A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
Should he have recused himself for this? I think so.
The federal judge who overturned Barack Obama's offshore drilling moratorium reported owning stock in numerous companies involved in the offshore oil industry — including Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP prior to its April 20 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico — according to 2008 financial disclosure reports.
U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman issued a preliminary injunction today barring the enforcement of the president's proposed six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling, arguing that the ban is too broad.
According to Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure form, posted online by Judicial Watch [pdf], the judge owned stock in Transocean, as well as five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business.
Considering that conservatives are drooling all over themselves claiming that Obama himself is benefiting from the negligence of British Petroleum, that he is using this natural disaster for his own personal gains, I find it quite curious that they are not going after a member of the judiciary that has direct and verifiable ties to BP who has been successful at usurping those that are out to protect the better interests and safety of Americans.
And by the group that they have been quoting for weeks now.
The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the public option proposed by Democrats would not drive private insurers out of business and most people would still choose to get their medical coverage through employers.
Considering that Republicans, en masse, completely ignored the CBO's finding in relation to the cost of the Bush Tax Cuts ( upward estimates were over $2-trillion ) I'm guessing they are either going to spin this or ignore it as well.
The Great Pursed-Lipped One, Michelle Malkin, used the occassion of the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips to go after her favorite person, Barack Obama:
Nine words missing. Stated clearly by Navy Vice Admiral William Gortney. But not directly, publicly, and loudly by our commander-in-chief:
“The United States government policy is to not negotiate.”
Apparently, Malkin seems to consider herself a strategy expert when it comes to rescusing an American citizen from a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean containing armed Somali pirates. How foolish of me to doubt her.
Something tells me that there was little "negotiating" going on, and more of an effort to keep the kidnappers talking while the Navy positioned themselves to strike.
Oh, wait, I think that's called "strategy".
But the discussion doesn't stop there, not by a longshot.
The Malkinites went on in, claiming that Obama had to be asked twice to authorize the use of force, and that he essentially buggered-up this whole operation from the start:
On April 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm, BlameAmericaLast said: I believe the negotiating part means — we do not give in to ransom requests, etc.
The military had to ask Obama TWICE to get him to agree to take decisive measures. Let’s just hope when North Korea decides to launch a missile that may be headed for the US, he won’t think TWICE to shoot it down.
On April 12th, 2009 at 5:25 pm, Artbyruth said: The fact that Obama was even asked…let alone TWICE…to use military force is frightening and shows his lack of experience.
I would have preferred it was Obama who TOLD the military to send in the SEALS!
That's when a follow-up commentor asked a simple question:
On April 12th, 2009 at 5:29 pm, chapoutier said: The military had to ask Obama TWICE to get him to agree to take decisive measures Cite?
To which the following response was given:
On April 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm, BlameAmericaLast said: Cite? Foxnews about 45 minutes ago. Julie Banderas was on.
That's right, Julie Banderas.
Turns out that she, and the bulk of the commentors that were falling over themselves to slander Obama's leadership abilities in the face of a successful mission, were only partially correct - and I use the word "correct" in the most minimal ways.
Seems that Obama was more tuned into the situation than Malkin's followers are willing to admit.
The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday. Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the second order was to encompass more military personnel and equipment that arrived in the Indian Ocean to engage the pirates.
White House officials on Sunday said Obama received regular updates by phone and in person at the White House — including 11 memos — and during his daily intelligence briefings with senior officials. The National Security Council last updated the president on a contingency plan for Phillips at 6:30 p.m. Saturday, according to a timeline of events released Sunday afternoon by the White House.
The president was in the residence Sunday when officials called him to alert him the five-day standoff was over, officials said.
And, as an interesting turn of events, it appears that one conservative blogger is actually ready to give some credit to Obama:
Kudos to the SEALs, and kudos to Obama for making the right call. If this had gone badly, he would have taken the blame, so it’s fair to credit him with taking the steps necessary to finally bring this to a happy conclusion.
That one comes from none-other than Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.
And, if you can stomach wading through the near 1400 comments in that thread, you'll see the same rhetoric used to "blame" Obama for actualy doing the job that he was elected to do.
And it wasn't just Malkin and the easily-led automatons at HotAir that were aching for Obama to flub this one up. Fox"News" was laying the groundwork for their "I told you so" segment that is going to have to be put on the cutting-room floor.
I mean, how often are you going to hear someone in your daily walk complain about how much Barack Obama's inauguration costs?
Well, that depands on how easily they are convinced:
As the recession continues to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy and inauguration celebrations ramp up, a lot of people are asking: "How much will this shindig cost?"
The short answer? More than $150 million — and yep, that's the most expensive ever. (By comparison, George W. Bush's 2005 inauguration cost $42.3 million. Bill Clinton managed with $33 million in 1993.)
Turns out that's not exactly true:
When the costs incurred by the federal government and the District of Columbia are factored in, the total cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration was reportedly around $157 million, as Media Matters for America senior fellow Eric Boehlert noted.
Serisously, though. This is pretty much on par with the "Super Sweet 16" school of discourse - complaining that the "other girl at school" got a Lexus and all you got was an Acura.
