Tag Archives: Hollywood liberals

Breitbart Agrees With Me!

I just listened to Armstrong Williams interview Andrew Breitbart on C-Span Book TV.  
 About halfway through the 1 hour interview Breitbart said he was in favor of a Herman Cain/Allen West ticket for 2012.   Very good interview!      ~LTG

Please follow and like us:

Liberal WashPo Calls Obama an Absentee President

It’s getting ugly for the Fraud.
His former friends and acolytes are turning against him.
Spike Lee was upset with Obama’s slow and affectless response to last year’s BP Gulf oil crisis. Barbra Streisand, Hugh Hefner, “Glee” lesbian actress Jane Lynch, and the latest, Matt Damon, are all unhappy that their former messiah is not “aggressive” enough on the Left’s pet issues of DADT, gay “rights”, Gitmo, Afghan war, etc. (See Matt Damon joines the growing list of celebrities unhappy with President Obama“) Yup, Obama’s isn’t left enough for Rabid Hollywood. Scary!
 Now, the liberal Washington Post finally notices what we conservatives have been saying for some time: “Where’s Waldo?”

Obama’s ‘Where’s Waldo?’ presidency
By Ruth Marcus – WashPo – March 2, 2011 

For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama can be a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action – unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.

Each of these instances can be explained on its own terms, as matters of legislative strategy, geopolitical calculation or political prudence.
He didn’t want to get mired in legislative details during the health-care debate for fear of repeating the Clinton administration’s prescriptive, take-ours-or-leave-it approach. He doesn’t want to go first on proposing entitlement reform because history teaches that this is not the best route to a deal. He didn’t want to say anything too tough about Libya for fear of endangering Americans trapped there. He didn’t want to weigh in on the labor battle in Wisconsin because, well, it’s a swing state.
Yet the dots connect to form an unsettling portrait of a “Where’s Waldo?” presidency: You frequently have to squint to find the White House amid the larger landscape.
This tough assessment from someone who generally shares the president’s ideological perspective may be hard to square with the conservative portrait of Obama as the rapacious perpetrator of a big-government agenda. If the president is being simultaneously accused of overreaching ambition and gutless fight-ducking, maybe he’s doing something right.
Maybe, or else Obama has at times managed to do both simultaneously. On health care, for instance, he took on a big fight without being able to articulate a clear message or being willing to set out any but the broadest policy prescriptions. Lawmakers, not to mention the public, were left guessing about what, exactly, the administration wanted to see in the measure and where it would draw red lines.
That was not an isolated case. Where, for example, is the president on the verge of a potential government shutdown – if not this week, then a few weeks from now?
Aside from a short statement from the Office of Management and Budget threatening a presidential veto of the House version of the funding measure, the White House – much to the frustration of some congressional Democrats – has been unclear in public and private about what cuts would and would not be acceptable.
By contrast, a few weeks before the shutdown in 1995, Clinton administration aides had dispatched Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials to spread the message that cuts in education, health care and housing would harm families and children. Obama seems more the passive bystander to negotiations between the House and Senate than the chief executive leading his party.
He performs best on a stage that permits the grandest sweep. He rises to the big occasion, from his inspiring introduction to the public in his 2004 Democratic convention speech to his healing words in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings.
The president has faltered, though, when called on to translate that rhetoric to more granular levels of specificity: What change, exactly, does he want people to believe in? How, even more exactly, does he propose to get there? “Winning the future” doesn’t quite do it.
My biggest beef is with the president’s slipperiness on fiscal matters. Obama has said he agrees with some of his fiscal commission’s recommendations and disagrees with others. Which ones does he disagree with? I asked this question the other day of Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Here’s what I got: “The view espoused by some of the . . . commission that we ought to do Social Security 100 percent off of benefit cuts for sure he doesn’t agree with.” But of course, the plan that 11 of the commission members endorsed did nothing of the sort.
I was unfair to Goolsbee because I asked him a question he didn’t have the leeway to answer. You can’t blame the aide for ducking when the boss fudges.
Where’s Obama? No matter how hard you look, sometimes he’s impossible to find.
Please follow and like us:

Robert Redford, Elitist "Green" Hypocrite

Robert Redford, movie star, owner of the Sundance Film Festival and heart-on-sleeve champion of the environment, is a hypocrite. So says this short film directed by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.
Redford is a hypocrite because, while opposing the development of an eco-village, he’s quietly selling $2 million lots in the Sundance Preserve for luxury vacation homes. Redford is one of the main opponents of a plan by the Pacific Union College to build an eco-village in Angwin California. The college says it needs the funds because of a dire financial situation.
But the proposed eco-village is close to Redford’s vineyard in the Napa Valley.
And so, at the same time as Redford publicly opposes the eco-village in the name of “preserving the rural heritage,” he’s quietly selling development lots in his Sundance Preserve for $2 million. These lots are intended for rich people’s (like him) vacation homes close to Redford’s Sundance Ski Resort. Double standards, anyone?
Film director Ann McElhinney makes clear that the film is not criticising Redford for selling his property. “It is great that in a recession Mr Redford can find so many buyers. I am delighted that those houses will be built, creating jobs and vitality in a remote area but it is shocking that Mr Redford would deny others similar opportunities to make a profit and create jobs.”
The film’s co-director Phelim McAleer said the film simply seeks to highlight the double standards of so many celebrities and environmentalists: “This is just another example of environmental elites telling the rest of us how and where we must live and what we are not allowed to do, but thinking that those rules don’t apply to themselves. Robert Redford has shown himself to be a hypocrite – plain and simple.”
Another of Redford’s hypocritical acts is this: Although he has campaigned against “dirty fuels” and wants to end the use of oil, Redford has done lucrative voice overs for a series of United Airlines commercials — commercials that promote flying, which of course, uses oil!
“Again Robert Redford has shown he has an appalling double standard. The rest of us must stop flying because of the environment but these restrictions don’t apply to him. He is somehow different,” said McElhinney.
Robert Redford Hypocrite was produced and directed by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer. They previously produced Not Evil Just Wrong, a documentary which took a sceptical look at Global Warming hysteria, as well as James Cameron Hypocrite about the double standards of Avatar director James Cameron.

Please follow and like us: