President Obama


Since when has it been okay to call the President of The United States a “thug”?  Is that like calling him a bully with a little racism added to it?

I listen to Randi Rhodes everyday via a subscribed podcast.  The woman is funny and knows her politics better than many politicians.  Here’s what she had to say:

If you turned on Fox News today, you’ll see the word “thug” repeated so often that you’ll think you’re watching a gangsta rap retrospective on MTV2. Between Sean HannityRush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove, the rightwing echo machine is throwing the word “thug” around more than Tupac, Biggie, and Trick Daddy rolled into one. Why “thug”? Because terms like “bully” just don’t have that extra zing of racism that the right-wing wants. The way they’re using “thug,” it’s a racial slur, and a vicious one at that. They shouldn’t even be allowed to say the word “thug” out loud. It should be called the “T-word.” And when Karl Rove uses the term, it definitely becomes a racial slur. Of course, that’s true of an awful lot of words.

Bizarre—a federal appeals court judge has reacted to President Obama’s comments about the Supreme Court by demanding that the Justice Department write an essay recognizing the Court’s authority. Really! The Obama administration was given extra homework for acting out! This is like some kind of weird punishment for a misbehaving school kid. Why didn’t the judge demand that they clean the blackboards too? The judge said “The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements.” Oh, and make sure you have footnotes too! And put it in one of those term paper binders that they sell at Staples!

Read Attorney General Holder’s letter here

Everyone in the rightwing echo chamber is claiming the President questioned the Supreme Court’s authority to review the Constitutionality of a law. That’s because there’s nothing to criticize Obama about if they don’t make something up. For the record, President Obama never questioned the Supreme Court’s authority. Heck, he didn’t even question their judgment, which is something anyone familiar with Citizens United would want to do. On the contrary, the President said that he was confident that the Supreme Court would make the right decision. And now the rightwing is attacking him essentially just for saying that there is a right decision.

Flashback:  GWB referring to judges he disagreed with as a “threat to democracy” in 2007

Federal Judges

Jeffrey Toobin: Some Republican Judges ‘Deranged By Their Hatred Of The President’


CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin has been front and center covering the health care battle in the Supreme Court — and he hasn’t shied away from expressing his opinions. Keeping with that pattern, on Thursday, Toobin criticized the appeals court that demanded President Obama explain his view of courts’ power. Furthermore, he remarked that some Republican judges are “deranged by their hatred of the president.”

“I think what these judges have done is a disgrace,” Toobin said. “What President Obama said was entirely appropriate. There is nothing wrong, there’s nothing controversial.” In his view, it did not warrant a “homework assignment” (which the Justice Department did complete, albeit shorter in length).

Toobin continued:

“That was a perfectly appropriate comment by the president and it just shows how some of these Republican judges are just deranged by hatred of the president. The president has no leverage over the Supreme Court. He can’t threaten. What’s he going to threaten to do? ‘If you rule this way, I’m not going to invite you to a State dinner’?”

Take a look, via CNN…

Mitt Romney · Rachel Maddow Blog

Romney’s misguided bashing of his alma mater

I’ve said it before and I must reiterate it again:  Rachel Maddow is the best news person on TV.  The way she breaks an issue down to it’s bare bones is what makes her so popular.

The Maddow Blog

Just last night, Rachel explained Mitt Romney’s habit of identifying his perceived weaknesses, and then assigning those weaknesses to President Obama. The segment was not short on examples.

Today, however, the list got a little longer. Romney, perhaps concerned about being perceived as an Ivy League elitist, targeted Obama’s time at Harvard.

For those who can’t watch clips online, Romney said, “We have a president who I think is a nice guy, but he spent too much time at Harvard, perhaps. Or maybe just not enough time actually working in the real world. I think to create jobs in the private sector it helps to have had a job in the private sector.”

First, Obama has worked in the real world. Second, the private sector has created about 4 million jobs in the last three years.

But the part of this that stands out, of course, is the notion that Obama — unlike Romney — “spent too much time at Harvard.”

I get the whole “I’m rubber, you’re glue” strategy. I even understand that anti-intellectualism goes a long way with Republican voters. But this incessant talk about Harvard is a bit much.

For one thing, Romney has two post-graduate degrees from Harvard, and he has three sons with post-graduate degrees from Harvard. Obama spent too much time there?

For another, Romney routinely points to members of the Harvard faculty as a major influence on his political views.

While we’re at it, let’s also not forget that many of Romney’s top policy aides are either Harvard alums, Harvard professors, or both. (If he’s going to talk about how awful it is to get advice from the “Harvard faculty lounge,” as he has many times in reference to Obama, it’d help if Romney weren’t getting advice from the Harvard faculty lounge.)

And finally, in case these ties weren’t quite enough, Romney is also enjoying the generous financial support of members of the Harvard faculty lounge.

There has to be an easier way for the former Massachusetts governor and Harvard alum to pretend to be a normal person.

U.S. Politics

CNN’s Toobin: Appeals court judge threw ‘judicial hissy-fit’

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin via YouTube screenshot

I believe Jeffrey Toobin got it right this time…

The Raw Story

An appeals court judge who claimed President Barack Obama was challenging the authority of federal courts was just throwing a “judicial hissy-fit,” according to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.

“Totally extraordinary and totally inappropriate,” Toobin said. “This was a judicial hissy-fit.”

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith on Tuesday demanded a “three page, single spaced” letter from the Justice Department regarding the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress. Obama said Monday that the “unelected” Supreme Court should not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of striking down the Affordable Care Act.

“What the President said was entirely appropriate, entirely within his rights as an American citizen to express his opinions about this law,” Toobin continued.

“He wasn’t intimidating the Supreme Court. He couldn’t intimidate the Supreme Court if he wanted to. He was simply saying that he believes this law is constitutional, and this judge, doing this ridiculous patronizing act to the Department of Justice has simply made himself look ridiculous.”

Toobin claimed that if the Supreme Court did strike down the health care law, it would in fact be “extremely unprecedented,” even though the Supreme Court has the right to do so.

Toobin previously predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the law’s individual mandate clause.

Watch video, courtesy of CNN, below:

Related articles