start calling.”

Spooked by the latest poll showing Obama down, such individuals would buttonhole Obama and senior staff at all manner of events.

“We’d have to explain, ‘Look, we’re doing this differently,’” Gibbs recalled.

Now, it often falls on Gibbs to duck into the Oval Office to tell the president what “the cables,” as White House aides often call the channels, are focused on.

The press secretary said that Obama’s frustration is that they tend to focus on the extremes or try to make complex issues into either-or propositions.

“They want to boil something like Afghanistan down to more troops or no more troops,” he said.

“Or make health care public option or no public option.”

Obama’s view is that most people approach issues in a far more nuanced fashion, Gibbs explained.

But the president, another aide suggests, is genuinely frustrated about how he thinks the cable coverage is giving short shrift to substance.

“Sometimes the stuff he’s trying to talk about gets bogged down in other, tangential meaningless [stuff],” said the aide, adding: “If you look at any of the polls, one thing that they all say is that people don’t have enough information about what he wants on health care.”

Gibbs said cable news outlets hadn’t complained about their whipping-boy status, quipping:

“They probably think it’s pretty good advertising.”

Perhaps so.

Asked for comment, Fox News and MSNBC declined to respond.

A CNN executive surmised that Obama was talking about the other two networks.

“I get the sense, when you listen to what he’s actually saying, that he’s talking mostly about the ideological-leaning networks rather than CNN,” said the executive.

“He’s talking about the back and forth and sometimes one-sidedness that you might get on other cable channels.”

Dan Pfeiffer, Obama’s deputy communications director and a student of the modern media, said the cable channels ought not to think the president is picking on them but noted they were part of a more malignant virus coursing through the body politic.

“When he refers to cable chatter, it’s a broader statement about the political media culture today, which is driven by cable but not limited to cable,” Pfeiffer said.

“The president ran on a mantle to change politics."

"And there are a whole host of elements that make it hard to change politics in the country."

"Those include special interest money, rank partisanship and a political media culture that celebrates all those things.”

Channeling Obama’s recent observation that cable rewards incivility — providing the rude with their 15 minutes of fame — Pfeiffer likened the medium’s impact on politics to what ESPN did to sports.

“In the way that some people say SportsCenter has encouraged showboating in sports at times at the expense of solid, fundamental play, cable news encourages strident partisanship and vitriol,” he observed.

And like Gibbs, Pfeiffer indicated that Obama’s frustration with cable dates back to a campaign where the then-senator’s tactics were often questioned by the pundits and commentators who frequently appear on the air.

“In the cable media culture, every day is Election Day,” Pfeiffer said.

“You’re judged if you won or you lost the day.”

So while Republican presidents have carped about how liberal they perceive the media to be, Obama’s gripe is less about slant than about presentation.

The professorial president seems to wish people got their information from high-fiber, low-volume outlets.

“He may prefer to have an elite, thoughtful and even ponderous media culture that he thinks may have existed in some quarters in earlier times,” said Sesno.

“But we’ve always had a raucous press at some level."

"So I don’t think that’s realistic.”

-- Kendra Marr contributed to this report.

OBAMA IS PATTING HIMSELF ON THE BACK SO HARD HERE ABOUT SAVING THE WORLD THAT HE MIGHT BREAK HIS ARM OR DISLOCATE HIS SHOULDER ...

AND NOTICE THAT ACCORDING TO OBAMA, THE GOVERNMENT BAIL-OUTS AND GIVE AWAYS AND STIMULATIONS HERE IN THE USA ARE GOING TO GO ON AND ON AND ON AND ON WITHOUT APPARENT END ...

AMERICA, THE WELFARE STATE FOR BANKERS AND PARASITES AND USERERS AND SPECULATORS ...

And so ...

"Obama: G20 brought economy back from brink - Obama says world leaders united and confident after bringing economy out of crisis"

By TOM RAUM and EMMA VANDORE, Associated Press

Last updated: 1:46 a.m., Saturday, September 26, 2009

PITTSBURGH -- World leaders on Friday issued sweeping promises to fix a malfunctioning global economic system in hopes of heading off future financial meltdowns.

President Barack Obama said actions taken so far "brought the global economy back from the brink."

"We leave here today confident and united," Obama said at the conclusion of a two-day gathering of the world's 20 top economies to deal with the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

The leaders agreed to keep stimulus plans, which include government spending and low interest rates, generally in place in their respective countries for now to avoid derailing still-fragile recoveries.

Obama had pressed for just such a course and praised the decision.

"Our coordinated stimulus plans played an indispensable role in averting catastrophe."

"Now we must make sure that when growth returns, jobs do, too," he said at a wrap-up news conference.

"That's why we will continue our stimulus efforts until our people are back to work and phase them out when our recovery is strong."

In a statement, all the G-20 leaders declared major progress from what they called their coordinated efforts and "forceful response."

"It worked," they said.

Although many of the pronouncements and actions taken by the leaders lacked specifics or details on follow-through, leaders were bold in pronouncing the gathering -- the third G-20 summit in a year -- as a big success.

"There was unanimity around the table that the errors of the past won't happen again," said French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"The old system of international economic cooperation is over."

"The new system, as of today, has begun," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, referring to a decision to enhance the status for the Group of 20 to make it the lead group for dealing with future international economic issues, eclipsing the older, Western-dominated Group of Eight.

"I have the impression that we are on a successful path," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, before leaving Pittsburgh to fly back to Berlin, where she faces German voters on Sunday.

They moved to require members to subject their economic policies to the scrutiny of a peer review process that would determine whether they were "collectively consistent" with sustainable global growth.

They promised tighter and more coordinated financial regulation.

And, repeating pledges from G-20 summits in November and April, when financial panic was rampant, they vowed anew to "reject protectionism in all its forms."

They also went along with Obama's push for a pledge to withdraw government subsidies from fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas linked to global warming.

While issuing lofty vows, the leaders failed to define how to accomplish many of them and were quickly back to bickering over details.

They did not suggest, for instance, how the peer review process would be enforced.

And they failed to mention that previous pledges to avoid protectionism had been ignored by nearly all 20 members.

Disagreements over whether China should gain voting strength in the International Monetary Fund at the expense of European nations and over global warming language marred the summit.

Obama talked about actions of the G-20 as creating or saving "millions of jobs."

Yet the U.S. economy alone has lost 3.1 million jobs since January when Obama took office.

Since the recession started in December, 2007, some 6.9 million jobs have disappeared.

The group agreed to support changes in the makeup of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

The final statement said voting powers in the IMF "should reflect the relative weights of its members in the world economy, which have changed substantially in view of the strong growth in dynamic emerging market and developing countries."

Now, developed industrialized nations wield about 57 percent of the voting rights in the IMF to about 43 percent for developing nations.

The G-20 leaders called for shifting shares from developed powers to emerging ones by at least 5 percentage points.

They called for a similar shift at the World Bank.

European countries, particularly France and Britain, have been resisting such changes.

Said Obama:

"We brought the global economy back from the brink."

"We laid the groundwork today for long term prosperity."

"Pittsburgh was a perfect venue for this work," Obama said of the one-time despairing Rust Belt city.

"This community has known its share of hard times."

"It picked itself up and dusted itself off."

"It serves as a model for turning the page to a 21st century."

Obama brushed off demonstrations in the city.

He said they were mild compared with some in the past at international gatherings.

"I fundamentally disagree with their view that the free market is the source of all ills," he said.

"Many of the protests are just directed generically at capitalism."

"... One of the great things about the United States is you can speak your mind."

Obama said that tough new financial regulations backed by the G-20 summit would help avoid another economic crisis.

He also said that G-20 leaders would spare no effort to reach a global warming agreement at an international gathering later this year in Copenhagen.

Summit leaders agreed to Obama's call to reduce government subsidies for fossil fuels.

He said if fully implemented, the move would phase out $300 billion in global subsidies.

"All nations have a responsibility to face this challenge," he said.

Obama circulated among the leaders before the talks began, speaking to Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Said Hu:

"The foundation of an economic rebound is not yet solid, with many uncertainties remaining."

"A full economic recovery will take a slow and tortuous process."

Medvedev later said that there were limits to what the G-20 could do, even though it was an improvement over the G-8 grouping.

"In the world, there are not just 20 countries, 20 economies, and therefore we have to think how the G-20 can work with the other countries that are not part of this club," the Russian president told reporters.

He called the United Nations the most legitimate forum for this.

In an apparent reference to a recent trade spat in which the United States imposed punitive tariffs on Chinese tire imports, Hu called on the leaders to "resolutely oppose and reject protectionism in all forms."

Leaders papered over differences on the executive bonus issue by avoiding language for specific caps, something that France had pushed for but that the United States had opposed.

A U.S. push for stronger requirements for bank capital -- the cushion that banks hold against loan losses -- was included, but with many of the specifics over how the capital would be determined left to set at later meetings.

The leaders also agreed to a U.S. proposal for a "framework for strong, sustainable and balanced growth" to deal with such issues as China's huge trade surpluses and the soaring U.S. budget deficit.

The streets of Pittsburgh were generally calm.

A few thousand demonstrators pledging nonviolence banged drums, danced and held signs advocating assorted causes.

South Korean President Myung-bak said that his country will chair the G-20 next year and will host the next summit in November 2010.

------

Associated Press writers Pan Pylas, Michael Fischer, Foster Klug, Ben Feller and Daniel Lovering contributed to this report.

Given the extrordinary challenging times we live in and given the extraordinary difficult task of managing the Office of the President of the US, regardless of the eventual outcome, I think Barack Obama manages the office of the
President on a day-to-day basis better than anyone since JFK. Probably the Titanic had state-of-the-art Management
and it still sank...

The world social system has a real bad profile of Degenerative Diseases...As the World Turns and moves through
time and space, with limited understanding, an awfull lot is riding on the Leadership that the US is able to muster...

The best take I can put on our situation is that Obama seems adept at keeping his bearings and managing his time.
He seems to accept the world as it is and the people in it as they are...this often places him in some very questionable company...

I see Obama as an articulate man given the most difficult times in which to lead this country since the Great Depression. The bailout ticks everybody off but if he didn't infuse $ into the economy it would have collapsed much worse than it has. Unemployment would have soared to the level of the Great Depression. He's also stuck between saving the economy versus ticking everybody off with the stimulus package. He also has the difficult position of bailing out AIG, et al, without rules - thus making it a situation in which the government was not telling corporations how to run their business versus being seen as the instrument who initiated the governmental overtaking of the economy. He's a man who has to chose between many bad/bad decisions. We can't blame him for the current state of affairs. I believe he is trying. I would sure hate his job, though.

Nice to see you posting and sharing your thoughts in here, Gabrielle .....

The one thing I would say in response is that NO ONE, including Obama, or any of us, can say with any degree of certainty what would have happened if the government had done nothing ....

There is no proof that things would have been far worse, just as there is no proof that things are less bad or better now ...

In fact, despite all of Obama's massive stimulation, the economy of the US is still crumbling and disintegrating, seemingly at an exponential rate ....

You are a medical professional, Gabrielle ....

Someone comes to you with putrid bandages covering a festering wound ....

Is the cure another bandage on top of the putrid bandage?

Or maybe three bandages?

Or five?

Because that is all Obama's STIMULATIONS are here ....

BAND-AIDS ....

If you don't go for the root cause, you don't effect a cure ...

And Obama is not going for root causes ....

He is papering those over, in my estimation ...

And regardless of how charming he might be on TV talk shows, I cannot support him with this endless government give-away program of his ...

Birds don't fly from the nest if the mother bird is willing to keep bringing them food every day ...

And why should they?

The free ride is better than the uncertainty of flying ...

And so ...

The DUTY to us of Barack Hussein Obama is to TAKE CARE that OUR existing laws are enforced ....

That is his sole job ...

He is not a ship captain ....

We are not his crew, nor are we subservient to him in any way ....

IS HE TAKING ANY CARE WHATSOEVER THAT OUR EXISTING LAWS ARE BEING ENFORCED?

If so, it is not at all visible to me ....

And JFK got us mired in Viet Nam, rla ...

Not good management that ....

And so ...

Of course it did, rla ....

As an engineer, I have studied that case forensically ...

That ship was not unsinkable at all ....

THAT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A MARKETING PLOY ....

"STATE OF THE ART" ....

I scoff at that term, rla ....

But seemingly intelligent people still get sucked in by it all the time ....

And so ...

this belongs here too-
September was a glorious month for Obama and the Nation.

As the leaves turn all the glorious shades of the rainbow, Obama has been thinking of ending Afghanastan (a big one!)

he has taken care of a pesky REAL terror problem- WITH DETECTIVE WORK worthty of Columbo, as it should be

he has seen the recession be over (though it will be months and months before the job market will much improve, but any kindergarten kid knows
that is to be expected

He has seen the world coming together, instead of fragmented like the evil cabal Bush days

Life is getting better, and to think, all of this in less than one year...

it was only November 2008 when the revolution was won, and not til January was inauguaration

and Obama's ratings have remained high and more important- close to ALL of Obama's supporters LOVE the job he is doing.
(Only the racist haters who never were real fans don't, but they are just racist haters).

(and just this week we found one of the main REPUBLICAN POLLSTERS have been found to have been rigged to (guess what, favor republicans)


We have seen Judge Sonia become new SCOTUS the best new entry to the court in 9 years (and we hope for 5 more from Obama before his
term is over)

All this -


WHAT A GLORIOUS SEPTEMBER TO REMEMBER!!!! ONE FOR THE BOOKS