Here's "Irony" or more: The Democratic National Committee is e-mailing people to push Congress to vote against the titular head of the Democratic Party, President Obama, by voting NO on a supplemental Afghanistan war spending bill. Hey, Barry, are you listening?

The "war" in Afghanistan is now the longest "war" in U.S. history. For what?

George W. Bush let Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora way back in 2001, and then pulled troops and supplies out of Afghanistan so he could conquer Iraq.

Since then, we've been "fighting" the Taliban, not the few remaining Al Qaeda. But we're not really "fighting" them, we're actually paying them protection money to let supply trucks reach our troops.

Rather than pay extortion to the Taliban - with our tax dollars! - it's time to bring our troops safely home.

Tell Congress to vote NO on the $33 Billion supplemental for Afghanistan
http://www.democrats.com/oppose-33-billion-war-supplemental-for-2010

So, the DNC is telling e-mail subscribers to oppose Obama? Now, what will Change for America do? Send out a competing e-mail?

And that's not all.

As our national debt spirals out of control, President Obama's Deficit Commission is secretly plotting cuts in Social Security and Medicare - instead of ending the disastrous "wars."

Ahh, attacking Obama directly!

Under the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to fund wars. After eight disastrous years, it's time for Congress to use its power to bring our troops safely home from Afghanistan.

So, Dems who ignored the constitution 8 yrs ago have now "discovered" it, in the face of the constitutional law scholar president and leader of the party?

The midtern elections should be "fun" if the DNC is "running away" from Obama like this in June. Next question is, will the WH launch a manhunt to try to figure out who authorized this?

So, old Rahmbo is checking out by the end of the year? My personal blog thoughts on that (starting with "don't let the door hit you") but not stopping there, along with other thoughts on why Douthat wonders that many liberals are upset with Obama (as well as wondering why he thinks Obama is that liberal).

We can have this slideshow from our proprietors, without noting that all the Gang Green environmental orgs backed Kenny Boy Salazar to become Interior Secretary, and not one yet has suggested he step down. (Non-Gang Green orgs never did ardently support him, and I hope a few do officially start calling for his head.) All that's missing is for another, similar slideshow, except this one White House-created.

WE can have this post here on "GOP gaffes" on Big Oil, without noting Kenny Boy's own borderline lies to Congress. Or his boss, in the one time he did try to appear angry from the Oval Office, engaging in hyperbole about Deepwater Horizon being the worst environmental disaster ever, when he (ironically? hypocritically?) refused to push for real action on global warming, a much worse environmental disaster, fueled by Deepwater oil drilling. For more thoughts on that, see here on my personal blog. (That's not counting the gaffe of Obama, in his weekly address Saturday, still talking about "cooperation" on other issues with the GOP.)

Also missing? A proprietor's blog about how Rahmbo has the "cheek," to talk British English, to note that BP CEO Tony Hayward "got his life back" on his yacht, even as The One and Boom Boom Biden were golfing.  Oops!

Don't worry, the third shoe will fall soon enough. Exelon-connected Obama will surely, when he does decide to get even more serious about global warming, and in the name of working for buying bipartisanship, roll out yet another round of nuke plant loan guarantees. Or even outright subsidies.

But, the neolib bread is buttered as and where it is.

This is a deliberate riff/counterblast to Theda Skocpol's dreck defending Obama against real liberals' response to his handling of Deepwater Horizon.

First, let's look at Obama's broader weak environmental background.

Any non-Gang Green enviro group worth its salt 18 months ago was saying how bad, relatively, Kenny Boy Salazar was as Interior nominee. I was saying that on my personal blog.

The recent Rolling Stone article points out just how bad MMS continued to be under Salazar/Obama.

Glenn Greenwald had more. (In part because I and others told him to look at Salazar and more.)

And, don't forget Obama's hands deep in Exelon's pockets; hence, all his nuke plant guarantees.

Finally, did Skocpol actually listen to Obama's excuse of a speech, mixed of platitudes and the lack of tough specifics?

Or Robert Reich's latest post?

Finally, her "do not support" concern trolling, that lack of true liberal support for Obama will lead to "rabid Right" comment is like the spouse of an alcoholic and "enabling."

Counterexample No. 1: The only way Progressivism got on the plate of either major party a century ago was vigorous third-party movements in the late 19th century.

Did the Arizona governor's dad help Reagan liberate concentration camps while fighting Nazis together? Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, with presenting 4- and 7-year-old pictures as "current," it sure seems that way.

And otherwise imitate Bush more and more, much of it without a peep from Messr. Marshall and/or other staff here.

Example No. 1 of the latest? Obama keeping people detained in Gitmo, some of whom even Bush might have planned on releasing!

Example No. 2? Obama's secret (well, it was!) plan to expand the "War on Terror" to a ground war in Pakistan, if any more Pakistani jihadists attack us. That ignores the fact that the majority of air strikes in the Obama-era's phase of the war in Afghanistan have killed civilians, not insurgents. I.e., we're creating causes for jihadism, yet not stopping to admit that.

Meanwhile, what in-depth White House coverage is there on TPM's front page? White House-shot slide shows of "days in the life" inside the Oval Office, and otherwise, "crickets."

First, is this "Obama's Katrina"? Or even close? Far be it from me to give too much credence to Faux News. But, it's a matter of concern, at least. Both real substance concern and political style points concern.

So, in that mind, if this is Obama's Katrina, or halfway, then here's five questions for him to answer at his upcoming presser.

As to Question No. 5? Nope, nobody's getting fired, because that removes a "buffer" for him.

This is why he hasn't fired Kenny Boy.

Short answer: He needs a scapegoat.

Coming from an oil-and-gas state, and knowing MMS problems with former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, like him, being from Colorado, it's clear that Salazar knew a housecleaning was needed.

But we now have the report by MMS's acting inspector general, that she deliberately sped up and made public:

The report began as a routine investigation, the acting inspector general, Mary Kendall, said in a cover letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, whose department includes the agency.

"Unfortunately, given the events of April 20 of this year, this report had become anything but routine, and I feel compelled to release it now," she wrote.

Meanwhile, Kenny Boy pretends to be amazed:

Salazar called the latest report "deeply disturbing" and said it highlights the need for changes he has proposed, including a plan to abolish the minerals agency and replace it with three new entities.
The report "is further evidence of the cozy relationship between some elements of MMS and the oil and gas industry," Salazar said Tuesday. "I appreciate and fully support the inspector general's strong work to root out the bad apples in MMS.

Now, did he have a heads-up? Is Kendall speeding release to CYA for him? Anything and everything is possible.

Below is an official NPS e-mail asking for $10 donations from the public to help clean up Deepwater Horizon blowout problems in NPS sites along the Gulf. Now, the e-mail says this will not affect or reduce BP liability. Well, we'll see.

 

From: waso_npsnews@webmail.itc.nps.gov on behalf of Barbara_J_Baxter@nps.gov

 

The ongoing Gulf oil spill poses an historic challenge to the national parks in the Gulf region, and beyond.
The National Park Foundation, official charity of America's national parks, today launched the National Parks Disaster Recovery Fund.  The public outreach and fundraising campaign will support the National Park Service's response to the Gulf oil spill, and will also serve to create lasting capacity to help national parks recover from future natural and man-made disasters.  No funds raised will be used to mitigate the liability of any responsible parties for the injuries caused by the oil spill.

How do we know that, though? Trust? Uhh, right. And, is there going to be an exact dollar-amount reckoning to bill all this back to BP?

 
"The federal government's unprecedented response to the environmental disaster in the Gulf is matched only by the desire of the American people to help," said Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the U.S. Department of the Interior.  "Thanks to this effort by the National Park Foundation, those who wish to help us protect national parks threatened by the oil spill can do so."
 
Strickland continued, "While donated funds will be available to affected parks for immediate needs throughout the disaster as well as long-term monitoring of the health of the damaged ecosystems, donated funds will not reduce the financial obligation of those responsible for the spill."
 
To support this effort, visit www.nationalparks.org or text "PARKS" to 90999 on your mobile device to make a $10 donation.  Funds raised between now and July 1, 2010, will go directly to the impacted parks in the Gulf and support critical and immediate needs as well as sustained scientific study of maintenance of impacted ecosystems.
 
Parks in the projected path of the Gulf oil spill include:
Big Cypress National Preserve
Biscayne National Park
De Soto National Memorial
Dry Tortugas National ParkEverglades National Park
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve
Padre Island National Seashore

More concerned thoughts. Actually, it's not the NPS doing this, it's the private service organization, the National Parks Foundation. How binding are its guarantees? Is this in part a publicity/fundraising effort on its part? Should we have other concerns about this?

Here's why, especially per Obamiac wagon-circlers, this issue of the Obama Administration, and the fish at the head's, culpability in aiding and abetting the BP cluster****, needs to continue to be exposed and pointed out.

First, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is flat-out lying on offshore permitting issues. And, since the lying's being going on for a couple of weeks without correction or statement from the White House, we know who is ultimately responsible.

As far as Obama's belated response speed? Not just me saying that, but a whole lot of scientists fault NOAA ... which had, after all, been Obama's NOAA for 16 months as of the blowout. And, that's largely what Paul Krugman says in his column on this issue.

Results? A delayed response that may wind up with seafloor oil remaining there for the next 100 years! (With an occasional wash-up on shore, possibly.)

As already noted in a previous post, I have NOT made a "moral equivalence" between Bush on Katrina and Obama on this issue. Nor have I made a "moral equivalence" claim on their relative environmental stances.

What I HAVE said, and continue to say, though, is that Obama is NOT simon-pure on his handling of this issue.

To put it bluntly, it's time for Obamiacs to drop the "soft bigotry of low expectations" card and saying, "Bush was worse on Katrina," or "Bush was worse on environmental issues." To say Obama isn't W. on environmental issues doesn't necessarily say a lot.

Ken Salazar and Barack Obama must admit responsibility for their part in potentially allowing 15 Exxon Valdezes in the Gulf of Mexico, maybe more.

The real clusterfuck is the arrogance from both government and private sector that assumed a complex meltdown just couldn't happen. Well, it could and it did. Remember, this is Big Oil we're talking about, specifically, BP, or, "Bullshitting People." Even as Obama feels ever-more yoked to BP. (More on this in a future blog.)

The latest BP arrogance? Essentially telling the EPA to "go eff itself" over getting BP to use any other dispersent than Corexit. To the point of threatening legal action. Speaking of matters legal, BP has selfish financial/legal reasons to underestimate the gush size. And, BP lies have gone downhill from there. Again, though, where's the PUSH from Team Obama?

Finally, this is yet another indictment of neoliberalism. The Minerals Management Service had its policing and policies first "loosenened" in the administration of Bill Clinton. Oh, and the proposed Salazar-Obama reforms of MMS actually won't reform everything.

Speaking of that issue, it's "interesting" that the proprietors of TPM haven't reported anything on Team Obama's disgustingly dilatory efforts, either. Or even linked to a number of the news reports that you and I are reading.

Oh, they'll post the latest WH photo slideshows on a regular basis. But, whether it's the totally inadequate response to the blowout, or, last week, Obama winning the right (for now) to permanently detain people at Bagram (if SCOTUS upholds this, that's how Gitmo gets closed, folks, sadly), the problems with this administration get ignored. And, when there is reporting about the WH, it often uses the same "anonymous sources" so decried when used by the MSM.

Updated May 19:

Why do I not  "drop it"? Per Johnny and others?

Turns out, a number, a great number, perhaps, of scientists agree with me. Slow response, especially by NOAA. Team Obama not forcing release of all the BP underwater video. Etc., etc.

That's why I don't "drop it."

As already noted, I have NOT made a "moral equivalence" between Bush on Katrina and Obama on this issue. Nor have I made a "moral equivalence" claim on their relative environmental stances.

What I HAVE said, and continue to say, though, is that Obama is NOT simon-pure on his handling of this issue.

And, that's largely what Paul Krugman says in his column on this issue.

I am not saying Obama is in the same bad class as Georgie Porgie on environmentalism.

Nonetheless, after 16 months, the MMS still appears to be too cozy with the oil bidness. (Note, I currently [stress that word, currently] live in Odessa, Texas, so I have a bit of first-hand familiarity with the biz.) And, Team Obama has kicked this can down the road.

And, Ken Salazar, while not Bush-like, has been a bit weak in the knees on these types of issues before.

And, remember, the "soft bigotry of low expectations, " to quote from Georgie Porgie, cuts both ways. And, to say Obama isn't W. on environmental issues doesn't necessarily say a lot.

The real clusterfuck is the arrogance from both government and private sector that assumed a complex meltdown just couldn't happen. Well, it could and it did. Remember, this is Big Oil we're talking about, specifically, BP, or, "Bullshitting People."

It's not just "Good job, Brownie" and others saying Obama's been tardy on his actions in the Gulf. The MSM has noted from the start that the Administration, as well as BP, could have acted faster.

So, too, have non-Gang Green environmentalists. (If all you read on the environmental front are Gang Greeners, you're shorthchanging yourself.)

On Pelosi? Speaking of MSM, all she had to do was open the newspapers.

The Bear Stearns bailout happened, what, six months earlier? Now, we can fault BushCo for not being swifter in response. We can also fault Congress for not pushing for a swifter response.

But, the idea that BushCo in general, or Paulson in particular, stiffed her? Puhleeze. And, despite wingers' distorting some of her past claims, she has had past inaccurate claims about a variety of things.

(Let's not forget that the Street gave to Dems by a 2-1 edge over the GOP in 2008 campaign financing.)

15 Exxon Valdezes? Yep, if the Deepwater Horizon blowout is leaking an Exxon Valdez every 4 days, and a relief well takes two months to drill, you do the math. Or read more about it at my blog, math included.

Obama? His proposed reform of the Minerals Management Service will NOT reform how MMS has been helping Big Oil avoid filing environmental impact statements with NOAA. Oops. Please, let's stop trying to defend his fantastic environmental record.

And, did  somebody say hurricane? Yep, The Atlantic hurricane season is expected to be the strongest since 2005. Gee, didn't we have a disaster called Katriina that year? How will a bad hurricane season affect the spill, especially if a relief well isn't finished very quickly?

Arlen Specter must be losing it. From what I've read here and elsewhere, he's yet to trot out that stale old turkey bout how good he is as a senator because of his brilliant work on the Warren Commission. Of course, half of likely voters aren't old enough  to have been around since then, and of the half that were, half probably believe he's wrong on the "pristine bullet." (Other than it being the second shot, not the first, per Gerald Posner, I think he's right, but that's a sidebar.)

Teasing the "daily roundup," Josh flags the idea that Team Obama is now becoming an incredible Hulk of regulatory muscle.

Not so fast there, Josh.

The New York Times trumpets a "surge" in Team Obama regulatory actions, yes, as touted by Josh.. But, most of the things listed are proposals, not actualities.

Oops.

And, the article also lets Obama benefit from the "soft bigotry of low expectations," namely the comparison with his predecessor.

So, Josh, check back with us and the NYT, oh, about next  March.

Let's see how much the Minerals Managment Service has been reformed. Let's see if Obama has OKed a weak-tea climate bill that strips EPA of CO2 regulation. Let's see if the CPSC is actually doing any more product regulating, and getting any more money to do that.

Meanwhile, on other issues, like civil liberties even the "soft bigotry of low expectations" shows no difference between now and then. Per a Center for Constitutional Rights action alert e-mail:

Late yesterday, the Obama administration went on record for the first time in the case of Arar v. Ashcroft, CCR's ongoing fight to hold Bush officials accountable for the rendition and torture of Canadian citizen Maher Arar.  The Supreme Court will be considering whether or not to hear the case.  The Obama administration did not need to get involved, but it has chosen to come to the defense of Bush administration officials by opposing Mr. Arar's petition and arguing that even if these officials conspired to send him to torture, they should not be held accountable by the courts.

Go here for more.

Four-day workweeks, or even forced furloughs, for state employees? A projected budget deficit, for next year, of 10 percent of the total budget, perhaps more?

We're in California, right? Arizona? Nevada? Or, if not in a Sunbelt housing bubble state, we're in Michigan? Ohio?

Nope, we're in Texas, and those dire warnings of state belt-tightening come from Speaker of the House Joe Straus.

Dire enough that a leading House Republican is both talking the truth, beyond Straus, about the degree of the deficit, and increasing his push for legalized gambling.

Gov. Rick Perry likes to talk about his jobs creation, the state's low-tax nature and other things, but here's the truth.

Texas may not have a state income tax, but it has one of the highest sales tax rates in the nation. At the local level, your city, county and school district property tax bill will be among the highest in the nation. And, in the years since the GOP has gotten control of both houses of the Lege, "fees," or taxes under another name, have increased, increased and increased.

As for income? Texas has one of the highest rich-poor gaps of any state in the country. It has the highest uninsured rate of any state.

It has a dysfunctional state government, with an anachronistic Legislature that not only is a part-time critter, but meets only every other year!

A part-time, but annual, legislature would be bad enough, but this is horrible. Yes, various committees are holding hearings, etc., but unless Tricky Ricky Perry wants to risk his re-election, and put his campaign fundraising on hold while it would be in session, there will be no special session of the Legislature. Texas will have to wait to officially address its problems by legislative votes until next year.