WTF? Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) Not Sure If He’ll Vote for Obama or Romney

Posted: April 20, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 elections, 2012 presidential campaign, Democratic Politics, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | 15 Comments

Joe Manchin with Barack Obama

From The Boston Globe:

In a statement Friday, the West Virginia lawmaker said he had “some real differences” with both leaders, finding fault with Obama’s energy and economic policies while questioning whether Romney could understand the challenges facing ordinary people.

“I strongly believe that every American should always be rooting for our president to do well, no matter which political party that he or she might belong to,” Manchin said. “With that being said, many West Virginians believe the last 3 1/2 years haven’t been good for us, but we’re hopeful that they can get better.”

The Globe writer has the nerve to call Manchin “moderate.”

Manchin, one of the more moderate Senate Democrats, has broken with his party on several issues as he seeks re-election this year. His state has backed the Republican candidate in the last three presidential elections, and Obama did not fare well in 2008. Obama lost to GOP nominee Sen. John McCain, 56-43 percent, and was overwhelmed by Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primary, losing 67-26 percent.

Last time I checked Hillary Clinton was a Democrat and a more liberal one than Obama, so I guess West Virginians are capable of voting Democratic.

Manchin told the National Journal (NJ) that he will vote for the person his constituents want, (which right now looks like it will be Romney says the NJ), but he has concerns about Romney’s support for the Ryan budget because the folks in WV might not like losing their Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But he doesn’t like Obama’s energy policies. Whatever happened to politicians showing leadership?

Manchin’s position echoes the stance he took during his 2010 special election campaign to serve out the term of the late Sen. Robert Byrd. He declined ahead of that election to endorse a second term for Obama or to say if he would vote for Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to remain majority leader.

If Manchin in fact votes based on which candidate most of his constituents embrace, he will likely cast his ballot for Romney. Obama lost West Virginia by 13 points in 2008 and remains unpopular there. While Romney’s wealth, Mormonism, and views on entitlement reform may not be a perfect fit in a state that remains relatively poor, Protestant, and dependent on federal spending, Obama probably will not take the state….

The share of voters who split their ballots between a presidential candidate and a Senate candidate has steadily declined since 1960. It is now common for more than 80 percent of voters who approve of a president’s performance to back the Senate nominee from the same party, a National Journal analysis of competitive races since 2004 found. Similarly, more than 80 percent of voters who disapprove of a president’s performance tend to support the Senate candidate from the other party, according to the analysis. That is Manchin’s challenge.

I’m guessing the Obama campaign’s reaction to Manchin’s up front announcement that he’ll likely vote for Romney is going to be a bit of a challenge too. Has Manchin ever heard of “The Chicago Way?” I don’t recall even Ben Nelson ever going so far as to publicly announce he would vote for the Republican presidential candidate.

Is Valerie Jarrett Really as Simple-Minded as She Seems?

Posted: August 6, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Surreality, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 26 Comments

Yesterday Special Adviser to the President for intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement Valerie Jarrett contributed a blog to the Huffington Post entitled Why I’m Proud to Be Part of President Obama’s Team.

In the piece, she alternates reminiscences of her relationship with Barack and Michelle Obama with little homilies describing her feelings about her former protegee and now boss. Honestly, this woman comes across as about as politically sophisticated as an eighth-grader.

She begins by describing how she met the Obamas, and then shares her first uninspiring homily:

Today, President Obama is managing our nation’s challenges with the courage, wisdom, and compassion that I’ve seen time and time again over our two decades of friendship.

Really? She offers no specific examples of Obama’s “courage, wisdom, and compassion,” so I have no idea what she is referring to here.

Next Jarrett explains that her friend Barack always had a “remarkable clarity of vision, and an abiding faith in the power of ordinary individuals to do extraordinary things.” He grew up with people of other cultures, so he learned how to bring people together–or something. I think that’s her point.

That belief has been one of the driving forces behind President Obama’s career. Since his time as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, he has always held firm to his principles, but has also understood the importance of working towards the art of the possible. He knows that true leaders never let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

What do you suppose these “principles” are that Obama has “held firm to?” Jarrett doesn’t say. She certainly can mean that he has delivered on his promises, because he’s broken just about every one of them–except for his promise to “reform” Social Security.

The president has also always believed that a leader’s job is to act on behalf of the people he serves, not to score political points. Every day, he receives letters and emails from Americans who are doing everything in their power to solve the tremendous challenges they face. As long as President Obama is in the White House, he will listen to those Americans, and they will have a voice here in Washington. The president will never stop fighting on their behalf.

Do these letters and e-mails come from Wall Street insiders? Surely Jarrett cannot believe that Obama has listened to the concerns of poor, working-class, or middle-class Americans. Presumably, she is not a stupid person. She has a law degree and and undergraduate degree in psychology from Stanford University.

Mr. Obama “is determined to change the tone” in Washington, she tells us. Apparently As an example of this, she relates a little parable about Obama welcoming Ruby Bridges the to the White House. Ruby Bridges was a little girl whose parents volunteered her to help integrate the New Orleans school system in 1960. She was “the first African-American child to attend an all-white elementary school in the South,” according to Wikipedia.

Ruby Bridges in 1960

And why was this White House visit so significant in demonstrating Obama’s great leadership skills?

The president told Ruby that were it not for her bravery, he might not be in the White House today.

That moment was a reminder that in my lifetime, we have made progress my parents and grandparents could barely have imagined. Through acts of courage large and small, Americans have chosen unity over division.

And besides, the Norman Rockwell painting of Ruby surrounded by Federal Marshals is now “on display outside the Oval Office!” {Gasp!}

People like Ruby “inspire the President,” Jarrett tells us. And Jarrett is inspired because after Obama’s speech last Monday

thousands upon thousands of citizens answered the president’s call, and proudly voiced their support for a balanced approach – not just to our deficits, but to our politics as a whole.

But they didn’t get a “balanced approach.” They got cuts to programs that affect the most needy Americans as well as the middle class and no increases in revenues. So what is Jarrett’s point here? Does she really believe this garbage? Does she expect people to read this article and not laugh at her? Is the woman really as simple-minded as she seems?

I’m not sure what Valerie Jarrett actually does in her job. My impression is that she is a highly paid “friend” who hangs around with Obama and flatters him. But perhaps “public engagement” in her job title translates to “propaganda minister?” If so, she’s not very good at her job. A child could see through her facile lies.

Late Night: Moody’s Reviewing Downgrade of U.S. Credit Rating; Obama Slaps Down Eric Cantor.

Posted: July 13, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Republican politics, Surreality, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Eric Cantor

Bloomberg:

The U.S., rated Aaa since 1917, was put on review for the first time since 1995 on concern the debt threshold will not be raised in time to prevent a missed payment of interest or principal on outstanding bonds and notes even though the risk remains low, Moody’s said in a statement yesterday. The rating would likely be reduced to the Aa range and there is no assurance that Moody’s would return its top rating even if a default is quickly cured.

President Barack Obama is considering summoning congressional leaders to Camp David this weekend to work on a plan to raise the debt ceiling after yesterday’s negotiations on a deficit-cutting plan of at least $2 trillion stalled, according to two people familiar with the matter. A failure to raise the debt limit that causes a default may lead to slower economic growth and another financial crisis.

“It’s obviously very serious in so many different ways,” said James Caron, head of U.S. interest-rate strategy at Morgan Stanley in New York, one of 20 primary dealers that trade bonds with the Federal Reserve. “Most people still believe there will be some type of an agreement struck to avoid all this stuff, and that’s what the market’s banking on.”

Meanwhile, according to the NYT, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke

warned on Wednesday of a “huge financial calamity” if President Obama and the Republicans cannot agree on a budget deal that allows the federal debt ceiling to be increased. Moody’s, the ratings agency, threatened a credit downgrade, citing a “rising possibility” that no deal would be reached before the government’s borrowing authority hits its limit on Aug. 2.

The one piece of good news is that President Obama may be finally waking up to the reality that Republicans are totally insane and there is no point in negotiating with them.

the latest bipartisan negotiating session on Wednesday evening ended in heightened tension, if not outright discord. Republicans said Mr. Obama had abruptly walked out in an agitated state; Democrats described the president as having summed up with an impassioned case for action before bringing the meeting to a close and leaving.

Politico has a better description of what happened–basically, Obama told lit into Eric Cantor and brought him up short for once.

When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline — and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts — Obama began to lecture him.

“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case “to the American people.” He told Cantor that no other president — not Ronald Reagan, the president said — would sit through such negotiations.

That’s Cantor’s version. Democratic sources said that

“Cantor’s account of tonight’s meeting is completely overblown. For someone who knows how to walk out of a meeting, you’d think he’d know it when he saw it,” a Democratic aide said. “Cantor rudely interrupted the president three times to advocate for short-term debt ceiling increases while the president was wrapping the meeting. This is just more juvenile behavior from him and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work.”

Now here’s the kicker:

“Obama lit him up. Cantor sat in stunned silence,” said an official in the meeting. “It was incredible. If the public saw Obama he would win in a landslide.”

Maybe Obama really does have some balls guts? Maybe it just took a snot-nosed squirrely creep like Cantor to get a rise out of him. It does seem that for once Obama has managed to force the Republicans into a corner by offering cuts in Medicare and Social Security and then threatening not to write checks in August.

Stay tuned. There will be more discussions at the White House tomorrow afternoon. Maybe it’s time for Obama to do the the Chicago way. The heck with bipartisanship–time for some major arm-twisting. Just raise the frickin’ debt ceiling and be done with it.

Lawyers and Bankers and Thugs, Oh My!

Posted: January 6, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Barack Obama, Team Obama, We are so F'd, WE TOLD THEM SO | Tags: , , , , | 41 Comments

If you need any proof that the Obama Presidency, Part Deux isn’t going to get any better, this is it. When is the last time you read that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce liked anything a Democratic politician did?

President Barack Obama chose former commerce secretary William Daley as his new chief of staff Thursday, bringing a renowned powerbroker on the wavelength of big business into his retooled administration.

…

The former commerce secretary is an imposing figure steeped in the ways of Washington. As well as his tenure as Clinton’s commerce secretary, he helped to negotiate congressional ratification of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

…

“This is a strong appointment. Bill Daley is a man of stature and extraordinary experience in government, business, trade negotiations, and global affairs,” said US Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas Donohue.

“He’s an accomplished manager and strong leader. We look forward to working with him to accelerate our recovery, grow the economy, create jobs, and tackle America’s global challenges.”

Yup. We continue on the Yellow Brick Road to the Chicago Way.  Want some more information on this appointment?

Read the rest of this entry »