Friday, May 15, 2015

Democrats Get a Taste of Obama’s Arrogance

National Review ^ | 5/15/2015 | Jonah Goldberg 

These are not good times for the Republic (and if you laughed or scratched your head at me calling America a republic, I rest my case).
But they are amusing times, at least for those of us capable of extracting some measure of mirth and schadenfreude from the president’s predicament.
With the sand running out on the Obama presidency, it’s finally dawning on the president’s friends and fans that he can be a real jerk.

Consider the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. For the last six years, he’s spent much of his time rolling his eyes and sneering at Republicans. His subspecialty is heaping ridicule on conservative complaints about, well, everything and anything. If it bothers conservatives, it must be irrational, partisan, churchy, fake, hypocritical — or all of the above. Meanwhile, poor Barack Obama, while not always without fault in Milbank’s eyes, is the grown-up, the good guy trying to do good things amidst a mob of malcontents and ideologues.

That is, until this month. President Obama wants to get a trade deal passed. He needs Democrats to do it. But, Milbank laments, Obama’s blowing it.

“Let’s suppose you are trying to bring a friend around to your point of view,” Milbank writes. “Would you tell her she’s emotional, illogical, outdated, and not very smart? Would you complain that he’s being dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with his knee-jerk response?”
“Such a method of a persuasion is likelier to get you a black eye than a convert,” Milbank notes. “Yet this is how President Obama treats his fellow Democrats on trade . . .”
Yes, well, true enough. But lost on Milbank is the fact that this is precisely how Obama treats everyone who disagrees with him. When Obama — who ran for office touting his ability to work with Republicans and vowing to cure the partisan dysfunction in Washington — treated Republicans in a far ruder and shabbier way, Milbank celebrated.

Of course, he was hardly alone.

Republicans, in Obama’s view, are always dishonest, fabricating falsehoods and denying reality with their knee-jerk responses.
To pick just one of countless examples, there was a White House summit on health care in 2010. The president invited members of Congress to discuss the issue in good faith. He then proceeded to treat every concern, objection, and argument from Republicans as dumb, dishonest, or emotional. They were, according to a column by Milbank, “stepping into Prof. Obama’s classroom.” Milbank marveled at how the “teacher” treated them all “like his undisciplined pupils.” Whenever someone said anything politically inconvenient, the president replied that those were just partisan “talking points.”
When Senator John McCain, his opponent in the previous election, noted that Obama had broken numerous promises and that the 2,400-page bill was a feeding trough for special interests, Obama eye-rolled. “Let me just make this point, John,” Obama said. “We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”

He responded to Senator Lamar Alexander — he called him “Lamar” — “this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.” When it was Representative John Boehner’s turn to speak, Obama reprimanded “John” for trotting out “the standard talking points” and, in the words of a palpably impressed Milbank, forced Boehner to “wear the dunce cap.”
Again, this was all quintessential Obama then, and it’s quintessential Obama now. All that has changed is that he’s doing the exact same thing to Democrats, and it’s making them sad. Specifically, he’s accused Senator Elizabeth Warren of not having her facts straight. He says she’s just a politician following her partisan self-interest.

But here’s the hilarious part: Liberals can’t take it. The president of NOW, Terry O’Neill, accused Obama of being sexist. O’Neill sniped that Obama’s “clear subtext is that the little lady just doesn’t know what she’s talking about.” She added, “I think it was disrespectful.” Both O’Neill and Senator Sherrod Brown also sniff sexism in the fact that Obama referred to Warren as “Elizabeth.”

“I think referring to her as first name, when he might not have done that for a male senator, perhaps?” Brown mused with his typical syntactical ineptness.

Of course, in that White House health-care summit and in nearly every other public meeting with Republican senators and congressmen, he referred to them all by their first names.

The great irony is that when Republicans complain about Obama’s haughtiness and arrogance, liberals accuse them of being racist. I hope I don’t miss that phase of this spat while I’m off making the popcorn.

Hawaii’s $205M ObamaCare system on life support, critics fear ‘complete waste’!

FoxNews.com ^ | May 15, 2015 | Malia Zimmerman 

HONOLULU – Federal taxpayers dumped more than $205 million into Hawaii's ObamaCare insurance exchange, but after a steady downward spiral the once-highly praised Hawaii Health Connector is on life support.
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has already restricted grant funds to the Hawaii Health Connector, after telling officials in March it was out of compliance with the Affordable Care Act because of fiscal instability and ongoing IT issues.
With state lawmakers also blocking additional funds, the system is struggling to stay afloat. The governor's office said it is doing what it can to salvage the situation, including approving $30 million to temporarily transition the local portal to the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov -- where residents could continue to enroll over the next year while problems with the local site are addressed.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

CFPB Warns Home Lenders: Don't Exclude Sec. 8 Welfare Takers!

 IBD ^ 

Housing: If you need federal subsidies to pay your apartment rent, it's a good bet you can't afford to buy a new home. But don't tell that to the Obama regime. It's pressuring banks to lend even to Section 8 voucher recipients.


In a new regulatory bulletin, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau warns home lenders that they can be investigated for discrimination if they reject Section 8 vouchers as a valid source of income for low-income minorities applying for mortgages.


The agency argues that underwriting policies that exclude such welfare payments could have a "disparate impact" on minority borrowers and therefore violate civil-rights laws.

"The bureau has become aware of one or more institutions excluding or refusing to consider income derived from the Section 8 HCV Homeownership Program during mortgage loan application and underwriting processes," the three-page bulletin said.

Explained CFPB Director Richard Cordray, "Consumers should not be put at a disadvantage just because they receive public assistance." And strapping them with 30-year debt doesn't put them at a disadvantage? Did Cordray snooze through the subprime crisis?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

Before Fox News declared war on 'Obama phones,' Obama declared war on Fox News!

GOPUSA via OneNewsNow ^ | 15 May 2015 | Bill Bumpas 

A media watchdog was paying attention this week when President Obama singled out Fox News for influencing the debate over poverty.
The President forgot to point out how the liberal media has been framing the discussion for the last 50 years, says Rich Noyes with the Media Research Center.
The media could also improve its coverage, he says, by analyzing the massive federal spending to conduct the "War on Poverty" launched by Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
"So I think we can have a real debate about this without stigmatizing Fox News or others as being somehow anti-poor if they want to take a real critical look at the effectiveness of government spending," Noyes tells OneNewsNow.
Speaking on the subject of poverty Tuesday at Georgetown University, the President accused Fox News of portraying poor people as lazy who "just want a free Obama phone."
He said Fox's coverage is influencing political leaders, naming the Republican leaders in the House and Senate.
"If we're going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think," Obama said, "we're going to have to change how our body politics thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues."
Fox News reported on the "Obama phones" in 2012, using a video that went viral of a black woman who told the camera, "Keep Obama as president. He gave us a phone."
The story highlighted troubles of a federal program called Lifeline, which helps poor Americans get federally subsidized phone service. But the story also quoted a Democratic U.S. senator criticizing the program after she received Lifeline mail telling her she was eligible.
The program cost taxpayers $1.6 billion in 2012 according to the story.
Obama has vilified the conservative 24-hour news channel since the beginning of his presidency.
"Over the weekend, White House communications director Anita Dunn announced the official beginning of the Obama administration's war with Fox News," New York Magazine declared on October 12, 2009, three years before the "Obama phone" story ran on the air.
Noyes says the liberal media could use its influence to expose welfare fraud and waste -the main topic of the Lifeline story from 2012.
"They can change their coverage by digging into that side of the story a little more intensively then they have," he says. "And I think that might change perhaps the way politicians like Barak Obama think about poverty."