The Cellar - Classic's Crap

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Nothingland (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Classic's Crap (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18764)

Very negative opinion on the Obama Presidency from Dick Morris fmr. advisor to Clinton.

I'm putting it here to check back on in a few years.

The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism

Quote:

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)
Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.

But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

Perhaps the new pres. will be forewarned.

$646,214 Per Government Job
Spending where unemployment is already low.

Quote:

House Democrats propose to spend $550 billion of their two-year, $825 billion "stimulus bill" (the rest of it being tax cuts). Most of the spending is unlikely to be timely or temporary. Strangely, most of it is targeted toward sectors of the economy where unemployment is the lowest.

The December unemployment rate was only 2.3% for government workers and 3.8% in education and health. Unemployment rates in manufacturing and construction, by contrast, were 8.3% and 15.2% respectively. Yet 39% of the $550 billion in the bill would go to state and local governments. Another 17.3% would go to health and education -- sectors where relatively secure government jobs are also prevalent.

Quote:

If the intent of the plan is to alleviate unemployment, why spend over half of the money on sectors where unemployment is lowest? Another 22.5% of the $550 billion would go to social programs, such as expanding food stamps and extending benefits for the unemployed and subsidizing their health insurance.

Quote:

Mr. Zandi's current estimates have government employment growing by 330,400 over two years as a result of the House bill (compared with 244,000 in Bernstein-Romer paper). Yet even that updated figure still amounts to only 8.3% of total jobs added, even though state and local governments are to receive 39% of the funds ($214.5 billion). Spending $214.5 billion to create or save 330,400 government jobs implies that taxpayers are being asked to spend $646,214 per job.

Does that make sense?

Not to me.

Quote:

In short, a growing body of evidence suggests that a dollar of extra spending is likely to lift nominal income by less than a dollar, arguably much less. Several studies suggest the multiplier may be less than zero after a couple of years, because private investment (including housing) eventually falls by more than government spending rises. Another $550 billion of deficit spending on top of a deficit already above $1 trillion is likely to prove more dangerous than helpful to an economy already overloaded with risky debt.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the money that goes to state and local governments get spent at least partially on infrastructure, which is what brings the manufacturing and construction jobs back? I'm pretty sure the municipal governments aren't supposed to just hire office workers for themselves. Would you really want the federal government trying to ham-handedly invest in local construction projects?

Quote:

January 28, 2009
Davis-Bacon Wage Provisions Depress the Economy
by James Sherk
WebMemo #2253
Congress has included a little-known provision in the economic stimulus legislation that wastes tax dollars and costs jobs. All $188 billion worth of construction projects funded in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) must pay Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates. This requirement will inflate construction costs by $17 billion and depress the economy.

If, on the other hand, Congress paid market wages, the same appropriations would fund more projects and create more jobs. Alternatively, Congress could give every American household a $150 tax rebate for the same cost. Including the Davis-Bacon requirements gives some workers a windfall with no benefit to the public. Before extending prevailing wage requirements to the stimulus bill, Congress should require the Department of Labor to use an accurate and scientific methodology to calculate prevailing wages.

The Davis-Bacon Act

The Davis-Bacon Act requires federal construction contractors to pay at least the prevailing wage rates for non-federal construction projects located in the same areas as their federal project. Supporters consider Davis-Bacon an important means of preventing the government's buying power from distorting construction labor markets. In areas where the government is the largest buyer of construction services, it could use its negotiating power to lower construction wages.

Contrary to its purpose, the Davis-Bacon Act distorts construction labor markets. Davis-Bacon wages bear little relation to market wages, because the government's prevailing wage estimates are wildly inaccurate. In some cities, Davis-Bacon rates are much higher than market wages. In Long Island, New York, for example, market rates for plumbers are $29.68 an hour.[1] Davis-Bacon rates, however, are $44.75 an hour--51 percent more than what the market demands.[2] In other cities, Davis-Bacon wages are significantly below market rates. For instance, Davis-Bacon rates for carpenters and plumbers in Sarasota, Florida, are $6.55 an hour, a figure below Florida's minimum wage of $7.21.[3] Nationwide, Davis-Bacon rates average 22 percent above market wages and inflate the cost of federal construction by 10 percent.[4]

Davis-Bacon in the Stimulus

H.R. 1 applies Davis-Bacon restrictions to all construction projects directly or indirectly funded in the legislation--over $188 billion worth of projects.[5] The new schools, highways, hospitals, and other construction in the act will be built by contractors paying inflated Davis-Bacon rates. This requirement will add $17 billion to construction costs.[6]

Depresses the Economy

Davis-Bacon restrictions ensure that the infrastructure spending--such as that provided for in H.R. 1--will yield as little economic benefit as possible. The $17 billion is spent paying a premium for work that employees would do at market wages. Without Davis-Bacon inflating costs, construction spending would go farther, funding more projects and creating more jobs. Including Davis-Bacon restrictions in the stimulus bill lines the pockets of some workers at the cost of both fewer jobs and fewer schools and highways built.

Davis-Bacon restrictions are also an inefficient and ineffective way to increase American's purchasing power. There is no economic reason to give federal construction workers--but no other workers--inflated wages. If Congress wants to spend $17 billion to increase American's purchasing power, it could use that money to give every American household a $150 tax rebate.[7] Such a rebate would broadly benefit all workers instead of just those who happen to work in construction.

Flawed Estimates

Davis-Bacon wages badly distort construction markets and federal spending because the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor uses unscientific and inaccurate methods to calculate wage rates.[8] Indeed, the inspector general has found three significant flaws that distort Davis-Bacon rates[9]:

Unscientific Methodology. The Wage and Hour Division does not use a scientific random sample of construction contractors.
Survey Errors. The inspector general's office found errors in 100 percent of audited returned survey forms.
Outdated Surveys. It takes over two years to conduct a survey and then years to update the survey after its completion. In some counties, Davis-Bacon rates have not been updated since the 1970s.
These flaws cause Davis-Bacon wages to bear little resemblance to market wages. There is no reason for Congress to pay workers on $188 billion worth of construction projects wages that are based on unscientific, inaccurate estimates.

Recommendations to Congress

The Davis-Bacon Act inflates the wages of some construction workers and depresses the wages of others. Including it in the stimulus bill will drive up construction costs by $17 billion and cost jobs on projects that could have been funded with that extra money. Therefore, Congress should strip Davis-Bacon requirements from the stimulus bill.

If Congress intends to keep prevailing wage requirements in the stimulus legislation, it should at least ensure that prevailing wages are scientifically estimated. Congress already spends over half a billion dollars a year on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an agency that accurately estimates wage statistics using scientific methods. At the very least, Congress should require the Department of Labor use scientific estimates to calculate Davis-Bacon rates.

James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 528415)

Yes, but only to a very small degree and that is basically creating jobs dependent upon the government which we as taxpayers cannot sustain. If nothing else we learned that. Based upon what I've read/seen, these are not long term jobs and do not start immediately either. They are short-term, Gov't dependent and temporary.

Additionally, as the chart in post #49 displays, 265.2 Billion are not directed toward job creation whatsoever. That is 32% based upon A total of $819B. Roughly 1/3 of a "job creation/stimulus plan" that does virtually nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy.

I can't think of a better place for this. It's in a joking tone people, don't get your panties in a wad. But hey it is not a bad idea if we divide thing up based purely on land mass, the Demoncrats would be hosed. :D:

We Want a Divorce.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile, slate it up to irreconcilable differences, and go our own ways.

Here is a model dissolution agreement. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes. We don't like re-distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell (you are however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move them). We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies, and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan Hockey Moms, greedy CEOs, and Rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

You can make nice with Iran , Palestine , and France , and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or way of life are under assault, we'll provide them job security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian Values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, and Shirley McClain. You can have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru Station Wagon you can find. You can give everyone healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors (that is practicing, Howard Dean) who will follow to your turf. We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right.

We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and The National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach The World To Sing, Kum Ba Ya, or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics, and you can give trickle up poverty its best shot. Since it often so offends you. we'll keep our History, our Name, and our Flag.

Would you agree to this? In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR on who will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

An American Law Student

P.S. Please take Barbara Streisand.

Send 'em up, I'll wait......

Send 'em up, I'll wait......

This conversation was recorded on the VHF Guard (emergency) frequency 121.5 MHz, while flying from Europe to Dubai.

Iranian Air Defense Radar: 'Unknown aircraft at (location unknown), you are in Iranian airspace. Identify yourself.'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States aircraft. I am not in Iranian airspace, I am in Iraqi airspace.'

Iranian Air Defense Radar: 'You are in Iranian airspace. If you do not depart our airspace we will launch interceptor aircraft!'

Aircraft: 'This is a United States Marine Corps FA-18 fighter. Send 'em up, I'll wait!'

Iranian Air Defense Radar: (no response .... total silence)

Quote:

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe,
we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear
arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

Very Interesting Quote

In light of the present financial crisis, it's interesting to read what Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Timeless wisdom.

Is SNL right that Obama's accomplished 'nothing'?

Quote:

Are SNL's accusations of Obama being a do-nothing president accurate? Let's run down the list of the nine promises SNL lampooned President Obama for doing "nothing" on to see where he actually stands.

1. Close the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay: In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed an order mandating the close of the notorious lockup by January 2010. On Sunday, White House National Security Adviser James Jones said that he was "hopeful" that the White House would meet that deadline. Several legal and logistical questions remained to be answered, however, including the fate of the remaining detainees.

2. Pull all troops out of Iraq: In February, Obama told congressional leaders that he wanted all troops out of Iraq by August 2010. On June 30th of this year, a large number of troops were pulled out of the country, a move that was understated here in the U.S., but was met by dancing in the streets in some parts of Iraq. At the time of the withdrawal, the American military leadership refused to put a number on how many troops remained, though some have estimated that number remains as high as 124,000.

3. Improve the situation in Afghanistan: In a recent interview with CBS' "60 Minutes," General Stanley McChrystal, America's top commander in Afghanistan, said that things had become "a little worse" than he had originally anticipated in Afghanistan, adding that "the breadth of the violence, the geographic spread of violence, is a little more than I would have gathered." Wednesday marks the eighth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion, and last Sunday saw the deadliest single battle for American soldiers in Afghanistan since 2001. The administration is currently divided over how to change course in Afghanistan, weighing McChrystal's request for as many as 40,000 more troops against other options.

4. Reform the nation's health care system: This year's health care reform debate has been one of the more contentious debates in American history. Originally, the president set an August deadline for Congress to pass legislation for him to sign. That obviously didn't happen. However, on Friday night the Senate Finance Committee finally released its mammoth health care bill -- the last panel to do so, with a committee vote potentially coming as early as the middle of this week -- setting the stage for an even more intense national debate as the full Senate and House finalize legislation.

5. Cut down on global warming: Prior to the onset of the raucous health care reform debate, the centerpiece of the Administration's efforts to stem the increase of global warming, the Cap and Trade bill, was on the legislative fast-track. However, over the weekend Carol Browner, Obama's global warming czar, said that passage of the bill prior to December's Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was unlikely.

6. Reform the nation's immigration policies: In August, President Obama, under intense pressure from supporters for not moving fast enough on the issue, announced that he would have an immigration bill in Congress by the end of the year, though it likely wouldn't be voted on until 2010. Saying that "demagogues" who "suggest that any form of pathway for legalization for those who are already in the United States is unacceptable" would attempt to obstruct his efforts, the president added, "Am I going to be able to snap my fingers and get this done? No."

7. Changing the military's policies on gay soldiers: In his first week in the Oval Office, President Obama announced that his Administration would have to study the "implications for national security" before he could attempt to repeal the present "don't ask, don't tell" policy initiated by the Clinton administration in 1993. On Sunday, White House National Security Adviser James Jones reiterated Obama's commitment to fulfilling this campaign promise, but added that the president has "a lot on his plate" and would get around to addressing the issue at the "right time."

8. Placing limits on executive powers: In the early days of his presidency, Congressional Quarterly praised Obama for appearing as if he was "rejecting some of Bush's most expansive executive power claims" in the White House. However, that sentiment quickly evaporated among Obama supporters and opponents, with Salon's Glenn Greenwald noting in April that the White House had "explicitly claimed to possess the very presidential powers that Bush critics spent years condemning as radical, lawless and authoritarian."

9. Prosecute those who facilitate torture: In April, President Obama announced that his Administration would not bring charges against those who carried out acts deemed as torture upon U.S. terror detainees, but rather might seek to prosecute the Bush Administration officials who drafted the documents justifying the use of torture as lawful. In August, Attorney General Eric Holder followed through by announcing the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether or not the interrogations of suspected terrorists broke any laws.

So, taking all of this into consideration, are SNL's satirical criticisms of President Obama's do-nothingness valid? Probably not, mainly because, as illustrated by the old adage about how one shouldn't watch sausage or legislation get made, the process of "change" and getting anything done in Washington is a long and messy one, and Obama is merely nine months into his term as president. But that doesn't mean that Saturday's SNL skit was humorless, which, for once, it most definitely was not.

Fact Check: President Obama's State of the Union 2010

Quote:

Excluding Lobbyists From Administration:

"That's why -- for the first time in history -- my administration posts our White House visitors online. And that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions," the president said tonight.

It is true that the Obama administration became the first to implement a policy disclosing visitors to the White House, but the claim on lobbyists isn't quite right.

Obama signed an executive order in January 2009 barring lobbyists who became members of the administration from working on matters they lobbied on for two years or in agencies they lobbied during the previous two years.
But the president waived the rule for Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn, who was a registered lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon before being appointed in January.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk was a lobbyist for investment bank Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and law and lobbying firm Vinson & Elkins LLP in Austin, Texas.

The Obama administration has granted waivers for additional officials who had previously worked as lobbyists. In February, the administration signed waivers for Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women & Families, and Cecilia Muñoz, the former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza, allowing them to work on issues for which they lobbied.

Quote:

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors, and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost nonexistent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic e-mails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

— Except toward a few reporters, press secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach — even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper

— The New York Times — enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face time.

A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”
Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.
The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:

Dodging questions

If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.

Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.

The numbers speak for themselves: During his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q & A sessions — an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University professor Martha Kumar.

“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”

“It's clearly the case that they're playing favorites,” said Bloomberg’s Chen, when asked about the White House’s relationship to the Times. "It's kind of par for the course. Some people understand that — none of us really like it — but that's the way the administration does business."

Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.

But Stevenson said, “like every other journalist in Washington, I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”

While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of The Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.

Another event that riled many in the press corps took place March 20. The Washington Examiner's Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress's big health care vote.

"You're not in the pool," Mason recalled telling Wolffe. "You shouldn't be joining." Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of "a special invitation from the Obama administration." Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.

"Are you working for them officially now?" shot back Mason.

“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don't know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It's just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press."

One current focus of press corps ire are gauzy video features the White House’s staff videographer cranks out, taking advantage of behind-the-scenes access to Obama and his aides, such as a recent piece offering “exclusive footage” of first lady Michelle Obama and Jill Biden touring Haiti.

“I think someone out there might mistake them for news, as opposed to slick publicity handouts for the White House,” said Compton. “To me, they’re mocking what we do.”

One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story — only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.

“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graph that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off-the-record, angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain. Engage!”

Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things. ... I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”

Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.

Edward Luce of The Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.

“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source greasers or other fawning articles.

Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”

Link

Long article. Certainly partisan, but it seems to have a point. Selected portions from each page for those who don't click on links.

Good stuff. Keep it on...

White House puts a lid on Bayless Tweets

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- Rick Bayless, the Chicago superstar chef, was Twittering from the White House kitchen about today's Obama White House state dinner honoring Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his wife, Margarita Zavala. Until the Tweets stopped.

He was given the unpaid honor of being a guest chef, working the state dinner -- the second of the Obama administration -- alongside of White House House chef Cristeta Comerford.

The White House press operation wanted to downplay the glamor aspect of the state dinner; these are tough economic times.

Bayless talked about the dinner in interviews -- he gave up a few facts about what he may be cooking -- his Oaxacan mole, for example. "He's been blabbing," wrote the Washington Examiner "Yeas and Nays" column. "He's done interviews with the New York Times and NPR, revealing bits and pieces of the menu."

On Tuesday morning Bayless, an inveterate Tweeter wrote, "Thanks 2 the 100s of well wishers! Ready 4 day 2 n rather small White House kitchen. Chef was challenged by some ingred, but last arrive 2day."

He flew to Washington on Monday from Chicago and when he arrived, he Twittered, "Just arrived in DC. Headed to the White House kitchens. I have to say: I'm a little nervous."

After he checked out the White House kitchen -- which is fairly small -- Bayless Twittered, "The White House staff could not be nicer & more professional! Most worried about ingredients, but all will b here 4 big day!"

But after his Tuesday Tweet early in the morning, Bayless was shut down on Twitter.

Last year, when the Obamas entertained the prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, the guest chef, Marcus Samuelsson, a big name in the cooking world, was neither seen nor heard from and asked not to give interviews about the dinner in advance. He was not allowed to appear at the press preview of the dinner.

The White House at first was keen on limiting reporting opportunities from the state dinner, but Tuesday eased up on a restrictions. Michelle Obama and Mrs. Zavala will visit an elementary school in the Maryland suburbs of Washington with students from Central and South America on Wednesday morning. That is the picture of the day the East Wing wants.

At first, the White House was not planning any advance event to preview the dinner. Last year on the afternoon of the India dinner, the East Wing set up sample table settings; the first lady arranged for a briefing on the history of state dinners for the group of girls she is mentoring.

In a reversal, the White House now will allow a pool to see the dinner set up in the East Room "for a few minutes" and to see "for a few minutes" the tent on the South Lawn where more guests will be invited for dessert and entertainment.

Link
Whats the big deal? Why can't the guy share in his "Big Day" with his tweet followers?