Deny, Deny, Deny

I once read that lawyers are trained to tell people who are in trouble to always “Deny, deny, deny.” It seems as if our president has mastered this lesson when he was studying to become a lawyer at Harvard Law school.

Take the NASA incident. First NASA administrator Bolden states that Obama wanted him to reach out to the Muslim community. After getting some negative feedback, the White House issued a statement defending this initiative. More negative feedback occurred. Then on Monday, Press Secretary Gibbs says that the White House denies that Obama ever gave that directive, adding that NASA administrator Bolden misspoke. Nice. Of course what Bolden said is true! Having NASA reach out to Muslim’s is so bizarre that it would never occur to Bolden to make up this story. Nor would this man lie about what President Obama, his boss, said to him. Besides, why would Bolden even be on the Arab network Al Jazeera last month if it weren’t to discuss the Muslim outreach program?

But this isn’t the first time Obama has denied and lied. Remember when he said he barely knew the disgraced Illinois governor until picture after picture was produced showing the two of them together? Or how about his State of the Union pledge that jobs will be his #1 focus only to immediately ignore jobs in favor of passing a health care plan? To help recall other lies I googled ”Obama Lies” and was amused to find 13.4 million hits including an Obamalies.net website dedicated to this topic!

In Obama’s defense, he is not the only politician to live by the “Deny deny deny” philosophy. Remember when Bill Clinton first denied that he had sex with that woman? Or how about his earlier denial of “not inhaling”. John Edwards tried to deny his affair and “love” child. Perhaps the most serious and reprehensible denial was President Nixon’s infamous “I am not a crook” statement. And it's not just politicians who deny wrongdoing. There are many a story about corporations (most recently Toyota for example), celebrities (Mel Gibson?) and other famous men/women we once admired (hello OJ) who have lied and denied they did anything wrong.

I think people lean towards denial the minute they can talk. Find a child standing next to a glass that he had clearly just broken and ask what happened and the child would invariably reply “I don’t know”. When asked point blank if they had broken the glass many children would make a lawyer delighted with their repeated denial of breaking the glass. Children must be taught to tell the truth even if they are told otherwise when they are older.

But wouldn't you think by now that politicians would realize that denying never works and in fact makes life more difficult for them? Besides, Americans have a soft spot for the man or woman who stands up and says “Yes I did that”. Just as you would quickly forgive the child who confessed that they broke the glass, you would forgive the politician who seemed genuinly sorry for his/her actions. But by lying, it only serves to keep a story alive as the press continue to dig for more evidence to prove that the politician was lying. The biggest lesson learned in the Watergate scandal was that it wasn't the wiretapping but the ensuing cover-up that brought down President Nixon.

In this case, instead of lying and denying the NASA story, Press Secretary Gibbs should have said yes, Obama had told NASA administrator Bolden to build better relationships with Muslims and then explained why he wanted Bolden to do this. Perhaps after knowing the reasoning behind this order people might have been more understanding. Or here's a novel thought, to admit that since the public is upset they are rescinding that order altogether. But no, being a typical lawyer, Obama ended up lying and denying the entire story!

The public has reached the tipping point with Obama. This is just one more lie on top of dozens of earlier lies. Combined, the President's lies are a large factor behind Obama’s increasing disapproval rate. Time and time again, Obama has denied and lied to us. In addition to hurting public opinion of him, Obama’s most recent lies and denials send a chilling signal to anyone who works for him. Obama basically left Bolden hanging in the wind when the White House cut all support and then turned around and accused Bolden of lying. Who would want to work for someone who would do that to an employee!

Did you watch Obama's state of the union earlier this year when Congressman Joe Wilson shouted out "You lie"? Wilson apologized for interrupting the president, which was wrong, but I can now understand his frustration. Too bad that being publicly branded a liar hasn't phased Obama in the least. In fact last month Senator Or from Arizona met privately with Obama to discuss immigration. Afterwards the Senator told a group that "The president said the problem is if we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform." The President denied ever saying this. At the time, you wondered who was telling the truth. After Obama’s recent statement denying his instructions to NASA administrator Bolden, you no longer wonder who the liar was.

Arrogance over Protocol

The recent gatecrashers at the White House bring to mind what happens when a new administration comes into office. Understandably, they are pumped up over their recent win and now want to put their own mark on the country. Unfortunately new administrations also have the tendency to walk over the rank and file and don't listen to the real people who run the departments regardless of who is president. The new presidents tell the old-timers that they don't want to hear the excuse of "that's how we always did it" and now want things done their way. However, the new administration has neither the experience nor the patience to listen to the very peope who could help them. In their arrogance at being elected Presidents don't understand that the intricate protocol that has been perfected over the past 100 years enables new presidents to fulfill their new duties with poise and class and avoid potentially embarrassing mistakes. I have a sneaking suspician that this is at the heart of the lapse in security at the Obama's first state dinner.


If I remember correctly, there were horror stories about the last two Democratic administratons. Both the Clinton and the Carter incoming teams were young, inexperienced and few on their team had much managerial skills or spent any time in DC. Yet these young politicians came across as arrogant, cocky, power hungry and charged with the belief that they were empowered to do whatever they felt was best for the country. There were rumors that the Clintons sold overnight stays at the White House to major donors or their Hollwood friends. Then there was Bill Clinton's conduct in the White House with that woman which showed a complete lack of respect for the office of the President and for the White House, itself. Carter wasn't much better as he invited his adolescent daughter to a formal state function where she then proceded to read a book at the dinner table.

In contrast to the disastors created by Carter and Clinton's administrations, both of the Bush's had very smooth transitions. Yes, George HW Bush went from VP to President, retaining a number of people from Reagan's regime. But Bush himself was a career politician who knew the ins and out of Washington. Ford was another old time politician who stepped into the void left by one of the country's most traumatic experiences. Yet Ford was still able to assure the country and the world that the US would continue intact. But this kind of transition isn't always that smooth, as both LBJ and Truman had very rocky transitions from VP to President.


Clinton's administration not only began disastrously but it ended equally shamefully with stories of trashed offices and destroyed computers. But, like his father, George W. Bush had class and never complained about the mess left by the Clintons. And unlike the Clintons and Carters, Bush had a team that included career politicians who understood DC, which helped his team have an easier transition than if they were all newcomers.


Now we have Obama who has even less experience than Carter and Clinton, who had both been governors. To his credit, Obama did keep a few men from Bush's administration. This was particularly helpful in providing a smooth transition to our military, although, ironically, this caused Obama a lot of grief with the very liberal base who elected him.


In spite of the media's shunning of any negative story about the Obama administration, more and more cracks are starting to appear. People are beginning to question if mistakes are being made due to Obama's ignorance and inexperience or perhaps due to his determination to do things his way or to a combination of all of the above.


There are Obama's continuing bows to other state leaders when rarely if never has a President bowed that low for it is seen as a symbol of weakness. At times Obama comes across as too parochial. He had a favorite during the World Series, he of course cheered on the Chicago basketball team and he somehow found the time to travel overseas to help promote his hometown in its failed bid for the Olympics. On the other hand, he snubbed all of the activities regarding World War II.


Speaking of traveling, he really shouldn't be proud of the fact that he has traveled more than any other president in the first year. Someone with more experience, who truly understands his role as President, which isn't to go sightseeing with his wife and kids, belongs first and foremost at home. This is especially true when the country is hurting as much as the US is with the high unemployment, horrible housing markt and in the middle of a major recession.


And now we have a couple breaking through what should be extreme security to crash the Obama's first state dinner. (I also can't help but wonder why it took them 10 months before they had their first major official event.) I am sure that the Secret Security will take a major hit for this breach in security. Yet there are faint hints that the Obamas have tried to relax some of the security surrounding the White House and themselves. Perhaps once again a young inexperienced first couple is bulldozing over the rank and file so that they can do things their way. They might not realize that there is a reason behind the established protocol. Both of the Obamas need to stop talking so much and to start listening to the old-timers around them. Their very lives might depend upon it.

The Truth on Obama's Health Care Plan

Remember when Bill Clinton was trying to avoid lying by asking the court to “define the word ‘is’”? Well, the current President is just as much of a slick lawyer except instead of twisting words to avoid acknowledging an affair this President is parsing his words in order to mislead the American public about his health care bill. And I don’t mean he is less than truthful about some obscure part of it but he is trying to fool us about the primary intent of this bill; to socialize medicine by bankrupting private insurance and replacing it with government run insurance, doctors, hospitals and drugs.

I always thought that something about this health care plan smelled badly but I didn’t have any evidence until I stumbled upon a blog by NewsBusters in which they were discussing an article by Investors Daily Business (IDB) http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/07/16/ibd-individual-private-health-insurance-illegal-under-house-bill. You see IDB did something quite outrageous, they actually read the entire 1000+ page health care bill, something which I doubt any of the lawmakers currently discussing and voting on the issue have done. And within those pages is a total contradiction to what Obama and the Democrats have been promising.

Here is what President Obama recently said in a major speech to the AMA about his health care bill, “…If you like what you're getting, keep it. Nobody is forcing you to shift. But if you're not, this gives you some new options. And I believe one of these options needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market so that force -- so that we can force waste out of the system and keep the insurance companies honest…”

This is basically what everyone has told us; those with insurance can keep what they have and those without can choose between public or private insurance options. In fact, Obama takes head on the accusation that private insurance will eventually disappear; “So when you hear the naysayers claim that I'm trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They're not telling the truth.”

But when reading the health care bill, IBD came across a section titled “Protecting the Choice To Keep Current Coverage” on page 16 which stated: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of the year the legislation becomes law”.

This is written in typical misleading legalize and I had to read it a few times before I realized what it was saying: Private health insurance companies will not be allowed to enroll anyone new after the bill becomes law. Wow. Take a moment and let the enormity of that sentence sink in. So yes, people can keep their private insurance. But if you were uninsured you won’t be able to enroll in a private insurance company; you would be forced to use the government insurance plan, whatever that might be. And if you are already insured but you like another private insurance plan better, too bad, you can’t have it.

So who is the liar Mr. President? This bill will kill private insurance companies for how can any private insurance company survive without new customers? In contrast to what is being promised, this bill will force the uninsured into a public plan. Although I carefully reread what Obama said and I realize that he never actually stated that the uninsured could get private insurance: “…this gives you some new options. And I believe one of these options needs to be a public option…” Oh yes, he is a lawyer carefully parsing his sentences to sound one way yet actually mean the exact opposite.

And where he said that people are not telling the truth when they say that he is trying to bring about government health care? I can see where a slick lawyer might argue that this is correct, that Obama isn’t trying to bring about government health care – he is succeeding in doing it!

Perhaps this is the key to that teleprompter. Everything that Obama says is a carefully crafted lie or misdirection. He is a master at telling the public what they want to hear while hiding his true intentions. Luckily a few people, including some from his own party and even a couple of journalists are beginning to question his words, his motives and his goals. In fact Obama just might have gone too far with this new health care bill. We need more folks like IBD and NewsBusters to dig into the true intent of the health care bill and then to let the public know that it isn’t what they say it is. President Obama will again address the nation on this topic so listen carefully to what he says and what he omits. And if it smells bad then it probably really does stink.

Let's Do Lunch

Wouldn’t you just love to be in the White House today? Our four living presidents: Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George Bush, and President elect Barack Obama are meeting today for a luncheon at the White House. How fascinating will that be?

The dynamics between our past, current and future Presidents would be very interesting to watch. Obviously the father and son Bush’s get along, or you would suppose they would. A few years ago Bush 43 tapped Bill Clinton to work closely with Bush 41 and apparently they all became friends in spite of their political differences. And as the new kid on the block I assume that everyone wants to talk to Obama or give him advice and he should be listening to the experiences of his predecessors. So that leaves Jimmy Carter. Neither of the Bush’s have reason to like him nor could I see Carter and Clinton having much in common other than being the two past Democrat Presidents. Besides, Jimmy should be feeling a bit embarrassed again about that Nobel Peace Prize for the Middle East and his Habitat for Humanity houses falling apart.

I sure would like to be a fly on the wall to listen in to these men who are in the most exclusive club in the world; United States Presidents. Then again, instead of discussing current events they could simply be telling Obama about hidden rooms in the White House or comparing golf tips. (Isn’t it interesting that all last year the MSM touted Obama as being a basketball player, a very hip urban sport, but waited until after he was elected to mention that he was also an avid golfer, a country club sport associated with Republicans!)

Anyway, I wonder how many other countries could have all of their past living leaders meet with the upcoming leader without bloodshed? In spite of everything that is wrong with this country we still must be doing something right!

Carter, Clinton and Liberal Congress to Blame

When the financial problems surfaced my first reaction was to place a big portion of the blame on Jimmy Carter and the liberal Congress who passed the first CRA law. I then read an article that explained why I was wrong and silly me, I believed it. Since then I have read too many other reports that indicate that my initial gut response was, in fact, right. CRA is to blame for a big part of the housing and mortgage problem.

What is CRA? During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Congress created the Community Reinvestment Act to ensure that banks met the credit needs of lower income areas. I was in banking then and remember when a close friend of mine was initially put in charge of implementing the CRA requirements for my bank. I even helped her with the demographics and maps outlining where the low income areas were and showing the number and types of loans we had in those areas.

Within a year we needed to have an entire department full of people, including a lawyer, to not just make these loans but to show the government that we were in compliance with the new laws. This is because we soon realized that this law had teeth. If a bank was found to be out of compliance then the government could stop it from opening branches, merging with other banks, or even give then a Cease and Desist order! I worked for a large bank which had the manpower and expertise to not only meet the new laws but to then prove we did meet them. But for smaller banks, both making the loans and the accompanying CRA paperwork was (and still is) a huge burden.

I am assuming this but it would make sense that over the next 10-15 years the banks found and made loans to the “best” consumers and businessess in low income areas. Yet they still had to show growth and continuous new lending but there was no one left who qualified.

In 1995, when Clinton was president, there was a revision to the CRA and one of the changes was to allow the securitization of new CRA loans with subprime mortgages. I have heard but have not yet been able to prove that these changes also allowed banks to use unemployment checks as income for applying for a loan. Regardless of the exact method, the result was to offer mortgages to people who would not qualify for a loan if they lived in my neighborhood or your neighborhood. Yet they were now moving down the street and raising the prices of our houses, all thanks to CRA. And gee, guess what one of the roles of a community organizer is?

Basically, CRA is affirmative action imposed on banks. But, affirmative action to lower the requirements to get into college is one thing, lowering the requirements to make a loan is an entirely different prospect. If a person flunks out of college, no harm is done but if a person can no longer pay their mortgage, well, we now see what happens. Then again, what else should we expect when liberal congressmen, most of whom have never worked in the real world their entire lives, tell businessmen how to do business?

I hate being right. But my gut instinct to blame CRA is correct. And yet, even as I write this, banks are still being examined to see if they are compliant to CRA regulations. This makes no sense. We must reign in the CRA requirements or else we will find ourselves back in the same mess, regardless of any new proposals by Congress to resolve this issue. As the saying goes, it would simply be throwing good money after bad.

Hillary's Trade-Offs

As the primary continues to unfold I can’t help but think about Hillary's life. People forget that it was Hillary, not Bill, who was the “rock star” when they first met. But she gave it all up to move to Arkansas and help an unknown lawyer run for governor in one of the most backwards states in the nation. Her friends were appalled by her decision. I can’t help but think of the song from Chorus Line “What We Do for Love”.

It wasn’t all terrible. Arkansas is in the boonies but being a governor’s wife isn’t a bad deal. Then there were the ensuing connections and how that helped her career (and checkbook). Bill might have strayed but Hillary knew he loved her and Chelsea, and he always came back. So she stayed and ended up in the White House. Again, not a bad trade off. Then he cheated there and this time publicly humiliated her and her child.

And still she stayed. Did she trade in her pride to keep her marriage? Did she make a bargain to use it as a stepping stone to the senate? Maybe. And I’m not sure I blame her. So over the last few years she quietly paid her dues in the senate, while her husband transformed himself from national joke to national statesman on par with George Bush the elder.

They were ready again as a team again to run for president – this time it was Hillary’s turn. And what happens? Another man blocks her way. Now all those years that Hillary stood by her man, its Bill’s turn to aid her in removing that one obstacle by using all the weight only an ex-President has. Except in just a few speeches Bill once again becomes an embarrassment and a hindrance and a national joke instead of a serious statesman who could have helped make her president.

I can’t help but wonder how angry Hillary must be at both of them, Barack and Bill. I can’t say I blame her. And if she is defeated by Barack I also wonder how long it will be before she divorces Bill and trades him in for a better deal. I can’t say I would blame her for that either.

Short Retort

Obama now has elder “statesman” Ted Kennedy on his side while Hillary has ex-President Bill “helping” her. On the surface each now has an older, white haired, long-time politician supporting them on their quest for presidency.

But wait a minute. Clinton is a disgraced, impeached president who couldn’t keep his pants zipped, even in the White House, and then lied about it. And even though a number of people around him died mysteriously at least he wasn’t as bad as Ted Kennedy who abandoned a young girl to die.

Are Hillary and Obama truly proud that these two old reprobates* are endorsing them?

* Reprobate – 1. a depraved, unprincipled or wicked person. 2. a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation. 3. morally depraved, unprincipled, bad.

Attack Makes Barack Black

Sorry but I couldn't resist that headline. But it is true. Barack had been accused of not being "black enough". He didn't talk "Black", dress "Black" or act "Black". He did not look or act like the prior African American polititians such as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. But once the Clinton's started attacking Barack and even Martin Luther King they. made race an issue. Many of the African American leaders stepped forward to defend Barack even though just a few days ago those same leaders were staying on the sidelines.

It is ironic that President Clinton had once been called the first "Black President" and was strongly supported by the African American community. Perhaps that is part of the problem, not only is Obama challenging Hillary but he is also threatening to take away Bill's image as the first Black President.

I am sure the Republicans are secretely gloating over the liberals fighting over racial issues. And I am also sure that they hope it continues right into the Democratic Convention because the more it tears apart that party the better the chance the Republicans have next November.

The Fight Within A Fight

The other day while listening to Kerry come out in support of Edwards I had one of those “duh” moments when you realize an obvious truth that had previously eluded you. This race for the Presidency is also a fight over who will dominate the Democratic party.

For the past sixteen years Bill and Hillary were the major forces in the party. It was their party. They were the major fund raisers and the key to the Hollywood players. They truly felt that Hillary was entitled to be the next President. They knew their might be major competition from the Republicans, but are shocked that they face a substantial fight for their own ticket.

Obama came out of nowhere and has quickly become a challenge to Hillary. In the past her strategy is to demonize the competition but since Obama is African American, he is almost untouchable. She tried to attack his youth but so far that hasn’t worked. In the past week she and Bill have both tried to show that in spite of his lofty speeches he is not the next Martin Luther King. But that backfired as black leaders such as Sharpton and Jackson, who had previously been on the side lines, stood up to defend Obama.

Kerry’s backing of Edwards might have been another pivotal moment within the Democratic Party. Shortly after that, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano who had previously been an appointee during Bill’s presidency came out to support Obama. Even though Arizona is a small state it is still a set back for the Clintons when a former appointee of Bills and one of the few high level women are not supporting Hillary.

What also is notable is who hasn't declared their support. The black leaders haven’t yet supported Obama but they took first steps this week after the Clintons attacked him. The other key person who hasn't declared is Al Gore. The fact that he hasn't come out yet in support of Hillary is not surprising yet still is sending a subtle message.

To have a woman and former Clinton appointees now throwing their support to Obama is the sign of a major crack in the Democratic Party. Additionally, there is a growing murmur of anger and even disgust over Bill Clinton. He is starting to hurt Hillary more than help lately and in fact becoming more and more an embarrassment for his party.

So it will be interesting to follow the fight with a fight and perhaps watch not only Hillary’s defeat but perhaps even the end of the Clintons dominance within the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton - A Perfect Storm

After watching Hillary Clinton I can't help but conclude that she embodies the traits of two of the worst presidents in modern history: Nixon and Carter.

Secrecy, playing the blame game and creating hate lists were major components to Richard Nixon's downfall. It might surprise many that these same traits are also major components to Hillary's personality. One of the many reasons why her health care program tanked was due to her unwillingness to have open meetings and discuss her plan with Washington old timers who had more experience than she did and could have helped draft a compromise plan. Instead meetings were held in secrecy and anyone who blocked her were added to her hate list.


She still operates in the same way today. No one believes that her campaign staff makes a single step without her approval and yet she ruthlessly tosses aside loyal staffers rather than admit any of the recent missteps might have been her fault. Hillary, like Nixon, also tracks her "enemies" in hate lists and holds grudges for a long time. Her "enemies" are numerous ranging from the "right wing conspirators" to anyone who gets in her way of what she believes is her destiny to become the next president. A key to her true personality was her sarcastic laughing at Obama during the last democratic debate. That laugh makes one think that she delights in watching the downfall of anyone who stands in her way.


Religion is playing a major role in the Republican race but is ignored in the Democratic race (except for the shots at Obama about his Muslim relatives by Clinton's staff). Yet after reading a number of articles and the illuminating biography by Carl Bernstein you realize that Hillary approaches religion the same way Jimmy Carter did. Both can be termed "Christian activists" who strongly believe that God is with them and He wants them to help the poor and disadvantage. To their credit, both Clinton and Carter truly believe that their religion demands that they take action. But that makes them scarier since they feel that they are doing God's work and are blind to how their actions might hurt others. Again, Hillary's many plans are focused on the poor with absolutely no regard to how it would negatively affect the middle class.


Hillary Clinton is truly "a perfect storm" encompassing the worst traits of Nixon and Carter. This country barely survived the secrecy, hate lists and blame games of Nixon and the religious righteousness of Carter. And now we have Hillary who's personality is a lethal combination of these destructive traits plus toss in her husband, who is a walking time bomb himself, and this country might not survive four years of Hillary.