"A Time for Crisis"

What an interesting Freudian slip. At least, I assume it was a slip. I certainly hope it was.

At an address to the U.S. Conference of Mayors on March 20th, President Obama thanked the mayors for indicating they wanted to cooperate with his plans, and warned them that taxpayers were skeptical, particularly since federal money had been “frittered away before.” He insisted that taxpayers wanted to see their money spent “efficiently”—interesting that he chose that word, instead of “effectively.” Efficiently can imply ‘without waste,’ but it can also imply ‘without delay.’ Even the ‘without waste’ interpretation only suggests government overhead costs should be minimized. It certainly doesn’t imply spending money on the right things—but that really isn’t surprising, since at the Democrat’s Congressional retreat, the President insisted that stimulus is all about spend, spend, spend.

But, then came the interesting turn of phrase. “There’s little room for error here, especially in a time for crisis.” For? Not a time of crisis? For.

If President Obama was not so renowned an orator, I might just accept it as a misspeak. If he weren’t on a teleprompter, I could accept it as stream of consciousness. But, then there’s that nagging little phrase from Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” And Obama does use a teleprompter. So, I have to wonder—what did the prepared remarks say? And regardless of that answer, what does it tell us that he called this, intentionally or not, “A time for crisis”?

I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I can add. 2+2 usually equals 4. If it doesn’t, then there’s another number in there somewhere. A lot of commentators, on both sides of the aisle, have been calling on the President to stop being so negative, that he’s making the situation worse. Obviously, the left thinks he’s just making a newcomer’s mistake; the right thinks he’s doing it deliberately.

But, as I look at the arguments from both sides, I can’t help but wonder if, just maybe, Obama agrees with his chief of staff—and that some of this hyperbole really is part of a plan. It hasn't happened yet, but I predict this phrase will come back to bite him.

Who Wants the President to Fail?

So, now we discover that, in August 2006, 51% of Democrats polled in a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll wanted President Bush to fail. Let's be clear: the poll said they did not want him to succeed. That's the same thing--no mealy-mouthing here. They wanted President Bush to fail.

Now, why the mock outrage at Rush Limbaugh's statement that he wants President Obama to fail? Why the lies (see my earlier blog post) that claimed Limbaugh wanted the economy to fail? Love him or hate him, Rush has a website with transcripts of his show. It's at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/, in case you've been living in a cave. I've checked--he was crystal clear, and anyone claiming he wanted the economy to fail...IS LYING. Not mischaracterizing, not spinning, not taking out of context. Lying. He believes the President's policies will wreck the country, so he doesn't want them to succeed. You can completely disagree with his opinion, but let's be realistic--which of President Obama's policies would you expect any conservative to support? For all the bloggers and posters saying, "You shut up! We won!" I would ask a simple question--was that really your opinion in 2004 when the Republicans won? Really? Really?

Oh, the reporters didn't actually check the transcript, they just believed the other reports? Then they are incompetent, and should be fired.

I'm serious. Fired. The First Amendment exists for a reason--because accurate reporting is critical for citizens to know what's going on with their government. As a reporter, you don't get a pass for being lazy. If I can check it out, so can you. I have a day job. If you don't have time to check it, then you don't have time to write your story.