About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

White House Cheat Sheet: Salesman-in-Chief



President Obama arrived home in Washington early Wednesday morning. AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

President Obama, fresh (or maybe a bit jet-lagged) from an eight-day trip abroad, returns to his role as the nation's economic salesman-in-chief today as he hosts a round table discussion designed to draw attention to low interest rates and, presumably, spur home-buying.

The event, which will be held in the Roosevelt Room at the White House, will feature Obama and his economic team as well as a "handful of homeowners who have re-financed their homes and benefited from lower mortgage payments," according to a release from the White House.

The roundtable event comes amid increasing signs that the housing market is recovering -- one of the few bright spots in an otherwise gloomy economic outlook. Mortgage applications increased to their highest level in the past three months and new home sales also rose in February.

Despite those encouraging numbers, there still remains considerable skepticism about whether or not the home slump is indeed over or whether this is the equivalent of a false positive.

In a piece entitled "A False Spring for U.S. Homebuilders?," Businessweek's Ben Steverman writes that the housing market remains on very unstable ground. Of the current state of affairs, he asks: "It could be a time of opportunity--time to prepare for the dawn of new growth in housing. Or is it just time to accept that it could be several years before the sun again rises on homebuilders?"

Enter Obama.

A series of recent national polls have shown that a majority of Americans trust that the president is doing the right things to fix the economy and believe that things are headed in a better direction economically since Obama took office.

In the most recent Washington Post/ABC News survey, six in ten voters approved of the way Obama was handling the economy with more than half that number (34 percent) strongly approving. That same poll showed 64 percent of Americans are confident that Obama's "economic program" would turn the economy around; those numbers are down from 72 percent saying the same in a Post/ABC poll just before Obama's inauguration but still remain very healthy.

The truth is that most Americans who express confidence in Obama's economic proposals probably have only a basic understanding (if that) of the massive overhaul of the financial system that the president has put in place over his first 11 weeks in office.

But, they trust him as a figure and therefore they are more likely to feel good about the proposals being issued by his administration.

Obama, himself, said as much during an interview with Post reporters and editors days before he was sworn in. After running through his various proposals to restart the economy, Obama acknowledged that "some of this just had to do with psychology and confidence."

Today's housing event then is best understood as Obama leveraging his personal popularity and the trust he engenders with average Americans to help spur a level of faith and optimism in regards to the economy that still remains largely absent in most peoples' minds.

What To Watch For:

Thursday Fix Picks: You can now find these picks in the top left-hand spot on the Fix homepage. We'll be listing them here for the next few days until you re-condition yourselves.

1. Change has come to the Justice Department.
2. New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg says 7,000 more city jobs need to be trimmed.
3. Former Rep. Chris Chocola to head Club For Growth.
4. Ben Smith on "Common Purpose" and Democratic coordination efforts.
5. Can Adam Lambert be beaten?

Evangelicals For Mitt Re-Launches: A group of evangelical Christians who helped organize for former Gov. Mitt Romney's (Mass.) presidential campaign in 2008 are back at it. Husband and wife team David and Nancy French relaunched "Evangelicals for Mitt" on Tuesday; "As the religious right explains why the GOP lost in '08, we wanted to make sure they didn't pin the blame on the Governor," explained Nancy French in an email to the Fix. The spark that re-started the blog? Kathleen Parker's column that profiled Christian radio talk show host Steve Deace and the rift between the older and younger generations of evangelicals. During the 2008 campaign Romney struggled to convince evangelicals that his Mormon faith was a non-issue. If Romney runs again in 2012, voices like the Frenches will be critical for Romney to continue making inroads with this important community of voters.

McAuliffe's Money Roll: Anyone who follows politics with even passing interest knows that former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe is a fundraising machine. So, expectations (at least from the Fix) were high when it came to how much McAuliffe could raise for his gubernatorial bid in Virginia. And yet, McAuliffe managed to exceed them by collecting a stunning $4.2 million in the first three months of the year, a total that dwarfed the $800,000 collected by former state Assemblyman Brian Moran who is also seeking the Democratic nod. State Sen. Creigh Deeds had yet to release his own money numbers but it was expected they would be well below what McAuliffe brought in. "We are thrilled with the grassroots and fundraising support we have received over the last few months," said McAuliffe campaign manager Mike Henry in an email announcing the money total. Moran sought to spin his own fundraising by noting that he had eclipsed his original goal and that his cash position was "putting us in a position to have the resources to win," according to campaign officials. (That's an argument not dissimilar from the one top aides to former Sen. John Edwards made during the early months of 2007 when he was being badly outraised by then Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.) Money isn't everything in politics but with northern Virginia, which is covered by the pricey D.C. media market, seen as the critical area in the battle between McAuliffe and Moran, the former's cash position has to be seen as a major asset. One caveat: McAuliffe's $2.5 million cash on hand total shows that he is spending money at a rapid pace as well and makes the distance between him and Moran/Deeds slightly more manageable.

Click It!: The Fix's List of the best state political blogs is out. Everything you need to know about politics in each state. EVERYTHING.

American Future Fund Hosts 2012 Wannabes: The American Future Fund, an Iowa-based conservative independent organization that funded several ads during the presidential election, is hosting a series of discussions -- they call it the "Conservative Lecture Series" in the Hawkeye State for candidates with an eye on a potential bid for national office. The first of these addresses will come from former New York governor George Pataki on April 22 at Drake University Law School and will be titled "Yes We Still Can: Why Washington Failed and how We Can Reclaim America's Future." (Dare we say it -- that sounds a little like an outsider candidate campaign platform, no?) Nevada Sen. John Ensign is scheduled to speak in Sioux City on June 1 -- first reported by Congress Daily's Erin McPike -- and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum will deliver a speech on Oct.1 in Dubuque. As we have said, MANY times before: no politician goes to Iowa by accident. No matter what they say. Ever.

Palin PAC Puzzlement: Texan Clayton Paslay wanted to do something to help Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) pay her legal bills from the Troopergate investigation so he started a political action committee to do just that. One problem: Palin can't accept the money. Meg Stapleton, a spokeswoman for the Palin family, released a statement Wednesday afternoon thanking people for their "continued generosity" but making clear that "the official legal defense fund for Governor Sarah Palin has not been formed and the Governor cannot accept any monies for those obligations from any other entity than the one in formation." The only federal committee Palin maintains at the moment is for SarahPAC; that organization was officially formed on Jan. 26, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. It will report its contributions and expenditures over the first three months of the year by April 15.

Gun Control a Fading Issue: In light of last week's shooting in Binghamton, N.Y., we were struck by a polling trend document put out by our friends at Gallup. Since 1959, Gallup has been asking Americans whether there should or should not be a law banning the possession of handguns. And, over time the numbers favoring such a ban have steadily eroded from 60 percent in 1959 to 43 percent in March 1991 all the way down to 29 percent in October 2008. That trend line is why guns have faded as an issue in political campaigns. Democrats, who were once ardently in favor of more gun control legislation, have nearly abandoned it as an issue -- recognizing that it is a sure loser from a political perspective. As we have written before, the numbers in favor of more gun control barely even tick up in the wake of a spree shooting like the one in Binghamton.

Say What?: "I actually drive a MINI Cooper, believe it or not." -- Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan during an interview with the Post's Lois Romano as part of her "Voices of Power" series.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 9, 2009; 5:45 AM ET
Categories:  Cheat Sheet Share This:  E-Mail | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Stumble Previous: The Best State Political Blogs
Next: T-Paw's Opportunity


Add The Fix to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Fix! This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Fix.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Unfortunately the majority of Americans know little about economics and the role of the federal government in the economy. Many people unduly blame or credit presidents for the overall economy. This is often, if not usually, ridiculous. The initiatives of any president, including recommended legislation being enacted, are often important factors in influencing the economy.

However, there are also the business cycle, which has not been repealed, occasional stock market/housing/credit bubbles, actions by the Federal Reserve board, regulation or deregulation policies, the role of technology, productivity, the decisions how to spend, save, invest by tens of millions of individuals and/or households.

The actions by the Federal Reserve board, in concert with Obama administration policies, and gargantuan spending bills by Congress will help the economy recover. But other factors will also play an important role in restoring economic growth.

The spend, print money, and borrow policies of the Obama administration, Congress, Federal Reserve Board almost inevitably will result in high inflation in about two or three years. Let's all hope there will not be 1970's deja vu in this country, if so tens of millions of people, especially lower income and most retired persons, will face potentially ruinous inflation.

Posted by: Aprogressiveindependent | April 10, 2009 1:12 AM | Report abuse

CC. I agree about the photo. When you are the Paris Hilton president, the photo is all important.

Only one problem. After figuratively spreading her legs to all of europe to become liked, they don't respect her In the morning. Nothing worse than listening to her whine about the guy before.

Can I have some money-No. Can I have some troops? no. I'm sorry I didn't please you. Do you still love me?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 10, 2009 12:23 AM | Report abuse

Dear Marko:

scrivener50 is just being scrivener50. Pls. release him into our custody.

Signed

The Doc

Posted by: broadwayjoe | April 9, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

An Open Letter to Markos, a/k/a "KOS" @ DailyKos.com

(KOSSAKS, please forward)


Dear Sir or Madam:


My commentary about my first-hand experiences with apparent "fusion center" internet interference and censorship...


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/9/718146/-Govt-Fusion-Center-Spying:-Pretext-to-Harass-and-Censor


... complaints documented with a litany of examples published at ...


http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary-ok-not-government-mandate/#comments


...apparently has resulted in my being banned, according to an email from Kos tech "Ed."


No specific reason was given, only the suggestion that I write to appeal this seemingly incongruous decision.


I've been a mainstream journalist for more than 30 years. The commentary was labeled as such. It was based solely upon my personal experiences, not upon the word of others.


I cannot fathom how this commentary -- which dovetails with many other accounts of alleged abuses of the government's warrantless surveillance program -- could result in a banishment from posting at DailyKos... assuming my email from "Ed" was legitimate.


Would you please call this matter to Markos' attention for reconsideration? I would hate to think that DailyKos would succumb to the pressure of would-be censors.


I have reason to believe that such pressure was brought to bear in this case -- perhaps by way of paid disinformation agents who double as DailyKos "regulars."


One of them actually threatened an action against my thread in a post to my latest article.


To quote from "Liberalis," the author of the most recent post in the thread (4/9/09 @ 9:52:05 AM PDT):


"Nice little 'thread' ya got here. It'd be a shame if something 'happened' to it."


I value your web site and do hope I can continue to contribute, and feel good about, DailyKos.com. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.


Thank you.


"Scrivener"


***


Fixistas, I have heard about so-called "fake alternative media sites" that actually serve as lures for over-reaching government agents hunting for new prey. I didn't think DailyKos was one of them.


Now, I'm wondering....

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 9, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

folks can't buy a house if they don't have a job.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 9, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Actually, that photo looks like an awful job of photoshopping two photos together. The lighting makes it look like there is a shadow of Obama on a surface that has been clipped out.


Posted by: Kili | April 9, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Question, CC -- who chooses your photos? That pic of Obama is the absolute worst I have ever seen. it's totally out of focus and very over-contrasty. Funny, too, because he photographs very well. Very sloppy.

Posted by: drindl | April 9, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

LarryG62: are you a father?
i hope not.

"he'll want to legalize the illegal hordes who are draining states' medical and social programs"

no, that would be your state that is doing it. You know, those states that want to be sovereign nations like the tribes.
Wonder how many states are going to "roll over" on the same sex marriage issue?
Line forms on the right folks.

but Larry, you would just HATE that, wouldn't ya??? to blame YOUR state.
Your states' programs -

yes, it is called a "state" within the united states.
the one you live so freely in with your prejudicial butt!!

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 9, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

sorry, katem. I just get tired of these rightwing blowhard tirades.

Posted by: drindl | April 9, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

"What an embarrassing joke this idiot is. Contemptible."

Larry just sums up himself and the other wingers are this site. Angry, ignorant, stupid people, looking for someone to blame their problems on.

Posted by: drindl | April 9, 2009 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I wouldn't buy a used book from this lowlife. He's an arrogant leftist incompetent coward who leaves town when problems arise. You can try top put lipstick on this pig, but it won't work. He's doing more damage to our economy and our security than any other president in history.
Those who approve of his economic program probably are standing there with their hands out and can't even spell economy.

Next, he'll want to legalize the illegal hordes who are draining states' medical and social programs.
What an embarrassing joke this idiot is. Contemptible.

Posted by: LarryG62 | April 9, 2009 1:27 PM | Report abuse

thank you everyine for posting without name calling, and keeping it within the meanings of civil discourse. Well, except for Zouk of course, but we're all so used to his tirades that we don't really pay attention anymore, and of course hope like we all do that scriner50 has his meds. Good stuff people, good facts, good opinions, thanks, it's nice to see.

Posted by: katem1 | April 9, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I stand corrected BSIMON. Thanks, have not read the article you were referring to.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 9, 2009 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"some of this just had to do with psychology and confidence" is a vast understatement. Most of it is psychology. If people think housing prices will continue to fall, they won't buy. If people think housing prices have hit bottom, they will rush to buy, which will drive up prices. In short, housing prices will hit bottom when people think they have hit bottom. So to turn the housing market around, Pres. Obama merely needs to convince people that the housing market has turned around (but that is not so easy). So yes, in a recession, the President must become salesman-in-chief.

Posted by: wmw4 | April 9, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

"I believe a carbon tax would have a disasterous affect on the economy. Even my very liberal Senator Sherrod Brown is against cap & trade."

Carbon tax and cap 'n trade are two different beasts. The Lugar carbon tax proposal is for a revenue neutral trade with payroll (or income; I don't fully recall) taxes. Under that scenario the predictions of disaster surely overstate the real impact on the economy. Personally, I think a 1:1 trade for carbon vs. payroll taxes would be a mistake, because, as we all know, we already collect less than we spend, which has been true for decades, excepting a few brief years in the late 90s. IF we're worried about the budget - and I certainly am in that group - we have to take the tough medicine of not just balancing the budget, but producing budgetary surplusses in order to pay down the debt. As I've said before, this is not an immediate concern, but one that should be addressed upon recognition of economic recovery.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 9, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse


remember that the TARP funds came out of the economic stabilization act of 2008, bush's last grasp.

where are those TARP monies now?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | April 9, 2009 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your comments VTDUFFMAN, I enjoy your thoughts and agree the CBO nunbers constantly change. But is the numbers we have use when drawing up the budget. BSIMON1: While I agree with you that we should all think of new ways to generate revenue, I believe a carbon tax would have a disasterous affect on the economy. Even my very liberal Senator Sherrod Brown is against cap & trade. Why, because Ohios' energy is coal based and would cause an enormous burden for a state that already has one of the worst economies in the country.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 9, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

That said, re: entitlement reform...

Hindsight, being 50/50 - how happy are we now that the whole "Privatize Social Security" thing didn't work out the way that former president Bush had wanted?

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

hoomes,

Here's the fundamental problem with the basis for your reservations. The CBO model assumes that there are no changea to budgetary policy over the course of their projections. Therefore, the projections are by nature inaccurate considering that the president has routinely called for the need to move to spending cuts, noting that the current budget is only temporary.

So that's kind of the problem, isn't it? If you assume (as you do, I'm guessing) that everything stays the same economically, then spending will continue at this level, and things will be bad.

If you assume that things will get better, then the need for spending at the current levels is reduced, and things won't be as bad.

For what it's worth, I agree with you on the legalization issue, and the president agrees with you on the entitlement reform - it was one of the primary reasons for nominating Judd Gregg to Commerce before he withdrew himself.

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"I do not think you have to guess the economic future if we continue to spend they way we currently projected to. Something got to give. Either we massively raise taxes or we just print money. I think it is more dangerous just to think somehow in the future this will all just work out."

I don't mean to imply that I think it will 'just work out'. I think it will work out through one of the mechanisms you suggest: tax increases. It will likely be combined with significant program reform to SS & Medicare; but may also include significant tax reform. I think George Will wrote a couple months ago about Sen Lugar and others' suggestion to implement a carbon tax and eliminate payroll taxes. That is an interesting idea, and I'd like to see Congress debate the merits of the proposal. It would be a short term solution as our economy moves away from carbon-based fuels, which would create another funding shortfall down the road, but that doesn't mean it should be eliminated as a potential component in fed budget reform.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 9, 2009 11:15 AM | Report abuse

BSIMON: I do not think you have to guess the economic future if we continue to spend they way we currently projected to. Something got to give. Either we massively raise taxes or we just print money. I think it is more dangerous just to think somehow in the future this will all just work out. My suggestion, we tackle the entitlement programs and legalize marijuana. Taxing marijuana and selling licenses to farmers would bring in billions of dollars while also helping to stablize Mexico. Vtduffman: refer to CBO numbers for Obamas' budget. It's the non-partisan wing of Congress and its math is highly respected by everyone.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 9, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

what will be next from obambi? Empty threats, bowing down to despots, sucking up to terrorists, spending trillions, bashing america, open borders?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 9, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"I draw the line at misuse of apostrophes in the plural form of a word. "English Compostition Class" or not, this is something we all learned by 2nd grade people, and it's really not that hard."

Agreed. Quite frankly, it drives me nuts. But I have stopped pointing it out, particularly because, when typing quickly, I sometimes find myself making the same mistake.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 9, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The Fix writes
"As we have said, MANY times before: no politician goes to Iowa by accident. No matter what they say. Ever."

Eric Black of the MN Post wrote a couple weeks ago about a visit to Iowa by Senator Klobuchar. He made the same allegation - that politicians only go to Iowa for one reason. Given that the next dem caucuses in Iowa will likely be in 2016, perhaps this rule is overapplied.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 9, 2009 10:11 AM | Report abuse

"To be precise, the correct number of characters were used. The proper characters to use are: companies"

Conceded. However, the Shift key needed to type the apostrophe is an extra button-push. Either way, I was saving him from expending the extra effort. :)

hoomes. I apologize for the apostrophe comment. I hope we can move past this issue as I eagerly await links to the various projections that you have cited.

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

". Inevitably, when someone does, they are hoist by their own petard..."

Like I said, "the occaisional typo is one thing," even spelling mistakes aren't realyl that big of a deal (firefox has a built-in spell checker which is nice).

I draw the line at misuse of apostrophes in the plural form of a word. "English Compostition Class" or not, this is something we all learned by 2nd grade people, and it's really not that hard.

Google "Bob the angry flower apostrophe," the cartoon put it much better than I ever could.

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"That apostrophe you add in "Company's" is one extra character that you didn't even have to type."

To be precise, the correct number of characters were used. The proper characters to use are: companies

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 9, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

vtduffman writes
"An occaisonal typo is one thing, but did no one ever teach you how to use an apostrophe?"

duff, bhoomes and I have a long history of generally not agreeing on policy issues and occasionally having hotheaded discussions. Inevitably, the fingers miss their targets, or synapses misfire when typing; it is generally considered bad form to point out those minor mishaps. Inevitably, when someone does, they are hoist by their own petard...

vtduffman also wrote
"Where are all these projections comming from?"

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 9, 2009 10:02 AM | Report abuse

"This will be last posting that I refer to you VTDUFFMAN because you seem unable to carry on a discussion in any real meaningful way"

I take this to mean that you don't actually have any links to any of these "projections" that you speak of. And as far as the compsotition issues, I'm just trying to save you some time: That apostrophe you add in "Company's" is one extra character that you didn't even have to type.

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 10:01 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes
" I am not just refering just to the stimulas spending, which I support but a much more modest scale than the one signed into law. I am also talking about the 4 trillion dollars projected to bail out all of the banks, insurance company's car company's and so on so on. Then you have his projected budget that continues to spend at record levels never seen before. Without massive tax increases, how can you sustain such spending."


There may be a semantic problem. The bailout (TARP) money, is part of the stimulus / avert financial armageddon package, in my view. It is NOT something that will be an ongoing expense. The only people that actually want to see that money spent are the creditors, and perhaps employees of the bailout recipients. The rest of us, so far as I can tell, view it as distasteful but necessary.

There are issues, or potential problems, with the remainder of the Obama budget as it stands today. I am optimistic that long term shortcomings will be addressed in the coming years. I think it is a mistake to try to guess what the fiscal state of the country will be in 2012, to pick a random year, based on the first 90 days of the administration in 2009.

Lastly, to reiterate the point; the risks of not spending money on the stimulus and bailout packages are far higher than the risks of doing nothing.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 9, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

This will be last posting that I refer to you VTDUFFMAN because you seem unable to carry on a discussion in any real meaningful way. This forum is for an exchange of ideas to stimulate thought and maybe learn something. It is not intended to be English composition class, where we are constanting checking our spelling and syntax. PS: You might want to check your last posting to me to correct some of your mispellings, It doesn't matter to me but you seem care a lot about it.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 9, 2009 9:38 AM | Report abuse

And as far as the "arrogance" factor, it's addmittedly tough to curtail that when I read what you write. An occaisonal typo is one thing, but did no one ever teach you how to use an apostrophe?

"Company's?"
"Stimulas?"

Really?

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

" am also talking about the 4 trillion dollars projected to bail out all of the banks, insurance company's car company's and so on so on. Then you have his projected budget that continues to spend at record levels never seen before."

Where are all these projections comming from? I'd love to see two links (or one, if both are in there): 1 projecting 4 trillion dollars to "bail out all of the banks, insurance companies and auto companies" If you had any supporting evidence that it's the presidents plan to bail out "all of the...etc"

I'd also love to see a link with a "projected budget that continues to spend at record levels never seen before."

Right now, all of your conclusions are based on "proejctions" and hypothetical ways to handle projections. Who is "projecting" all of this stuff and what evidence are they using to support it?

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Mark I am not just refering just to the stimulas spending, which I support but a much more modest scale than the one signed into law. I am also talking about the 4 trillion dollars projected to bail out all of the banks, insurance company's car company's and so on so on. Then you have his projected budget that continues to spend at record levels never seen before. Without massive tax increases, how can you sustain such spending. VTDUFFMAN, I welcome a dialogue and debate with you, if you can curtail some of your arrogance and do not assume you have a monopoly on all things learned.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 9, 2009 9:09 AM | Report abuse

EXTRAJUDICIAL TARGETING AND PUNISHMENT:

ROOT CAUSE OF MORTGAGE MELTDOWN THAT WRECKED THE ECONOMY

***

URGENT TO:

Attorney General Eric Holder
DHS Sec. Napolitano
DoD Sec. Gates
Treas. Sec. Geithner
DNI Dennis Blair, DNI Inspector General-designate Roslyn Mazer
Rahm Emanuel. David Axelrod, Jay Carney, White House
(staffs, please forward)


INNOCENT BUT TARGETED.


Google it.


YOU -- or someone close to you -- could be the next victim.


Unless Team Obama takes down the draconian Bush-Cheney extrajudicial punishment network...


...an array of secret "programs of personal financial destruction" and a government-funded army of citizen vigilante "community gang stalkers"... using the GPS satellite system to hunt and harass human prey (with the full knowledge of law enforcement)...


...coupled with the proliferation of mind- and body-degrading "directed energy" microwave radiation weapons -- the Zyklon B of a grassroots, military/intel- enabled civilian American Gestapo.

These federal programs and policies have corrupted local law enforcement nationwide, allowing vigilante injustice to rule the streets.


Attorney General Holder, you must act NOW to restore human and civil rights in America.


Before the naivete of liberals empowers the saboteurs and Dr. Strangeloves who say "No!" to change.


Where is the civil rights division investigation that victims have demanded?


Or is there "nothing to investigate" -- because the government already knows all about this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/7/717343/-GOVT-EXTRAJUDICIAL-TARGETING:-Root-Cause-of-Financial-Crisis

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener


***

DID BUSH-CHENEY TORTURE MATRIX HIT HILLARY '08 RALLY?

http://dailykos.com/story/2009/4/3/715887/-Did-Bush-Cheney-Torture-Matrix-Hit-Hillary-08-Rally

Posted by: scrivener50 | April 9, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Is that the new Republican talking point?

"Even if things improve, they will get worse later!"

That's actually a pretty impressive line, if things get worse, it's because of Obama. If things get better, they will get worse *later* because of Obama. That's win-win, baby!

Meanwhile, the rest of us are *still* waiting for the mythical GOP Alternative Budget. I can only assume it's being couriered by Bigfoot riding a unincorn and should be here any day now?

Posted by: VTDuffman | April 9, 2009 8:34 AM | Report abuse

Let's put him out on a GM or Chrysler car lot.

Posted by: newbeeboy | April 9, 2009 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Picking up on bhoomes' gloom, assuming the "best case" scenario: shortened and dampened recession followed by modest steady growth in the economy and a sense of fiscal responsibility in Congress; a long slow uphill slog is in store.

That is the best case. Unlike bhoomes, and like bsimon, I do favor stimulus during a recession. But I recognize the serious risk that once the recession is behind, the temptation to "keep stimulating" will remain.

I think one feature of the slow uphill slog, if we are lucky enough to have one, will be increased taxation. If the temptation to "keep stimulating" overwhelms, a D Admin will overspend and a R one will undertax, and bhoomes' even gloomier prognosis is only one of several possible results, all terrible.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 9, 2009 8:09 AM | Report abuse

The American people want daily action and discussion on the economy from their president. They want Obama to sell them on his economic fix.

ttp://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | April 9, 2009 8:05 AM | Report abuse

The problem with Obamanomics is that it is geared for the short term with unstainable spending that will cause massive inflation once their is a recovery. With Zimbawe type of inflation, we will have to dry of the money supply, interest rates will shoot into the stratosphere and we will have to repay all of that debt with the higher interest rates. What does all that mean: Future generations are totally F*cked.

Posted by: vbhoomes | April 9, 2009 6:52 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2009 The Washington Post Company