Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Obama. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Obama. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

OPINION: It's Time for Obama to Declare 'Buck Stops Here'

The first question for White House spokesman Jay Carney at Tuesday's press briefing went right to the heart of the growing crisis facing President Obama:

In the matters of the Benghazi terror attack, the IRS targeting conservative groups, the Justice Department going after AP phone records, “…doesn’t responsibility for setting tone, setting direction ultimately rest with the president?” 

That question of “where the buck stops” harkens back to another Democrat who occupied the Oval Office some 60 years ago, “Give ‘em Hell” Harry Truman but the answer is as relevant today.

What we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

Benghazi may not be "Obama's Watergate," as Sen. Lindsay Graham has called it, but what we have is an administration that is adrift and leaking more controversy and unanswered questions every day.

On Libya, a detailed examination of the record shows that the White House has had no consistent message on what happened on September 11. In fact, they changed their message from day to day -- and it's clear that the administration's actions in the days and weeks after the Benghazi tragedy was all political maneuvering.

The White House has been caught not telling the full story, and modifying the narrative for political ends.

But that’s just a piece of the troubling picture emerging from the West Wing.

We have Attorney General Eric Holder -- he who managed to dodge full responsibility for the “Fast & Furious” gun-walking debacle in the president's first term -- revealing Tuesday that he had recused himself from the investigation into Justice Department gathering of phone records from more than “20 separate telephone lines assigned to the AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012.” 

The bipartisan response to Monday's disturbing challenge to press freedom was swift. Speaker Boehner's office said Monday, “they better have a damned good explanation.” And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, acknowledge he’s “very troubled” by the allegations.

Then there is the very serious matter of the IRS singling out conservative Tea Party and Patriot groups, among others, for special scrutiny when they sought to apply for tax-exempt status. The president says he's “outraged” -- but also said Monday that he knows nothing about this news.

But “newly obtained documents” show the current IRS chief knew about the agency's targeting of Tea Party groups as early as May 2012, and other officials in Washington were clued in more than a year before that, as the scandal continued to spread. 

Perhaps even more telling is White House spokesman Jay Carney’s acknowledgement to reporters Tuesday that the administration is getting its information on these matters from news reports.

Again, who’s in charge here?

And finally there's what appears, from the public record that has emerged so far, to be the prevarication, without any clear explanation, from the administration on Benghazi: 

On November 28th, 2012, Carney stated that the State Department had only changed one word of Susan Rice's talking points -- we now know this not to be the case. We also know that within hours of the attack, the White House, the State Department and the FBI received emails saying that an Islamic group had claimed credit -- even going so far as to identify Ansar al-Sharia as the group.  

This epidemic of evasions, and most likely falsehoods, only raises more questions.  The White House, the State Department, Hillary Clinton and any additional officials involved have committed a serious breach of trust with regard to the American people, and moreover,  their actions are an insult to the American citizens who died in Libya that night, on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

What’s next?

Just months into his final four years in office, President Obama is facing a credibility crisis, one that threatens his fundamental abilities to govern.

Congress needs to get to the bottom of not only Benghazi, but these other scandals so that the American people can regain some semblance of trust in a government that is seemingly run amok.

Perhaps it's time for the president to gather his inner circle to lay down the law -- clean house if and when necessary -- and to assure the American people that regardless of where these investigations may lead, ultimately: “The buck stops here.”

Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton and is currently working with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of "Fox News Insiders" Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of ten books including,“Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What it Means for 2012 and Beyond” (Rowman and Littlefield 2012). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 4, 2013

FOX NEWS POLL: Voters take North Korea seriously- FOX NEWS POLL: Obama should have been more involved with Benghazi

  • North Korea Koreas Te_Angu.jpg

    April 23, 2013: A propaganda billboard, which reads "Forward to the Ultimate Victory" in Korean stands in central Kaesong, North Korea. For weeks, North Korea has threatened to attack the U.S. and South Korea for holding joint military drills and for supporting U.N. sanctions. Washington and Seoul said they've seen no evidence that Pyongyang is actually preparing for a major conflict, though South Korean defense officials said the North appears prepared to test-fire a medium-range missile.AP

American voters have divided views about whether North Korea has missiles that could hit the United States, yet most think threats from the country’s leader Kim Jong Un should be taken seriously, according to a new Fox News poll.

Some 48 percent of voters think North Korea has the ability to hit the U.S. with a nuclear missile.  Nearly as many -- 42 percent -- don’t think so.

CLICK TO VIEW THE FOX NEWS POLL

Political affiliation does not play a role:  Roughly equal numbers of Democrats (51 percent) and Republicans (49 percent) think it’s possible that the U.S. faces a real North Korean nuclear threat.

There’s more consensus among voters on the instability of Kim Jong Un:  74 percent think he’s “crazy” and his threats should be taken seriously.  One voter in five (20 percent), thinks the young leader is just trying to prove himself and his threats are empty.

North Korea has recently been threatening to conduct a missile test, and it has also declared a “state of war” with South Korea.  The United States has responded by moving military resources into the region and President Obama has condemned the North Korean regime’s behavior.

By a 45-36 percent margin, voters approve of the job Obama is doing on North Korea, one of his highest current ratings.  Nineteen percent are unsure.

The president’s job performance ratings are only higher in one area: Terrorism.  On that, voters approve by 55-37 percent.  

On the other issues tested in the poll -- the economy, immigration, gun control and the federal deficit -- the president receives negative job ratings.  

Despite the North Korean threat, foreign policy comes in last when voters are asked about the most important issue facing the country.  Just one percent thinks it should be the top priority.  The economy dwarfs all other issues to top the list (42 percent).  Next is the federal budget deficit (17 percent), followed by terrorism (9 percent), health care (7 percent), guns (5 percent), Social Security (5 percent) and immigration (4 percent).

The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,009 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from April 20 to April 22.  The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
 


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 4, 2013

GUN VOTE SHOWDOWN: Background Check Plan Fails, Obama Lashes Out

  • manchin_040913.jpg

    April 9, 2013: Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. is followed by reporters as he walks from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's, D-Nev., office on Capitol Hill in Washington.AP

Senate Democrats are trying desperately to round up a bipartisan coalition in advance of a critical round of gun-control votes Wednesday afternoon, as fence-sitting Republicans began to peel away and new polling showed ebbing public support for tightening gun laws. 

After days of backroom wrangling, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid lined up a vote on nine amendments for late Wednesday. The first, on a compromise proposal to loosen the firearms bill's background checks provision, is considered the most vital. 

The proposal, rolled out by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., would expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting personal transactions. The amendment is aimed at winning over reluctant conservatives -- if it fails, the overall bill stands little chance of passing. 

Democrats face a heavy lift, as they must round up a 60-vote majority. They did so last week on a procedural vote, but that coalition now appears to be eroding. 

Democratic leaders have given ever-changing assessments of where support stands. Vice President Biden said Tuesday that Democrats would get the 60 votes, but then said later in the day that it could come down to one or two senators. 

Manchin reportedly said he does not have 60 -- but then his office released a statement saying he "remains optimistic and hopeful that if Senators and the American people read the bill, they will support his commonsense approach to require criminal and mental background checks for advertised sales, including purchases at gun shows and online sales, without infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights." 

The vote math depicts a steep uphill climb for Democrats. Opponents will need just 41 of the Senate's 100 votes to derail the Manchin-Toomey background check plan.  

Thirty-one senators voted last week to completely block debate on overall gun legislation. Just two were Democrats -- Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska. 

If all 31 oppose the Manchin-Toomey measure -- and that is not certain -- opponents would need just 10 more votes to prevail. 

So far, 11 of 16 Republicans who voted last week to let debate on the gun bill begin have said they will oppose Manchin-Toomey. That would give foes of expanded background checks 42 potential votes -- one more than they need to win. 

Among the latest to announce opposition was Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev. 

"I believe very strongly that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms," Heller said in a statement. 

So far, just three Republican senators have committed to voting for the amendment. 

Still uncertain was support from some Democrats from GOP-heavy states, including Max Baucus of Montana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Baucus and Landrieu face re-election next year. 

The Senate gun bill would extend background checks to nearly all gun purchases, toughen penalties against illegal gun trafficking and add small sums to school safety programs. 

Perhaps helping explain Democrats' problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January -- a month after the December killings of 20 children and six aides at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school propelled gun violence into a national issue. 

In a climactic day, the Senate planned to hold eight other votes Wednesday besides the one on background checks, all of them amendments to a broad gun control measure. 

They included Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, which are expected to lose; a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states' permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure. 

The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws. 

The votes were coming a day after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, badly injured in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, tried galvanizing gun control support by visiting Capitol Hill and attending a private lunch with Democratic senators. Reid, D-Nev., called the lunch -- senators said it included emotional speeches from lawmakers -- "as moving as any" he has attended. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 4, 2013

Obama adviser ups push for background checks- Gun class envisioned by ex-SEAL draws hundreds

  • Gun Show

    File: June 19, 2010: Assorted shotguns are displayed on a table at a gun and knife show in White Plains, N.Y.,AP

A top White House official acknowledged Sunday that President Obama knew some of his gun-control initiatives would likely be rejected but defended his efforts and called on Congress to “do the right thing.”

“The president pushed very hard,” White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said on “Fox News Sunday.” “We knew all of the (proposals) would not pass right away.”

With a proposed ban on semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity gun magazines off the table for now, Obama appears to be focusing his efforts, including the garnering of public support, on getting Congress to agree to universal background checks for gun buyers.

Pfeiffer said the president has “marshaled people to his side” and polls show a large majority of the public supports background checks.

“You cannot get 90 percent of the people to agree on the weather,” Pfeiffer told Fox. “The question is whether Congress is going to do the right thing.”

A final Senate bill was expected to be released this week, when Congress returns from Spring Break. But the voting could be delayed as senators wrangle over the background check issue. The legislation would come about four months after a mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed.

Pfeiffer said the president agrees with the efforts so far of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other senators.

“This is the best response to Newtown and gun violence in the country,” Pfeiffer said.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 2 tháng 4, 2013

DATA UNDER FIRE: Critics Rip Obama for Using Dated, Disputed Gun Stat

As President Obama prepares to head to Colorado on Wednesday to push gun control legislation, some are calling into question the validity of a key statistic he’s using to tout his message on near-universal background checks.

During several speeches, Obama has said 40 percent of all gun purchases were made without a background check.

But that number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, as well as The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” are calling out the president’s stat, saying his numbers on background checks need a background check of their own.

During a speech last week, Obama asked, “Why wouldn’t we want to make it more difficult for a dangerous person to get his or her hand on a gun? Why wouldn’t we want to close the loophole that allows as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases to take place without a background check? Why wouldn’t we do that?”

The oft-cited figure, it turns out, was pulled from a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice. In the study, researchers estimated about 40 percent of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed gun dealers. The conclusion was based on data from a 1994 survey of 2,568 households. Of those, only 251 people answered the question about where they got their guns.

PolitiFact tracked down the co-author of the study, Duke University professor Philip Cook, and asked him if he thought the 40 percent estimate is accurate.

“The answer is I have no idea,” Cook reportedly told PolitiFact. “This survey was done almost 20 years ago.”

The National Rifle Association has questioned the 40 percent claim and says it’s a misrepresentation by gun control advocates to trump up support for universal background checks.

Another problem with the study is the sample size, 251 people, which is relatively small, and the data is open to interpretation.

“With this sample size, the 95 percent confidence interval will be plus or minus six percentage points,” The Washington Post fact-checker wrote on Tuesday. “Moreover, when asked whether the respondent brought from a licensed firearms dealer, the possible answers included ‘probably was/think so’ and ‘probably not,’ leaving open the possibility the purchaser was mistaken.”

When all of the “yes” and “probably was” answers were added together, 35.7 percent of those asked said they did not receive a gun from a licensed firearms dealer. If you round the number up, it becomes 40 percent but because the sample size is so small, rounding the number down to 30 percent could also be accurate, the paper noted.  

But not everyone agrees with The Post’s fact checker.

“While slagging the president may be good for business, the effect of (the newspaper’s) false ruling is to undermine legitimate efforts to keep the public safe, and to obscure the real enemy of reliable data on gun violence,” Tommy Christopher of Mediaite wrote in a rebuttal Tuesday.

“It is possible to conclude that as few as 26.4% of gun owners in that study 'purchased' their gun without a background check, 20.4% if you factor in the margin of error,” he said.

The administration has not responded to questions surrounding the number and why they continue to use it to promote their gun control measures.

The president isn't the only one who's used the 40 percent figure to make a point. Many others stumping for the cause have pulled from the same info pile.

On Jan. 24, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand stated the importance of background checks during a television interview.

“The background checks bill is vitally important.  It’s going to basically say you can’t buy guns without getting a background check. Today, about 40 percent of guns are purchased without a background check.”

Seven months earlier, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg used the same statistic to skewer the National Rifle Association following the Colorado movie theatre massacre.

“There’s a loophole where you can sell guns without a background check,” he said last year, on July 22.  “Forty percent of guns are sold that way.”

For months, both sides of the debate on gun control – from the local level all the way up to the national level -- have accused the other of inflating figures and manipulating data.

Obama, in using an array of stats and studies and polls, has tried to make the case that the Senate is considering common-sense proposals that most Americans support. Amid resistance from some lawmakers, the president is ramping up his campaign for the legislation. He plans to visit Denver on Wednesday, followed by a stop next Monday in Hartford, Conn., the state that was the site of the deadly mass shooting in Newtown in December.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Obama to name first female director of Secret Service

  • pierson_julia.jpg

    Shown here is Julia Pierson, whom President Obama has appointed to lead the Secret Service.Secret Service

President Obama plans to appoint agent Julia Pierson as the first female director of the Secret Service, a senior official confirmed to Fox News -- marking a shift for an agency marred by last year's prostitution scandal. 

The appointment of Pierson to the top job in the agency that protects the president and other top officials could help to address concerns about the agency's culture. 

Pierson, who most recently served as Secret Service chief of staff, will take over the top job from Mark Sullivan, who announced his retirement last month. The agency faced intense criticism during Sullivan's tenure for the prostitution scandal during preparations for Obama's trip to Cartagena, Colombia, last year. 

The incident raised questions within the agency -- as well as at the White House and on Capitol Hill -- about the culture, particularly during foreign travel. In addition to protecting the president, the Secret Service also investigates financial crimes. 

Obama is expected to announce Pierson's appointment Tuesday. Pierson does not need to be confirmed by the Senate. 

Thirteen Secret Service employees were caught up in last year's prostitution scandal. After a night of heavy partying in the Caribbean resort city of Cartagena, the employees brought women, including prostitutes, back to the hotel where they were staying. The incident became public after one agent refused to pay a prostitute and the pair argued about payment in a hotel hallway. 

Eight of the employees were forced out of the agency, three were cleared of serious misconduct and at least two have been fighting to get their jobs back. 

The incident took place ahead of Obama's arrival in Colombia and the service said the president's safety was never compromised. But news of the scandal broke during his trip, overshadowing the summit and embarrassing the U.S. delegation. 

The incident prompted Sullivan to issue a new code of conduct that banned employees from drinking within 10 hours of starting a shift or bringing foreign nationals back to their hotel rooms. 

Sullivan apologized for the incident last year during testimony before a Senate panel. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 19 tháng 3, 2013

GOP Presses Obama on Israel Trip

The White House is facing pressure from House Republicans to defend President Obama's decision not to address the Knesset on his upcoming trip to Israel.

A group of Republicans wrote to Obama to "commend" him for traveling to Israel but also questioning the choice not to address members of the Knesset, which they describe as "a customary and symbolic gesture that celebrates our shared democratic ideals and the special relationship between Israel and United States."

The letter notes that both of Obama's most recent predecessors, President Clinton and President George W. Bush, addressed the Israeli legislative body, Bush doing so during his last full year in office. The lawmakers then ask for "clarification" why Obama isn't on this trip.

The White House downplayed the decision when asked about it last week. Spokesman Ben Rhodes said the administration and the Israeli government had "discussed a range of options" for where Obama could speak while visiting the country. They settled on a convention center, partly as a way to reach young people.

"We obviously have a deep respect for the Knesset as the seat of Israeli democracy," Rhodes said. But Obama already will be spending significant time meeting with Israeli leadership, Rhodes said, "and in this instance, we felt like bringing together an audience of university students from a broad range of partners that our embassy has in Israel would allow him to speak ... to the Israeli public and Israeli young people."

Even so, Republicans question why Obama was willing to address members of parliament on prior trips to Britain, Australia and Ghana but not now while traveling to Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, said Monday that his new government was extending its hand in peace to the Palestinians, declaring that he is ready to make a "historic compromise" if they return to the negotiating table with good will.

Laying out the agenda for his new term, Netanyahu said he hopes to rejuvenate peace efforts, which remained frozen throughout Netanyahu's just-completed four-year term.

Netanyahu spoke before a ceremony to install his new coalition government, stitched together after nearly six weeks of negotiations following Israel's Jan. 23 parliamentary election. The new team, made up of hard-liners and moderates, appears to be focused more on domestic issues than peacemaking.

Netanyahu struck the conciliatory tone on the eve of the arrival of Obama, who will hold separate meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. But he spoke only in generalities and gave no details on any concrete concessions he has in mind.

"We extend our hand in peace to the Palestinians," Netanyahu said. "Israel has proven time and again it is ready for concessions in exchange for real peace, and the situation today is no different."

"With a Palestinian partner that is willing to hold negotiations in good will, Israel will be ready for a historic compromise that will end the conflict with the Palestinians once and for all," he said.

Recognizing the deep gaps between the sides, the White House has already said Obama will not bring any bold new peace initiatives with him, but will instead send Secretary of State John Kerry back to the region in the near future to see if progress can be made.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

'The Bible' creators, History Channel deny show's Satan resembles President Obama

  • bible obama devil split 660.jpg

    Some viewers said it looked like actor Mehdi Ouzaani (left) was made up to look like President Obama (right) for his role as Satan (center).Cinemamarocain.net / History / Reuters

The creators of the miniseries "The Bible" and the network that airs it are denying reports that the character Satan intentionally resembles President Barack Obama.

The couple behind the show, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey, dismissed what they called “foolish” reports that their show’s villain looked like the President.

“This is utter nonsense. The actor who played Satan, Mehdi Ouzaani, is a highly acclaimed Moroccan actor,” they said in a statement sent to FOX 411. “He has previously played parts in several Biblical epics– including Satanic characters long before Barack Obama was elected as our President.”

Downey added: "Both Mark and I have nothing but respect and love our President, who is a fellow Christian. False statements such as these are just designed as a foolish distraction to try and discredit the beauty of the story of The Bible.”

The History Channel set out to put an end to the rumors, saying the show aims to feature “a diverse cast of respected actors.”

“History channel has the highest respect for President Obama,” the network said in a statement. “It's unfortunate that anyone made this false connection. History’s ‘The Bible’ is meant to enlighten people on its rich stories and deep history.”

After Sunday night’s episode, scores of viewers took to Twitter to note a resemblance between the show’s Satan character and President Barack Obama.

“That guy playing Satan in ‘the Bible’… does resemble the president,” one user wrote. “I would hope it wasn't intentional, but who knows.”

Another quipped: “Did anyone else notice that Satan spoke like Nacho Libre and looked just like Obama? #thebible”


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 13 tháng 3, 2013

NO 'IMMEDIATE' CRISIS? Obama Downplays Debt in Meeting With House GOP

President Obama met Wednesday with House Republicans in an apparent bid to find consensus on fiscal policy, even as he seemed to antagonize the other side by claiming there's no "immediate crisis in terms of debt." 

His statement would be sharply at odds with a core Republican principle that the debt must be addressed soon -- and which underpinned the cost-cutting GOP budget released Tuesday. The president also acknowledged, in an interview aired earlier in the day, that differences with the GOP might be "too wide" to bridge. 

Still, the president made the rare visit with House Republicans on Capitol Hill as part of what some are calling his charm offensive. The president is making a renewed effort to meet with Republican leaders and rank-and-file lawmakers amid overlapping budget battles and a series of deadlines on the horizon. 

The president is trying to find common ground with Congress in order to halt the sequester spending cuts, which have already taken effect -- as well as pass a stopgap budget bill in order to avert an end-of-the-month government shutdown, pass a bona fide budget for next year and once again raise the debt ceiling. 

A source in the room during the meeting with Republicans told Fox News that Obama told them he's looking for bipartisanship on a range of issues, including fiscal matters, immigration, gun regulation and foreign policy.

One skeptical source told Fox News, "we shall see." Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., though, later emerged saying the president "did himself some good."

Obama went into the meeting with his aides and allies ripping House Republicans for their newly introduced budget, which aims to balance the country's finances in 10 years. In an interview with ABC News, the president declared that there is no "immediate" debt crisis and that "for the next 10 years, it's going to be in a sustainable place." 

That message is likely to rile Republicans, who cite widespread economic warnings in saying the debt -- which is nearing $17 trillion -- must be addressed. 

"We are addressing the most predictable debt crisis in this country's history," Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said Tuesday while introducing his budget plan. 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that "everybody" recognizes there is a "long-term debt challenge." 

And he said the president "believes that bipartisan cooperation is possible." 

Senate Democrats were unveiling their budget proposal Wednesday afternoon, in response to the House Republican plan introduced Tuesday. 

The Republican plan touts longstanding party proposals to cut funding for domestic programs, repeal Obama's health care reform law and overhaul the Medicare health care program for the elderly. It would balance the federal budget in 10 years with steep spending cuts alone -- a nonstarter with Democrats. 

"Ultimately, it may be that the differences are just too wide," Obama said in the interview broadcast Wednesday. 

If Republicans insist that their only solution is to avoid tax hikes and "gut" entitlement programs, "then we're probably not going to be able to get a deal," he said. 

Obama has continued reaching out to lawmakers in hopes that he can somehow reach a "grand bargain" that reins in deficit spending without hurting the economy and stops Washington from lurching from one self-induced fiscal crisis to another. 

The fence-mending campaign started with an unusual dinner Obama hosted last week at a hotel near the White House for a dozen Senate Republicans and continues Wednesday with his meeting with House Republicans. 

Obama, who also will meet with Senate Republicans and House Democrats on Thursday, has shown a willingness to reduce spending on big entitlement programs but has not agreed to the kinds of changes Ryan and other Republicans have sought. 

Republicans, however, object to any more tax increases, insisting that Obama got his way with tax hikes on top earners in the New Year's Day deal that averted the "fiscal cliff." That last-minute deal prevented automatic tax hikes for all federal income tax payers, but merely delayed $85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts. 

The parties were unable to reach a compromise on a deficit-cutting plan, so the automatic spending cuts began taking effect March 1 and are set to continue through the decade. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 10 tháng 3, 2013

Susan Rice top contender for national security post- Obama tosses barbs at annual Gridiron dinner

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice is the leading contender to become the White House’s new national security adviser, following a failed bid to become secretary of state, a senior Obama administration official told Fox News this weekend.

President Obama could appoint Rice without the Senate confirmation needed for a Cabinet post. Rice withdrew herself from consideration for the secretary of state post in the face of withering criticism by congressional Republicans and others for her handling of the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2012, Libya terror attacks.

Five days after the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at a U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, Rice said the attacks appeared spontaneous and sparked by an anti-Islamic video.

Rice, 48, later said she gave an incorrect account, based on intelligence reports at the time. However, subsequent meetings with leading Senate Republicans appeared only to increase her lack of support for the Cabinet post.

This weekend, the administration official told Fox a Rice appointment is not imminent because the president still has to find an ambassadorship or another post for current national security adviser Thomas Donilon.  

Fox first reported last year, shortly after the outcome of the November elections, that Rice might get the NSA post –- under the assumption Donilon might become the new White House chief of staff.

Donilon did not get the job so the president must first find a new post for him before moving Rice.


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 4 tháng 3, 2013

FOREIGN RELATIONS: Dennis Rodman: Kim Jong Un Wants Obama to Call

Former NBA star and provocateur Dennis Rodman delivered a message Sunday from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to President Obama: Call me.

Rodman, who has made headlines for several days as a result of his trip to North Korea with the Harlem Globetrotters, told ABC’s “This Week” that the 28-year-old leader “doesn’t want to do war.”

Rodman is the highest-profile American to meet Kim since he took power in December 2011 after his father's death.

He did the interview in the network’s New York studio dressed in sunglasses and a sports coat emblazoned with images of U.S. dollar bills.

The trip took place amid strained ties between the United States and North Korea over that country’s recent underground nuclear test.

The State Department on Friday distanced itself from Rodman's visit.

Rodman also defended the suggestion that he’s putting out propaganda and attempted to explain why he earlier called Kim "an awesome guy,” despite widespread reports about the country’s imprisoning citizens and other human rights violations.

“I don’t condone that,” Rodman said. “He’s not his father. He’s not his grandfather.”

Rodman said when Kim said he loved basketball, he said: "Obama loves basketball. Let's start there" as a way to warm up relations between the countries.

The State Department also has criticized North Korea for "wining and dining" Rodman while its own people go hungry.

Rodman said he was aware of North Korea's human rights record, which the State Department has characterized as one of the worst in the world, but said he wasn't apologizing for Kim.

Basketball is popular in North Korea, and an exhibition game Thursday with two Americans playing on each team alongside North Koreans ended in a 110-110 tie. Following the game Kim threw an "epic feast" for the group, plying them with food and drinks and making round after round of toasts.

Rodman said he planned to go back to North Korea to "find out more what's really going on."

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 27 tháng 2, 2013

Critics: Michelle Obama used military as Oscar ‘props,' 'human wallpaper'

Michelle Obama’s appearance at the Oscars surprised many viewers, but perhaps even more puzzling were the members of the military that stood behind her as she announced the award for best picture.

Obama made no mention of the group surrounding her as she spoke of this year’s influential films, and critics slammed the appearance, saying she used the military personnel as “props.”

“So...today you young men and women of the US military are to stand looking interested whilst Michelle Obama presents Best Picture #Ofcourse!” one user posted on Twitter.

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin tweeted a similar sentiment: “Why was Michelle O at the Oscars and why did she use service personnel as props but not thank the military?”

Indeed, in her brief speech about the best picture award, Obama failed to make mention of the men and women standing behind her, leaving many wondering what they were doing there.

On Twitter, some accused the FLOTUS of using the members of the military as “background,” “decoration” and even “human wallpaper.”

Obama has thus far opted not to explain the military’s presence during her virtual Academy Awards appearance, though she did tweet that she enjoyed announcing the top award of the night.

“It was a thrill to announce the #Oscars2013 best picture winner from the @WhiteHouse! Congratulations Argo! –mo,” she wrote early Monday morning.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 2, 2013

GOP to Obama: Quit Campaigning, Cuts 'Are Going to Happen'

As President Obama prepared to highlight the impact of looming spending cuts with a trip to a Virginia military community, Republicans accused the president Tuesday of using America's service members as a campaign "prop." 

Republicans in the House and Senate had tough words for Obama, as the White House sought once again to pressure Congress to avert the cuts by agreeing to new tax increases. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell claimed the president was trying to sow a sense of chaos, but he and other GOP leaders were increasingly agreeing on one thing -- the sky is not falling. 

"Personally, I don't believe the world will end if the president's sequester takes effect," McConnell said. "But our country would be much better served if the Democrats who run Washington would get off the campaign trail and work with us to trim the budget in a more rational way." 

McConnell suggested that despite Obama's warnings of "utter chaos," the government should be able to cut 2 percent of its budget "without inviting disaster." 

Republicans on Tuesday again called Obama's visit a "road show." House Speaker John Boehner claimed the president was using military members as a "prop." Frustration showing through, Boehner also used salty language as he urged the Senate to act, arguing the House has passed two bills already to deal with the so-called sequester. 

"We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass," he said. 

On the other side, Senate Democratic Harry Reid said his party wants to work with Republicans on a "balanced" plan. 

"But my Republican colleagues are standing in the way of a solution. They only want cuts and more cuts. They are willing to sacrifice three-quarters of a million jobs rather than ask multi-millionaires to pay a penny more," Reid said. 

The Senate is expected to hold votes on a Democratic and a Republican plan later in the week. But with the $85 billion in cuts set to start taking effect Friday, hope is diminishing that any compromise could be reached before then. 

Amid the gridlock, Obama was traveling to a Virginia shipyard on Tuesday to press his argument that looming government-wide spending cuts could hurt military readiness. 

Obama planned to appear at Virginia's largest industrial employer, Newport News Shipbuilding, to stress that the spending cuts will idle military resources like naval aircraft carriers. The president warned Monday that if cuts to naval spending take effect, the company's "workers will sit idle when they should be repairing ships, and a carrier sits idle when it should be deploying to the Persian Gulf." 

The White House has warned that the cuts could affect everything from commercial flights to classrooms to meat inspections. The cuts would slash domestic and defense spending, leading to furloughs for hundreds of thousands of workers. 

Despite the grim outlook, both sides seem more focused on blaming each other than coming up with a deal. Obama urged Congress to compromise, but the last known conversation between Obama and Republican leaders was last week and there have been no in-person meetings between the parties this year. 

Some congressional leaders have recently indicated their willingness to let the cuts take effect and stay in place for weeks, if not longer. There is some breathing room for political settlement even after Friday's deadline comes and goes: Provisions are in place to preserve the most crucial services and furloughs of federal workers are at least a month away. 

McConnell claimed the president has presented the country with two options: "Armageddon or a tax hike." 

Echoing comments made by House Republicans a day earlier, he said this is a "false choice." 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here