As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Obama Morning News || September 17, 2010

Warren Vows a Tough Consumer Agency . . . New York Times
Some Critical of Obama on Warren . . . Washington Post
GOP 2012 Hopefuls Slam Obama . . . POLITICO
Obama Looks to Petraeus in Afghanistan . . . New York Times
Report: Drilling Ban Had Little Effect . . . New York Times
Obama Blames GOP “Game Playing” . . . POLITICO
What Dems Want Obama to Say . . . POLITICO
Lew Warns of “Critical” Budget Period . . . Washington Post
Obama Stumps for Blumenthal . . . Washington Post
Obama Touts Education Plan . . . Christian Science Monitor

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone
Filed Under:

16 Responses to Obama Morning News || September 17, 2010

  1. Sitting here having my morning coffee and watched CNN, FOX and MSNBC. It seems the “Values Voter Summit” and the “RedState Gathering” in Austin, Texas (17 Sep 10) are the big newsmaker items from the talking heads.

    Huckabee polled highest in the last straw poll conducted at the last Value Voters Summit; I would not be suprised if he does the same again, maybe a close Palin-Huckabee tie. I am not sure if Haley Barbour is speaking but I think the silent winner throughout these events will indeed be Barbour. He’s a real Southerner (not a faux cowboy like Bush), a real conservative, electable, and the best part: you never see him on the Sunday talk shows whining and mewing about things. Barbour is a straight forward politician that gets things done; and he’s also very self-efacing, calling himself “. . . a fat redneck” which always draws a laugh. Haley Barbour may be the next man in the White House if the Republicans don’t shoot themselves in the foot and put another John McCain on the ticket.

    ITEM: 2012 will be Country Club Republicans vs. Beer Joint Republicans.

  2. Could not sleep (no, not this blog), so went back to bed after putting my blog up, which then put me at Diane Rehm time on NPR. Juan Wms, Jack Tapper, some woman, and Diane were talking about poverty. They had read some stories about it. Yup, read in the paper that one in seven people is poor. Here in AZ, it’s officially 21%. Front page WSJ today–fam income dropped 4.8% in the last decade. Ooops, no more credit…Bang! Poor! It reminded me of those New Yorker stories about what it’s like to work on a farm and so on (hard, dirty, tiring). Reading is good, but many people are living this. Those NPR reporters seemed amazed that kids went to school to get hot food. That has been the case for decades!

  3. Isn’t there a town meeting coming up with members of the Princeton Club or some people like that? Is that today? He should get a first-hand earful on hardship from that group.

  4. @Star: Whenever I listen to NPR . . . the first thing I usually hear before *any* story about to air is (a.) a crying baby ( waaaa waaaa waaaa waaa ) and (b.) a voiceover talking about poor mothers, hunger and “a government that does not care.” For pete’s sake …

    ITEM: NPR (National People’s Radio) is far left, hippie-Marxist, slightly anti-Semitic mouthpeice for the 60’s liberal who never quite let go of Maoist philosophy since college . . . funded by the American tax payer (and I should add a host of far-left think tanks).

    I sometimes listen on the weekend when nothing else is on in the morning and I am heading to Starbucks to pick up coffee. But its usually that goofball program “wait wait dont tell me” — the HA HA liberal funny program — that makes fun of conservatives (and some liberals as well) with Paula Poundstone (who I cant stand) and Tom (well leave the light on for ya) Bodett.

    NPR is American Pravda for the rich, elite “educated” liberal who, in the words of Kipling, “dont want to be upset during breakfast while reading their copy of the Times.”

    • Tom, NPR’s mission is to lift up the unwashed masses. That’s why they are being forced to fund it. Oh, and also to make scones go down easier for the Maalox set.

  5. No argument with any of that. It amuses me that elites have to read about bad things, hardship, fear, poverty. Ah, yes…so quaint. I have been through a home invasion with all the trimmings, a house fire, a breakup, my kid going astray, cops, warrants, bankruptcy, someone killing my dog etc. These people read about it when I write about it. Gotta go–black helicopters. LOL.

  6. Tom raises an interesting point. I heard someone say once that conservatives listen to both sides more than liberals do. I have found this–the people at the NYT comment sections never would watch Beck or O’Reilly, they say it! Yet they know enough to say what is what. Amazing how many board-cetified psychiatrists are at large, too–Pain is crazy, Beck is crazy, this O’Donnell. Most of the conservatives I know watch MSNBC or at least follow their antics on Newsbusters.org. We read the Times. In my case I read a lot of papers, while we still have them.

  7. Keith / Star: ***Excellent*** points, both of you.

    When I was working on a dissertation for seminary (long story, that) one of my professors for Greek NT (a grizzled old Anglican priest used to state the following about the centuries old debate of liberal vs. conservative theology:

    “We read them (liberals), but they dont read us (conservatives).”

    Liberal theology, which began with “German higher criticism” in the late 19th century led to many prominent theologians breaking with standard concepts of Protestant theology … in effect, ” … accepting Old Testament history, but showing Christ the door.” Very Jeffersonian.

    The same is true in politics: liberals do NOT read new media or watch FOX News. They dont read our books, they dont listen to Sarah Palin or Charles Krauthammer. They believe the Marxist premise that there is *no* debate. We are right. You are wrong.

    One of my clients (white, “educated”, liberal, elite, a mover and shaker in Texas Democratic politics) told me pointblank at a party two weeks ago: “Your side does not have an opinion. The only opinion that counts is President Obama’s. And if its up to us, in the next ten years you won’t be around to give an opinion; we’ll shut down talk radio, FOX and the Tea Parties.” I thought it was the vodka talking. Its not. These people beleive it.

    • Tom, it’s true. I really don’t understand why many liberals, and some that I know who broker no opposition, think democracy is worthwhile when not only do they KNOW what’s right, but the opposition is evil or, far worse, stupid.