Monday, May 31, 2010
Pretty heavy, isn't it?
While we grill out with family and friends today, take a moment to appreciate the sacrifices of the men and women who fought for our freedoms, and those who still do.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The thing about the controversy, though, is that the reports are only telling half the story. I happened to listen to the bit that day and he did pretend to be Malia. However, he also transitioned from being Malia...to "Sesame Street" puppet Elmo. Yes, he did break his own rules, but to leave out how he switched characters is more than a little intellectually dishonest.
Which brings us to Bill Maher. On "Real Time With Bill Maher" he suggested that President Obama isn't a "real black President." Then, he went on to portray a "real black President" as a gun-toting thug.
Yeah, take Beck to task for going after Malia Obama, but don't say anything about Maher suggesting a "real black President" would be a thug. At least Beck was man enough to apologize, even as Leftist websites took him to task. Will those same websites take Maher to task?
Let's just say I'm not holding my breath on that one...
Allow me to throw a bucket of cold water on that notion, at least for now. On the surface, it looks like a slam dunk with the possibility of taking down a sitting President, a former President, and the party in power. It's a perfect scenario...except that it's not.
The more facts that come out about the situation, the more I can't help but think we're being played for dupes in a poorly-constructed scam. Even with the power of the Presidency and a sympathetic Congress willing to run interference for Obama (at least until after the November elections), committing an act that is so blatantly against the law is monumentally stupid, even for this Administration. Also, why drag Clinton into this? He lacked the power to give Sestak any position in the Administration, and the job offered wasn't really that much of a step up for Sestak. Add to the fact that Sestak ratted out the Administration for what appears to be no political gain whatsoever.
Put simply, there are too many things that don't make sense about the Sestak job offer, but there's just enough meat on the bone to give conservatives and Republicans reason to pounce. And that's a problem if the meat turns out to be nothing worth pursuing or a fabrication designed to discredit Obama's critics. Having Republicans go on a wild goose chase over this would go a long way towards that end, which is why Republicans and conservatives need to be very careful and do their homework before jumping on this bandwagon. As much fun as it would be to put Obama and the Democrats in a bad position over this, there are too many unanswered questions for my taste.
Friday, May 28, 2010
One tiny problem: it's not all that hypocritical.
Conservatives believe that government should do for citizens what they cannot do for themselves. Flood recovery and oil spill clean up have pretty big price tags, costs that would bankrupt states if they were to pay them themselves. That's why the government has FEMA and the EPA in place: to pick up the slack.
What the Left doesn't understand is that a desire for smaller government is not the same thing as a desire for no government. Asking for federal assistance in dealing with those things that the citizens cannot do for themselves isn't hypocritical; it's consistent with what conservatives actually believe. For the Left to crow about what they see as hypocrisy is laughable at best because it shows how little they actually understand about the right.
On the other hand, one could make the argument that the Left is being hypocritical with the Tennessee floods and the Gulf Coast oil spill. For all of their talk about compassion and helping the less fortunate, I haven't heard the Left doing much to help the flood victims in Tennessee or to help clean up efforts along the Gulf Coast.
But I have heard them making plenty of comments from the sidelines.
If you care so much about those in need, it's time to man up, roll up your sleeves, and do something. Until you do, you're bigger hypocrites than you say the right is.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Whether it is...that's another story. It's entirely possible that Birnbaum's departure is a ruse. After all, much of the controversy surrounding the MMS occurred before her tenure, so why would she voluntarily leave without a fight?
Simple. She's the first government scapegoat.
As oil has been leaking into the Gulf of Mexico, public confidence in the Obama Administration's ability to address the spill has also been leaking. With each passing day, people question whether the Administration is capable of anything more than blaming BP and telling the public not in so many words that the government is incompetent. (Of course, I could have told you that for free...)
Given that situation, and knowing how Obama operates, I'm convinced that he was looking for someone who would be willing to take the fall for the Gulf oil spill, while being far enough removed from the Administration as to not create more blowback than necessary. Birnbaum fits the bill perfectly. It was her agency that was supposed to keep a regulatory eye on offshore oil drilling and failed, and few outside of the policy wonks and power players in Washington, DC, have even heard of her.
Thus, a scapegoat is born.
However, if the Obama Administration and its allies think Birnbaum's departure fixes the problem even temporarily, they're sadly mistaken. The Administration's window of opportunity to address the oil spill in a meaningful way closed a long time ago. Now, all they're doing is trying to put a Band Aid on a gushing chest wound.
Or would that be a gushing oil spill?
It's because we're just not smart enough to realize the good things President Obama is doing.
But, wait! There's more!
Kerry's said that the anti-Washington sentiment is hypocritical because...people want to keep their Social Security and Medicare and want the government to take a bigger role in the Gulf Coast clean up. Well, right now I'm not taking Social Security or Medicare, and the federal government has this thing called the Environmental Protection Agency whose job it is to help with the clean up of big messes like the Gulf Coast oil spill.
No, Senator, my "anger" towards Washington is the fact that your ilk just doesn't get it. No matter how much you try to whitewash the job Obama is doing and try to convince others that people who don't see things the way you do aren't thinking logically, the fact is that things aren't as rosy as you claim them to be. We still have high unemployment, the deficit and the national debt have skyrocketed, and the sheer ineptitude of the current Administration is on full display with the Gulf Coast clean up.
There is one thing Kerry said that I agree with. Kerry said he thought there was a "comprehension gap" that prevents people from seeing the truth. Yes, there is, Senator. The comprehension gap, however, isn't on the part of the TEA Parties or people who agree with them, though.
It's with entrenched government officials like you who have shielded themselves from the reality of what you have wrought.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Gee. Isn't that what I've been saying all along and what Leftists have been trying to deny?
Doesn't it just suck having to carry the water of an inept President whose indecision and limp responses to the oil spill have damaged the Gulf Coast?
Oh, and while we're here, I'm waiting for the Left to start holding the Administration responsible for not having fire booms ready to go like federal law required them to have. Until you man up and do that, you have zero credibility calling out BP or anyone else.
Of course, Democrats haven't stopped blaming George W. Bush for what's wrong with the country...
The reason behind this new push to blame Bush is simple: to take attention away from the multitude of blunders committed on President Obama's watch with regards to the oil spill. The longer this story goes, the more inept the Obama Administration looks. And after the Left spent all that time demonizing George W. Bush's slow response to Katrina?
Including this column from Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein. Surely, Mr. Brownstein has similar comments about President Obama's response to the Gulf Coast spill, right?
Not so much. But I'm sure he's writing a scathing critique very soon!
Then again, she's only following the lead of the guy who appointed her. It's also come out recently that President Obama went to California for a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer.
Of course, there's always a possibility that Jackson and Obama could focus on the oil spill and still do fundraising, but that's not the point. The point is that the Administration and its media minions have been complaining about BP's lack of speed in addressing the oil spill, relishing in each failure. Yet, if you look at a full and honest account of what has happened to date, you'll find plenty of failures to act from the Obama Administration.
And while we're here, let me take on another Leftist excuse for the failure of the Obama Administration to adequately address the Gulf Coast oil spill. The New York Times stated that the Administration's hands were tied by BP on cleaning up the spill and sealing the leak. As incompetent as I think the federal government is generally, I don't buy this line at all. It's a convenient excuse for an Administration whose priorities are clearly with raising money, not with addressing the ecological disaster they lament in public.
Besides, isn't the EPA supposed to be able to address this sort of thing? The very EPA that Ms. Jackson heads?
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
The U.S. government on Monday ordered BP Plc. (BP.L) to "significantly scale back" its use of chemical dispersants to fight a giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency said.
From The Hill today with a hat tip to the Washington Post:
Since the oil rig exploded, the White House has tried to project a posture that is unflappable and in command.
But to those tasked with keeping the president apprised of the disaster, Obama's clenched jaw is becoming an increasingly familiar sight. During one of those sessions in the Oval Office the first week after the spill, a president who rarely vents his frustration cut his aides short, according to one who was there.
"Plug the damn hole," Obama told them.
Hmmm...isn't that what BP is trying to do while you run off on a "break from Washington," Mr. President?
Monday, May 24, 2010
One tiny problem: he was the single biggest recipient of BP's campaign cash in 2008. And not by a slight margin, either.
Sure, Media Matters is trying their own bit of spin, saying the money came almost entirely from BP employees, not from the company itself, and that it represents very little of the total amount of money he raised in contributions. That's as may be, but the fact remains that people connected to BP gave more money to Obama than to any other politician in 2008 by a wide margin.
The numbers don't lie, but Media Matters often does.
One thing that Media Matters loves to do is to "loop back" on itself to "prove" a particular point of view by quoting themselves. When they go outside of their own misinformation machine, they go to other Leftist organizations. In this case, the source they quote is...Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (And in their "article" that "exposes" Beck's "distorted view of George Washington's Christianity," Media Matters' link to Americans United for Separation of Church and State comes from...Media Matters.)
As you might have expected, Media Matters is the one guilty of distorting Washington's Christianity. I present a letter from Nelly Parke Custis, adopted child of George and Martha Washington, that sheds light on Washington's Christianity.
Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833
I received your favor of the 20th instant last evening, and hasten to give you the information, which you desire.
Truro Parish [Episcopal] is the one in which Mount Vernon, Pohick Church [the church where George Washington served as a vestryman], and Woodlawn [the home of Nelly and Lawrence Lewis] are situated. Fairfax Parish is now Alexandria. Before the Federal District was ceded to Congress, Alexandria was in Fairfax County. General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed [supported and contributed to] largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother...
He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles [a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage]. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness]. The afternoon was spent in his own room at home; the evening with his family, and without company. Sometimes an old and intimate friend called to see us for an hour or two; but visiting and visitors were prohibited for that day [Sunday]. No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect. My grandmother, who was eminently pious, never deviated from her early habits. She always knelt. The General, as was then the custom, stood during the devotional parts of the service. On communion Sundays, he left the church with me, after the blessing, and returned home, and we sent the carriage back for my grandmother.
It was his custom to retire to his library at nine or ten o'clock where he remained an hour before he went to his chamber. He always rose before the sun and remained in his library until called to breakfast. I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them. I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, "that they may be seen of men" [Matthew 6:5]. He communed with his God in secret [Matthew 6:6].
My mother [Eleanor Calvert-Lewis] resided two years at Mount Vernon after her marriage [in 1774] with John Parke Custis, the only son of Mrs. Washington. I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution. When my aunt, Miss Custis [Martha's daughter] died suddenly at Mount Vernon, before they could realize the event [before they understood she was dead], he [General Washington] knelt by her and prayed most fervently, most affectingly, for her recovery. Of this I was assured by Judge [Bushrod] Washington's mother and other witnesses.
He was a silent, thoughtful man. He spoke little generally; never of himself. I never heard him relate a single act of his life during the war. I have often seen him perfectly abstracted, his lips moving, but no sound was perceptible. I have sometimes made him laugh most heartily from sympathy with my joyous and extravagant spirits. I was, probably, one of the last persons on earth to whom he would have addressed serious conversation, particularly when he knew that I had the most perfect model of female excellence [Martha Washington] ever with me as my monitress, who acted the part of a tender and devoted parent, loving me as only a mother can love, and never extenuating [tolerating] or approving in me what she disapproved of others. She never omitted her private devotions, or her public duties; and she and her husband were so perfectly united and happy that he must have been a Christian. She had no doubts, no fears for him. After forty years of devoted affection and uninterrupted happiness, she resigned him without a murmur into the arms of his Savior and his God, with the assured hope of his eternal felicity [happiness in Heaven].
Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."
With sentiments of esteem,
I am, Nelly Custis-Lewis
If that wasn't enough, Media Matters' source claims that Washington kept his religious beliefs private. Yet, if you do a few minutes of research, you can find any number of statements from speeches and letters that specifically reference God and Christian beliefs. Even Media Matters' own source quotes Philander D. Chase, senior editor of the Papers of George Washington at the University of Virginia, who said Washington "certainly thought of himself as a Christian."
So, who's telling the truth here? It certainly isn't Media Matters. Then again, Media Matters doesn't exactly have a track record of telling the truth as it pertains to Glenn Beck, or other conservatives for that matter.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Now, take a look at the news. South Korea reported that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il may have authorized a torpedo attack on a South Korean warship. Even with the long-standing problems between these two countries, this is an act of war. With South Korea being our allies and North Korea being one of the countries involved in international terrorism, the question becomes how America under Obama will react.
My guess? Not so well. For all of his vaunted intelligence and the foreign policy expertise of Hillary Clinton (or maybe it's because of it), I don't see Obama casting that wide a berth on the world stage. As I've stated in a previous blog, the world seems to regard Obama as a little boy playing dress-up in his daddy's clothes. At a time when our allies need to know that we have their backs, having a President that seems to be fresh out of new employee orientation isn't all that reassuring.
For all the knocks against "cowboy diplomacy," you have to admit it worked. Our allies and our enemies knew where we stood. With Obama, I get the impression that he's trying to placate our enemies and inconvenience our allies as a means to level the playing field for everyone. That's the kind of diplomacy that kept the Cold War escalating for decades until another "cowboy," Ronald Reagan, decided to treat the Soviet Union like enemies, not as an entity that deserved to be on equal footing with us. That shift in approach, which the Left incorrectly said would usher in World War III, ultimately worked. The Soviet Union fell, the threat of global nuclear war diminished greatly, and the Left still didn't learn the lesson of diplomacy without consideration to our interests.
And now, we're going back to making the same mistakes we made prior to Reagan. The world doesn't respect us; it either mocks us or turns us into the source of all evil. Obama isn't changing the hearts and minds of anyone except our allies, and it's not going to end well. With a more forceful tone towards North Korea, could Obama have made Kim Jong Il think twice? Absolutely. It's only when America shows weakness that people like Kim Jong Il push the envelope as they do, and as long as we have leaders who are willing to put up with it, they'll continue to push. But when we show we're willing to push back hard, they get quiet fast.
So, tell me again why cowboy diplomacy is bad and the Obama style of diplomacy is good.
However, they aren't the only ones responsible. The subprime mortgage crisis, which we are still feeling today, has Democrat fingerprints all over it. Two of the biggest players in the mortgage crisis, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are still operating under the old rules because Congress refuses to take action against them and against their former leadership (who, by the way, comprised some of Obama's economic team while he was campaigning for President).
The oil spill in the Gulf has Democrat fingerprints all over it, too. It was Democrats who insisted that oil rigs be placed as far out into the Gulf as possible to protect the environment. (Gee, how's that workin' out for ya?) Who continues to block development of nuclear power in this country? Democrats. Who advocated for alternative energy sources like wind power, but refused to allow a wind farm because it would block his view? That would be the late Ted Kennedy, Democrat. Oh, the Democrats talk a great game when it comes to energy independence, but when it comes to delivering, they've fallen short. One could make the argument that through the delaying of technological advances in the arena of energy generation Democrats bear responsibility for the Gulf Coast oil spill by keeping us dependent on oil.
Republicans have had (and probably still have) ties to corruption in the political, personal, and business arenas. Democrats, who have railed against corruption (real or imagined) in these same arenas, are surprisingly just as dirty, but no less hypocritical. Christopher Dodd got a really good deal on a mortgage through Countrywide while at the same time being on a Senate committee that oversaw the mortgage industry. Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner both have trouble paying their taxes. (Now, what would Vice President Joe Biden say about that, given that Biden said paying taxes was patriotic?) William Jefferson and the late John Murtha were implicated in serious crimes. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are both trying to hide their shady dealings and the shady dealings of their own party members.
Yes, Republicans are far from perfect, but to heap the totality of blame for the current state of affairs is intellectually dishonest. Democrats have dirty hands, too, and it's past time that they take responsibility for their actions or lack thereof.
And that starts at the top, Mr. President. You can change the tone of this political season by accepting responsibility on behalf of your party for its role in the events I have chronicled here, and for others that I haven't mentioned. You ran on a platform of change and wanting to work with Republicans, but what you've shown is an unwillingness to do either. But you sure do like to point fingers when it suits your needs.
That's not what a leader does, Mr. President. A real leader accepts responsibility for his failings and the failings of those under him. Until you do that, all the finger-pointing in the world won't make people forget that your party played a role in the way things are today.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The latest question arose after the Obama Administration lifted sanctions on three Russian groups previously accused of helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. It may be done in an attempt to curry Russia's favor in supporting a UN resolution criticizing Iran's nuclear program. Of course, it's making a huge assumption that Russia will sign off on the resolution if we just show good faith.
And in the real world, this doesn't work because the Russians are not operating from a position of good faith. Negotiations work when both sides operate from the same set of rules and are looking for a mutually beneficial outcome. When one side doesn't play by those rules and seeks a singularly beneficial outcome, no amount of giving from the other side will make a difference.
Unless the Obama Administration has a rock-solid guarantee that Russia will sign off on the UN resolution against Iran, this move is sheer folly and exposes how naive the Administration is. Furthermore, it exposes a weakness in our foreign policy, one that Russia will be more than willing to exploit. Supporters of the President like to talk about how Obama has restored worldwide respect to America, but I'm just not seeing it. No matter how many times he bows before foreign leaders or tries to play nice with those countries who do not like us or sells out our allies, the world does not see Obama as credible. I get the impression that world leaders see Obama like a little boy playing dress-up in Daddy's clothes. It's cute when you're a kid, but when you're the leader of the free world, it loses a lot of its appeal.
Oh, and to add to the fun, the Obama Administration also lifted sanctions against a company that provided anti-tank guided missiles to Syria.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Why is the Left so hell-bent on getting Kagan appointed? Easy. It's a way for the Left to promote their interpretation (or misinterpretation as the case may be) of the Constitution for decades. But I think it goes deeper than that. I think the Left is hoping that one of the more conservative Justices retires for one reason or another while Obama is President. Even the middle of the road Justice Anthony Kennedy may buck the Leftist trend under certain circumstances. With the current make-up of the USSC, Kennedy becomes an important swing vote.
At least, until he retires. Then the President at that time has the chance to flex political muscle to guarantee a majority that will stand for decades. The only way this happens, though, is if a conservative or moderate voice gets replaced by a Leftist voice, or vice versa. If Kagan gets appointed, it replaces a Leftist for a Leftist, but it sets Obama up nicely for a chance to replace Kennedy with a Justice more in tune with his and his supporters' ideology.
I'm positive the President knows all of this, which is why he's pushing Kagan's appointment so much. But given the implications, shouldn't we take the time to make sure Kagan's up to the task of being a Supreme Court Justice?
It's not like she's going anywhere, after all.
Of course, there's a commonality with all of the Leftist critics of the Arizona law. They haven't read it.
To help matters, Glenn Beck read all 17 pages of the Arizona law yesterday on his radio program, making special note of verbiage that refuted the notion that it was racist because it conformed to federal law regarding racial profiling.
So, according to the Left, a law that prohibits racial profiling and conforms to federal law is racist because they say so without having read the bill about which they're objecting.
And the Left is supposed to be smart?
Monday, May 17, 2010
Yeah. That's showing all hands on deck...
What a difference a couple of weeks has made. Now, Napolitano is singing a different tune. Today, she testified before the Senate that the government has "limited capability and expertise" in dealing with situations like the Gulf Coast oil spill. She further said it was "premature" to say whether the Administration's response was adequate. And she even left the door open for praising the private sector, saying, "I would like to, if I might, reserve judgment on the adequacy of the private sector response."
Of course, that doesn't stop her from suggesting that BP hasn't been honest about their response.
Interestingly enough, I don't see the Administration being all that transparent when it comes to their response to the Gulf Coast oil spill. The "all hands on deck" comment? A lie. The notion that the Administration was engaged on Hour One? A lie.
But who is doing the heavy lifting? BP.
Who isn't? The Obama Administration.
Who hasn't been seeking the spotlight and focusing on trying to address the oil spill? BP.
Who has been going on TV as often as possible to point fingers? The Obama Administration.
Maybe the reason Napolitano is withholding judgment is to give the Administration a chance to catch up to what BP is doing.
Elena Kagan's nomination to the USSC has run into another snag. As Solicitor General, Kagan's office (and Kagan herself) took an interesting position against free speech in their arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, which dealt with campaign finance reform. Kagan's office suggested in an opening argument in the case that the government could ban books that endorsed a particular candidate. When questioned on the initial argument before the USSC, Kagan's position changed slightly, but left the door open to ban political pamphlets under certain circumstances.
And this is the woman Obama wants to put on the Supreme Court?
This gives us a chance to explore a fundamental difference between liberals and Leftists. Liberals would oppose Kagan's nomination because they still have a healthy respect for the Constitution and free speech. Leftists, on the other hand, see the Constitution as an impediment to their desires for control, so they find ways to circumvent it or justify it by claiming a "greater good" overrules the Constitution. This is made easier with the Left's "living document" argument pertaining to the Constitution. That way they can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say, even if it goes against what the Constitution actually says.
We've already seen Kagan's position on the Second Amendment, which is decidedly anti-gun rights. With this latest revelation, we can chalk up an active disdain for the First Amendment right to free speech to the list of concerns about Elena Kagan's USSC nomination.
And this is the woman Leftists want to put on the Supreme Court?
Sunday, May 16, 2010
This morning, I want to focus on someone other than President Obama, although he's connected to this story. Instead, let's talk about Arlen Specter, the on-again-off-again Democrat Senator running for his party's nomination to return to the U. S. Senate. With Specter's help, Democrats regained a 60 seat majority (if you throw in two Independents who caucus with the Democrats). Yeah, but that hasn't worked out so well. Since Specter's defection, the Democrats' "60" seat majority has been ineffective for the most part, either due to a lack of leadership or a lack of action on legislation.
Now that Specter's up for reelection, he's taking heat from the right...and now the left. Specter's having to run for his seat against a more Leftist Democrat challenger, Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak. Seems the Left isn't convinced that Specter's a "good Democrat," which echoes what they were saying after Specter went Democrat last year. The Left never completely trusted him. After all, he was a Republican for a long time.
Ah, but when the time came, the Left has pulled the same thing they did with Joe Lieberman: picked someone to run against the sitting Senator who "wasn't Democrat enough" for their tastes. In Lieberman's case, the Leftist won the Democrat nomination, but lost the election after Lieberman ran as an Independent. In short, the Leftists won a short term victory only to lose the bigger victory by driving out a reliable Democrat for reasons that defy logic.
Then again, Leftists never were good a logic or political strategy.
The funny thing is that the Left chuckles at the TEA Party movement for splitting the Republican vote (even though it could be argued that the TEA Parties are a lot closer to what Republicans used to stand for than the current crop in the GOP). Yet, they don't see the danger in their own actions. If the TEA Parties threaten to rip apart the GOP, why wouldn't the Left's own litmus test do the same for them?
I doubt we'll ever get a straight answer from them (or in the case of the Leftist leech, any answer).
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Politics is full of surreal moments, but none have made the Surreal-O-Meter go up to 11 like President Barack Obama getting testy at oil companies for testifying before Congress to try to shift blame away from themselves and onto other parties. Not to mention, he blamed...get this...previous Administrations for their relationships with oil companies. Of course, he spared himself blame for the situation in the Gulf, saying his Administration was fighting against the oil companies to bring them under closer regulation on day one.
Gee, that sounds familiar.
What is interesting to note is how frequently the Obama Administration has been using "day one" rhetoric lately, even when it's clear that the Administration didn't act as decisively on day one as they say they have. Plus, it doesn't explain away the lack of fire booms, which could have helped contain the spill, nor does it explain why BP is doing so much more than the federal government to address the spill. That's part of this story that isn't getting covered nearly enough, but one part that is getting tons of coverage is the President attacking oil companies for the oil spill.
I don't overlook the fact that BP may have cut corners, and if it's proven that they did, they deserve to pay the price. However, I also don't overlook the fact that the federal government's lack of quick action made the problem worse. If Obama wants to hold the oil companies (including ones that didn't have anything to do with the Gulf Coast spill) accountable, then he'd best prepare for others to hold him and his Administration accountable.
And no amount of surreal political finger-pointing will change that.
Friday, May 14, 2010
One of the keys to effective leadership is knowing when it would be a good idea to take responsibility for an act that didn't have a positive outcome. Right now, the economy is still on shaky ground. Some elements are improving, while others remain stagnant or declining. With the midterm elections looming in November and Democrats looking more and more vulnerable, President Obama went out...and blamed Republicans for not working with him on his economic plan.
Maybe you missed the Presidential Daily Briefing on this, but your party controls Congress. Blaming Republicans for not working with you ignores the fact that you didn't really need their buy-in to get your economic plan passed. All you're doing is passing the buck to a party whose only "sin" is to oppose you.
It's time for you to man up, Mr. President. It was your failure to lead, not the Republicans' failure to follow, that created the economic problems you lament.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Oh, wait. He does.
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan's legal history has been under the microscope this week, and what we've found so far has been, in a word, unimpressive. But to hear the Left talk, she's brilliant and an exceptional choice because of some of the people who have come before her with equivalent experience. We're supposed to overlook the lack of experience and just focus on the diversity angle, as Kagan would be the third woman on the USSC if confirmed.
The problem with this approach is that diversity without consideration of qualifications undercuts the point of having diversity in the first place. Let's not forget, the Left had a chance to nominate a woman to the USSC under George W. Bush, Harriet Miers. Where were they?
Making a big issue of Miers' lack of experience.
Couldn't have anything to do with who nominated her, could it? Naaaaaaaaaaaaah. That would make the Left look petty and hypocritical. Of course, they are...
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
At least I allow comments. I give you the choice of whether you want to comment. He doesn't.
Wow. A Leftist who hates choice. How...utterly predictable.
With the recent British elections, we have a chance to consider the impact of a split government on a population. New Prime Minister David Cameron, a member of the Conservative Party, has been asked to try to form a coalition government with the Liberal Democrat Party in spite of the fact they're not that ideologically close. Granted, a Conservative in Britain may be closer to the left side of the spectrum here, but it's still a test of leadership to try to create a workable coalition based on a common goal of running the country.
Compare that to the "leadership" being shown by our own government. Democrats treat anyone who doesn't agree with them (including members of their own party, I might add) as intellectually inferior, morally corrupt, and potentially dangerous. Remember Obama's statement after an early meeting with Congressional Republicans? "I won." And Obama was heralded as the first "post-partisan" President because of his alleged ability to build coalitions across party lines. I guess that ability was as truthful as his promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans.
Whether Cameron is successful in building a coalition government will be interesting to see, provided it's an honest attempt to build and not just lip service designed to get people to vote for him like a certain sitting President. If Cameron is successful, it may be one of those time when I agree with the Left that we need to be more like Europe.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Because doing so would expose just how deep the Democrat corruption in Freddie and Fannie really was. And, trust me, it's deep enough to make Captain Nemo flinch.
Consider this: three of the people responsible for Freddie and Fannie's bad financial straits...were on President Obama's economic team during the 2008 campaign. Kinda makes you feel better about his economic plans, doesn't it?
Barney Frank sure has a lot to say about corrupt mortgage companies, but when it comes to reforming Freddie and Fannie, he's not so vocal. Of course, that might be because he carried water for them for so many years, denying anything was wrong with them. Then, in 2008, Frank all of the sudden found out Freddie and Fannie were in trouble! What caused this awakening?
An easy target: the mortgage industry.
Of course, Frank always seems to forget that it was the Community Reinvestment Act expanded under Bill Clinton that put Freddie and Fannie in such trouble. I'm sure it's just an oversight and he'll amend his previous statements blasting the free market.
For the Leftist "blogger" who leeches off me for material, that's sarcasm.
Of course, maybe the reason why Frank wants to keep Freddie and Fannie's books shut tight for now. After all, his former lover, Herb Moses, was with Fannie Mae for their ten year relationship. And, surprise surprise, guess who was serving on the House Financial Services Committee at the same time! Why, it's Barney Frank!
Maybe that's why earlier this year, he decided to advocate the elimination of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What better way to destroy the evidence?
And while we're here, we can't forget Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd. Seems he has a few connections to Freddie and Fannie, too, namely being the recipient of the most money from Freddie and Fannie's PACs from 1989 to 2008.
Of course, Democrats in both chambers of Congress are in no hurry to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae this year. After all, it's an election year, one where they look to get stomped. Why open up Pandora's Box of Leftist Corruption if you don't have to?
Simple. Because mortgage company reform without reforming the two entities that back 97% of the mortgage loans right now isn't worth a damn.
In the "Call for You, Mr. Kettle" Department, President Obama went off on technology:
With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation.
Wait. Didn't the President give the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches loaded on it?
Here he is preaching about information as a "tool of empowerment" but he's never felt motivated enough to learn how to use the technology that can be used to gain access to the "tool of empowerment." Yet, he feels the need to attack something he admits he doesn't understand.
Which, surprise surprise, brings us to his comments about talk radio and blogs. He said "some of the craziest claims can quickly claim traction." (First off, isn't it gain traction?) I'm sure the President isn't referring to MSNBC, the now-defunct Air America, DailyKos, or DemocraticUnderground, which are all breeding grounds for Leftist conspiracy theories and absurd attacks on conservatives and Republicans. (Just like the Leftist coward's "blog," now that I think about it.)
No comment from the President about his addiction to his Blackberry, though.
If information is power, it's clear the President has the power of a burnt out light bulb.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Oh wait. She doesn't have any.
Maybe it's me, but I've noticed more and more people getting elevated to positions they haven't earned because of factors that have nothing to do with ability. Invariably, the Left loves this sort of thing because, to them, experience doesn't matter so long as your ideas are in the right place.
At least, not until someone from a different political persuasion lacks experience. Remember how the Left hounded former FEMA Director Michael Brown after Katrina? They just loved to point out his lack of experience in disaster management (although it didn't seem to bother them when Brown successfully oversaw the management of previous disasters) and mocked him for being a horse trainer.
Now, they have a Supreme Court nominee without experience, and what do the Leftists do? They rally around her, saying "Experience doesn't matter." Pardon me for thinking that experience might be important in a role that makes legal precedent that impacts generations of Americans, especially considering that role is pretty much for life. Having someone with some actual trial experience might come in handy. Contrary to Leftist belief, experience is pretty important.
Just look at the unqualified graduate of Harvard Law who picked Kagan to serve on the USSC.
So, let's apply that same logic to Obama. Seems he has clear connections to a certain business that his Administration and its supporters in Congress and the media have been bashing for the past few weeks: Goldman Sachs.
Who gave Obama nearly one million dollars during his campaign for President? Goldman Sachs.
What company is connected to the Chicago Climate Exchange, an entity that lists Barack Obama as a Vice President? Goldman Sachs.
Who gave $10,000 to Elena Kagan, the woman recently tapped as a Supreme Court nominee? Goldman Sachs.
What company did Obama economic advisor Robert Rubin have on his resume as a chairman? Goldman Sachs.
What company gave Obama economic advisor Lawrence Summers $135,000 for a speech? Goldman Sachs.
Where did a number of Obama Cabinet members work in some capacity? Goldman Sachs.
I think you get the idea. But to the Leftist "blogger" who leaches off of me and seems to be dumber than a post, the idea is simple: the Obama supporters who bashed Bush and Cheney for their ties to Big Oil and Haliburton yet remain silent about Obama's direct ties to Goldman Sachs are hypocrites.
Like a certain Leftist "blogger" who is afraid to let people comment on his blog because they'll prove him wrong about everything he says.
So, where are the Obama supporters publicly calling out the President and his Cabinet with the same fervor as they called out the Bush Administration? They're not there. They're too busy trying to make excuses or hiding from the truth.
Unfortunately for them, not everyone is as willingly deaf, dumb, and blind.
He's a moron as well as a coward.
Here's a quote from one of his recent posts:
From March 18th to April 16th you didn't post a damn thing. Did I say you were scared of me during that time? What's your "excuse"?
Of course, the reason I'm calling him a coward isn't because he didn't post over the past few days. From the very beginning of this exchange, I've stated that the reason my Leftist counterpart is a coward is because he refuses to allow people to comment on his blog.
Got that, Mr. Leftist Leach? Let me restate it so you can possibly get it this time.
YOU ARE A COWARD BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO COMMENT ON YOUR BLOG.
Got it yet, Mr. Leftist Leach Blogger? I'm guessing not, especially considering I've only made it abundantly clear in every post I've made on Leftist Coward Watch.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
In "Iron Man 2", Mickey Roarke's character says, "If you could make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him." Judging from recent polling numbers showing that 39% of Americans would vote for him again, President Obama might agree. As we get closer to the first year and a half of the Obama Administration, we've seen a President go from the heights of popularity to middle-of-the-road approval ratings and dropping reelection chances. Granted, the latter shouldn't concern the President just yet. A lot can happen in two years.
Still, the impending midterm elections could become a statement about how the electorate feels Obama is doing as President. Conventional wisdom has it that the party out of power in the White House picks up seats in Congress, and the Left has already picked up on that as an excuse for what appears likely to happen in November, but I think it goes beyond that.
Since regaining power in Congress, Democrats have done a poor job in relating to the people. If anything, they've shown that they really don't care about the American people and care more about power. Take Nancy Pelosi walking to the House for the health care reform bill carrying an oversized gavel. It made for a great PR moment for the Left, but to a lot of people it came off as a show of arrogance not seen since Marie Antoinette. All that was missing was Pelosi saying, "Let them eat cake, but only if it's on the House cafeteria menu that I approved."
Obama isn't much better in that regard. Since his inauguration, Obama has become known for his arrogance, ranging from the "I won" comment when negotiating with Republicans to his frequent use of his Presidential power to live like a king. And with the media coverage of the First Family, it's hard not to notice that sort of thing. Instead of changing his practices, Obama kept them up, which has slowly eroded his credibility.
Except with 39% of the electorate polled.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Let's stop for a moment and really consider Sharpton's statement. If he's right, social justice means that everything is "equal in everybody's house." The problem? Not everybody is equal. I can't shoot a basketball like Lebron James, but under Sharpton's notion of social justice, I could claim half of his wealth because it would make things equal for the two of us.
Ah, but then there's old Mrs. Johnson, the elderly woman down the street living off Social Security. She could lay claim to Lebron and my fortunes as a means to make things equal for all three of us.
Then, there's George Clooney. Certainly we could take a portion of his wealth and split it among the three of us to make us all equal. He might object, but if he did, he's simply not committed to social justice, is he?
Now, repeat this process a few billion times, once for each American. The logistics alone make it difficult to meet Sharpton's lofty-sounding goal. And we haven't even gotten into the different talents everybody has that would make equality for all under social justice impossible. Surely, Sharpton has to realize that we can't ever be equal, right? Some would say that's debatable, but I'm willing to give Sharpton the benefit of the doubt for one reason: it fits in perfectly with the Leftist logical narrative.
The Left starts off with a problem and attaches a meaningless, nice-sounding slogan to it as a means to promote their "solution" for the problem. Take the "living wage" debate, for example. Leftists see people not making ends meet, so they blame companies for not paying their workers enough. Their solution: pay each worker enough so they can live. Hence, the "living wage" concept was born.
Ah, but what if a man is poor because he prefers to spend his money on alcohol, gambling, or sex? The Left doesn't really take that into consideration. The Left sees that as the fault of the company that hires him to make widgets all day. If only they were more concerned about paying their workers more instead of making profits, that poor man could afford to buy food for his family!
But really, I'm guessing he's going to use that extra money for more booze, gambling, and sex. Just a hunch...
What the Left sets up is a self-perpetuating problem. Even if companies relent and start paying their employees a living wage, that amount may eventually change, and I'm guessing it won't ever go down if the Left has anything to say about it. After all, the living wage has to adapt to changes in the economy, or else the poor victims of Big Business's greed will be forced out on the street!
And it only gets worse from there. Leftists will keep pushing the "living wage" higher and higher as long as people relent because they created an expectation that they demand others meet, but that they never expect themselves to meet. After all, they're the poor victims, so they should be allowed to partake in the lion's share of the spoils. And as long as there are people willing to fork over cash, the problem will never go away.
When it comes to social justice, the same principle applies. Things will never be equal, but as long as the Al Sharptons of the world keep dangling a carrot in front of people willing to believe in it, social justice will continue to be a problem that they will exploit and exempt themselves from simultaneously.
Of course, maybe Sharpton would be willing to give up some of his finery to help people. When he does, maybe his social justice rant will have some meat to it. But something tells me he won't. Just a hunch...
Today's bit of Leftist fun comes courtesy of Representative Andre Carson. You know how the Left has tried to paint the TEA Party movement as a bunch of angry white men on the verge of violence? Consider Rep. Carson to be one of the acolytes of that movement. Here is his response to a question from Washington Times reporter Kerry Picket about whether the TEA Party movement is dangerous:
Oh absolutely. I worked in homeland security. I’m from intelligence, and I’ll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security…I mean terrorism has an Islamic face, but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. (inaudible) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for].
Wow. All of those grandmas and grandpas who want us to go back to a smaller government are akin to the Ku Klux Klan! And to think most of us thought they were just there to express their dissatisfaction with our elected officials, regardless of political affiliation. All of those signs and speeches must have had...a secret white racist code!!!!
Thank you, Rep. Carson, for opening our eyes to the truth. I'll be sure to let the non-white TEA Party members know that they're white racists so you don't have to go to the trouble of actually talking to them...
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Let's see...between 2005 and 2010, Harry Reid has taken...over $1.1 million dollars from the securities and investment industry. Fortunately for him, they're only second place on the list behind lawyers. Isn't that a relief!
Let's check out Senator Dick Durbin, Reid's left-hand man in the Senate as Majority Whip. Why, he's taken over $780,000 from the same securities and investment industry Reid did!
Surely Senator Charles Schumer, who is also in Reid's circle, can break the cycle! He did. Oh, sure, he's taken over $1.7 million from the securities and investment industry, but he broke the Reid and Durbin's cycle...by having them be #1 on his list of industries that contributed to him in the aforementioned time frame.
And last, but certainly not least, we have Senator Robert Menendez, the head of the DSSC (the people whose email I referenced in a previous post trying to raise cash off the oil spill in the Gulf Coast). He's only taken over $650,000 from the securities and investment industry (including a nice $104,700 donation from Goldman Sachs).
A rough estimate of these four individuals gives us a whopping $4.3 million taken from the securities and investment industry in donations over the past 5 years. And since the securities and investment industry has clear connections to Wall Street, I'm thinking we know who's really in bed with Wall Street, don't we, Senator Reid?
Either that, or he's hiding from the latest bit of news about the Gulf Coast oil spill. Seems that Obama's own Department of the Interior chief of staff Tom Strickland was found taking his wife whitewater rafting in the Grand Canyon while the oil spill spread. Granted, the Administration said the trip was "work-focused" and who can doubt them? After all, we're all aware of the terrible oil spills that have occurred in the Grand Canyon since...well, never. But it's not like his department is responsible for the upkeep of our natural resources, right? Oh, wait, it is...
Anyway, it's nice to know that Mr. Strickland's hands were on deck, just as Janet Napoletano said...
One tiny problem: airport security didn't stop him from getting on the plane in the first place. The plane was within minutes of taking off before security finally realized he was on it.
How long before DHS Secretary Janet Napoletano will issue another knee-slapper like "The system worked"?
Let's be honest here (something I know my Leftist blogger counterpart can't do). The system isn't working due in no small part to the absurd PC standards the Left has hefted upon airport security. The same geniuses who consider old ladies at TEA Party rallies to be possible terrorist threats are the ones who insist that they be searched at the airport just to appease those who complain about alleged racism in the search process. The failure here isn't with Emirate Airlines; it's with the federal government.
But just like when anything else bad happens to the Administration, the buck will stop with someone else because they refuse to take the blame for their ineptitude.
Welcome to Democrat Political Logic, 2010 style.
H]ere's a perfect example of why we must keep fighting:
Last week's deadly oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico has unleashed an oil spill that threatens livelihoods, pristine beaches, and wildlife along America's coast. The spill could eclipse the damage done by the 1989 Exxon-Valdez disaster.
The Obama administration has vowed to "keep a boot on the throat" of BP to ensure the corporation is held accountable for the spill. But Republican Leader Rush Limbaugh has a different plan. He said there's no need to clean up the spill because "the ocean will take care of this on its own," and that oil is "natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is."
Sign our petition. Stand with President Obama to hold BP accountable for this disastrous spill. Rush Limbaugh is entirely wrong: This oil will not clean itself up. Corporations must be held accountable for their actions....
With 11 oil rig workers still unaccounted for as of this writing (and after it took Obama nine days to even publicly acknowledge the oil spill even happened), this email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is tacky, as tacky as the Democrats said the Bush 9/11 photos being used for campaign contributions were.
But this goes a bit further. Seems if you sign the petition, you're sent to a page where you can contribute money to the DSCC. And it's also a way for the DSCC (and any arm of the DNC, I imagine) to get you on an email list so they can send you more solicitations for campaign cash, presumably when there's another fit of Leftist outrage at one thing or another.
And you have to love the email's verbiage, quoting the Obama Administration vowing to "keep a boot on the throat" of BP. As I pointed out in a previous post, the Obama Administration is in no position to do anything of the sort, given that his own government broke federal law by not having fire booms at the ready to address the Gulf Coast oil spill.
With this email from the DSCC, it's clear that Democrats had all hands out instead of on deck.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
But while we're here, maybe we should widen our gaze a bit more and focus on another entity, one where incompetence and corruption go hand-in-glove on a daily basis. I'm speaking of...the United States government. It seems there's a federal law on the books that required us to have fire booms, which are structures that would allow oil being spilled to be burnt off instead of spreading into the water and hurting the delicate ecosystem the Left loves to talk about so frequently.
Guess what, kids! Our government didn't have one at the ready for the Gulf Coast in direct violation of the federal law I just mentioned! Wait. Didn't Janet Napoletano say there was an "all hands on deck" approach to addressing the oil spill?
Oh, sure, the government called and got one (and I mean that literally), but that's not the point. The point is that our own government violated federal law. And now, the Left is trying to paint BP as the only bad guy involved in this matter. In fact, they're going out of their way to demonize BP, even though BP has done more to address the oil spill than our own President has.
And, no, Mr. Leftist Blogger Who Relies On Me For The Very Existence Of His Blog, I don't buy the "acting on Day One" lie you've put out there. The fact that Obama claimed it was a "number one priority" while pushing it to the back burner to be addressed after he begged for black, Hispanic, and Latino voters to vote Democrat is proof that he didn't act on Day One...or Two...or Three...or you get the picture. But he has the ability to change all of that.
He needs to hold our government accountable for breaking the law with their lack of fire booms, which had a direct impact on the oil spill and the destruction of the environment. Once he does that, maybe he'll be in a better position to criticize BP.
Anyway, today's bit of fun comes from the "Told Ya So" Department. You know how Leftists were saying the TEA Parties were breeding grounds of potential domestic terrorism? And you know how they were hinting that the Times Square bomber might have been white? Well, the NYPD arrested a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan in conjunction with the bombing. Hmmm...he doesn't look like a white TEA Party member, does he?
Nope, but the Left needed him to be one to justify their slander of the TEA Party movement. The Left is playing a game from the Alinsky School of Leftist Debate: if you can't beat 'em, lie about 'em. By promoting the notion that the TEA Parties were breeding grounds for hatred, the Left hoped people would agree with them now and not ask questions later. Of course, the facts prove them wrong time and time again, as police reports from the TEA Parties are scarce in number. Seems the TEA Parties aren't the problem, guys.
Maybe if you wouldn't be so afraid of debate (like my Leftist blogging counterpart), you'd see that we're not the enemy. The people who want to kill us are the enemies.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Flash forward to this past Saturday's White House Correspondents' Dinner and the following comment from Barack Obama:
Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I'm joking?
Now, consider that under Obama one third of those killed by predator drones have been civilians.
Any Leftist Obama Defender want to defend his joke? Or will we be treated to the sound of silence yet again?
Calling me a racist.
And yet, it was people like him who voted for Obama solely based on race. That's not "right wing spin" as my Leftist counterpart will claim: those are the words of the voters themselves.
And while we're here, why did Obama wait over twice as long to visit the Gulf Coast as Bush took to survey the damage after Katrina? Was begging for votes THAT important? In fact, let's take a look at the various events Obama felt were more important than visiting the people along the Gulf Coast:
- saying Wall Street needs more regulation (while exempting Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from that same oversight in spite of their direct impact on the current mortgage situation)
- delivering a speech about Earth Day and its contributions to environmental awareness (as the oil spill got larger in the Gulf)
- criticizing Arizona's new immigration law (in spite of the fact that the Arizona law mirrors existing federal law)
- taking a weekend away from the White House and visiting with Rev. Billy Graham (How many barrels of oil did that waste, Mr. President?)
- giving an impromptu press conference on Air Force One
From April 20 to April 29, Obama didn't even mention the oil spill. And this weekend, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said they had "all hands on deck" since the beginning.
All hands...except Obama's, apparently.
And for me pointing out Obama's lack of leadership on this issue, the Leftist coward who simultaneously hates me and relies on me for his very blogging existence calls me a racist.
At least I didn't vote for an inept Leftist because of his skin color. Can you say the same, Mr. Leftist Coward?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
That's right. Bush's delays were caused by...Democrats.
So, what's Obama's excuse?
Oh, and to my Leftist counterpart, until you open your blog to let others post responses (like I've done from the beginning), you're still a coward.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
So, I'll do it here. http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/05/obamas-katrina-illustrated-timeline.html
A tip of the hat to Doug Ross for compiling it.
Now, to my Leftist counterpart who claimed the Administration acted "on hour one," don't you feel stupid for not digging into the facts?
Oh, by the way, Obama is supposed to be down in the Gulf tomorrow. From April 20 to May 2 is 12 days, counting the actual day the spill began. By comparison, George W. Bush waited a whole five days before heading to Katrina (August 29, when Katrina made landfall in New Orleans, to September 2, when Bush actually visited).
Gee. Bush made it down to New Orleans in less than half the time it's taken Obama to make it to the Gulf Coast, and some would lead us to believe Obama acted "on hour one"?
They've stayed quiet, and I'll bet they're already working on a backstory about how Obama "wanted to review all the options on the table before acting." Dude, it's an oil spill. You fix the hole and clean it up. No need to convene the Cabinet or some think tank to figure that one out. All it takes is action.
And that's where Obama has been lacking in leadership. On relatively simple matters, he's slow to act, which isn't a virtue no matter how much the press and Obama's supporters try to make it one. If you delay on a simple problem, it gives the impression of insecurity, which can be devastating to one's image as a leader.
Then, there are the big issues, like health care reform. Obama was relatively quick to act on that, but only to hand off the issue to Congress. That's not a sign of good leadership either because it gives the impression that you're only good at coming up with what needs to be done, but lack the ability to see it through to the end. Congressional Democrats were clearly upset at the lack of direction from the White House during the health care reform debate, as they should have been. It was Obama's idea to push health care reform during his first year, so he should have been the one making the arguments in favor of it. Aside from a couple of infomercials and the occasional town hall meeting talking about it, Obama's leadership on the issue was lacking.
But it goes beyond a lack of leadership. After the Left attacked George W. Bush's delays in addressing the Katrina situation, they set themselves up as being better capable of handling a major issue, and I would think an oil spill counts as a major issue. A failure to act in that context shows the hypocrisy of the Left as clearly as anything I could post.
Of course, the Left could surprise us by criticizing the President for not acting quickly enough. But I won't be holding my breath waiting for it...