Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (65155)	5/19/2013 8:24:45 PM
From: greatplains_guy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Obama admits he’s a socialist What his ‘Bulworth’ fantasy reveals By KYLE SMITH Last Updated: 1:31 PM, May 19, 2013 You may be forgiven if you missed it during last week’s tsunami of scandals, but President Obama finally let slip that he is a socialist. Buried in the 17th paragraph of one of those mewling New York Times pieces on the woes of Obama — can we start calling him Woe-bama yet? — appeared these two words: “going Bulworth.” Obama himself, the Times explained, has been “longingly” telling his inner circle that what he’d really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie “Bulworth,” did: to go public as an unabashed, angry and admitted socialist. It’s as if Ronald Reagan had been caught saying he wanted to “Go Strangelove.” In confessing his dreams of “going Bulworth,” Obama confirmed that what he thinks and what he says out loud are two different things. He let slip the mask of a center-left moderate — a “pragmatist” who only cares about “what works.” The press and even right-of-center columnists like Ross Douthat and David Brooks have always insisted that this completely unconvincing masquerade is genuine. “Bulworth” is set during the campaign season of 1996, when progressives’ frustration with Bill Clinton was reaching a boil (just before the Lewinsky scandal turned them into his defenders again). The title character is a cautious, Clintonian Democratic senator who breaks down in despair at his own moderate campaign, in which he questions race preferences, welfare and bloated government. Recognizing that he is a sellout makes him despondent to the point of suicide (I trust this is not the part of Bulworth with which Obama identifies). So, he first takes out a life insurance policy, then hires a hit man to assassinate him. With nothing left to lose, Bulworth speaks his mind and becomes a sensation and unexpected contender for the presidency by giving far-left campaign speeches in rap form. In the movie’s centerpiece moment, Bulworth does a rap about health care and cries, “Socialism!” to a stunned crowd. (The lyrics run, “Yeah, yeah / You can call it single-payer or Canadian way / Only socialized medicine will ever save the day! Come on now, lemme hear that dirty word: Socialism!”) This is President Obama’s id, the little man he wishes he could let out to party. But at least Bulworth is more upfront about the catch-all term for his program. President Obama and many others (including the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary) seem to confuse socialism with communism — common ownership of the economy. But most people understand socialism as shorthand for a European-style economy that allows private property but is government-directed for the (alleged) common good. A country whose economy is more public than private is socialist — such as France, where 57% of GDP is government spending. Few would deny that Obama’s goal is to put a beret on the US economy. Saying so, though, would require Bulworthian frankness. Yet the flip side of Obama’s fantasy is what’s getting him into trouble: His administration may not be able to say what it fervently believes, but it can muzzle others who want to speak their minds. The Benghazi e-mails show that his administration sought to shut up the CIA and conceal the damaging truth that it always knew al Qaeda terrorists (not demonstrators) attacked us last Sept. 11 in Libya. The AP scandal shows his Justice Department clamping down on what reporters say. The IRS scandal reveals his tax minions trying to silence the Tea Party. This is an administration that wishes only one man ever got a chance to speak up, loud and proud, in unapologetically socialist terms — while everybody else gets a strip of duct tape slapped over their mouths. kyle.smith@nypost.com nypost.com

To: Carolyn who wrote (65155)	5/21/2013 12:22:49 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Can We Get a Straight Answer When Obama Knew? White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer offers more confusion than clarity in defending the White House response to Benghazi, IRS scandal. Tweet By Josh Kraushaar Updated: May 20, 2013 \| 9:39 a.m What did the president know and when did he know it? Those simple questions are at the heart of the scandals buffeting the White House, and they were only obscured by White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer, appearing on the Sunday talk shows to represent the administration. Asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace where the president was in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks, Pfeiffer dodged, only saying he was "kept up to date throughout the day." When pressed if he was being briefed in the Situation Room, Pfeiffer responded that it was an "irrelevant fact"—a formulation he used on several other shows to deflect scrutiny. On all the Sunday shows, Pfeiffer's party line on the IRS scandal is that it would be more problematic if the president knew about the agency's problems and interfered, raising the perception of meddling. That argument is starting to fray, as well. The Wall Street Journal reported today that White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler was aware of the IRS wrongdoing on the week of April 22—nearly three weeks before the agency acknowledged its mistakes. It's hard to believe Obama's chief counsel was aware of what happened without informing at least the president's senior staff. Adding to the confusion, the White House hasn't allowed Ruemmler to be interviewed to add clarity to the timeline. At last Thursday's press conference, Obama chose his words about the IRS scandal very carefully. "I can assure you that I certainly did not know anything about the IG report before the IG report had been leaked through the press." Even though he was asked about the overall malfeasance, he specifically said he didn't know about the report. That parsing alone raises questions about the level of candor coming from the White House. nationaljournal.com