What Obama Needs Is More Power...?
by: Les Carpenter
rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
At a recent democratic fundraiser attended by the President a blithely partisan Gwyneth Paltrow uttered the folowing.
What is troubling is specifically this. It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.
No Gwyneth, it would not be wonderful to give this man or any man, regardless of ideology or party affiliation "all the power he needs to pass the things that he (feels he) needs to pass. Hell, why not just call him King Obama and abandon the Constitution and the concept of being governed by the rule of law. It is clearly obvious that Paltrow, and others like her no danger in one party rule.
From cnsnews.com here's the rest of the gushing story.
Via: Memeorandum
rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
At a recent democratic fundraiser attended by the President a blithely partisan Gwyneth Paltrow uttered the folowing.
Paltrow noted the approaching Nov. 4 midterm elections in which Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. She called it a "critical time" for Democrats and seemed to urge everyone to vote. "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass," she said.
What is troubling is specifically this. It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.
No Gwyneth, it would not be wonderful to give this man or any man, regardless of ideology or party affiliation "all the power he needs to pass the things that he (feels he) needs to pass. Hell, why not just call him King Obama and abandon the Constitution and the concept of being governed by the rule of law. It is clearly obvious that Paltrow, and others like her no danger in one party rule.
From cnsnews.com here's the rest of the gushing story.
LOS ANGELES(AP) - Gwyneth Paltrow has won numerous awards for her acting, but speaking apparently came with some difficulty Thursday with President Barack Obama standing beside her.
"You're so handsome that I can't speak properly," the actress, singer and food writer gushed after introducing Obama to several hundred supporters seated on white fold-out chairs in the lush backyard of her home in the movie star haven of Brentwood, a neighborhood in Los Angeles.
In a not-so-subtle reference to her "conscious uncoupling" earlier this year from husband Chris Martin, Paltrow said it was a "profound honor" to have Obama in the home she shares with Apple and Moses, her two children with the Coldplay lead vocalist.
Paltrow hosted a reception and dinner benefiting the Democratic Party that marked the start of a three-day, California fundraising swing for Obama. He is scheduled to attend three other Democratic National Committee fundraisers in Los Angeles and San Francisco before returning to Washington on Saturday.
Tickets to the reception at Paltrow's home started at $1,000, while dinner tickets cost a minimum of $15,000.
Actors Julia Roberts and Bradley Whitford were among those attending.
In a brief introduction punctuated by "ums," Paltrow declared herself to be one of Obama's biggest fans and said he's an "incredible role model."
"I am one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest, and have been since the inception of your campaign," she said, adding that she thinks both of his campaigns and his presidency will be one of the most important and most scrutinized of all time.
Paltrow noted the approaching Nov. 4 midterm elections in which Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. She called it a "critical time" for Democrats and seemed to urge everyone to vote. "It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass," she said.
She mentioned equal rights for women in the workplace, and investments in sustainable energy and "everything green" before commenting on Obama's looks.
"I'm taking her to the next event," Obama quipped when it was his turn to speak.
He also thanked Paltrow and her kids for "letting us crash your house."
Via: Memeorandum
The election in a month will most likely result in an increase in power for either the republicans or the democrats. Given those two choices, I would prefer seeing the increase in power go to the democrats.
ReplyDelete""I'm taking her to the next event," Obama quipped when it was his turn to speak."
ReplyDeleteOops! I hope Michelle didn't overhear this this.
Jerry, I understand your concerns, although I certainly do not have as deep rots in those concerns as you do.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that let me clarify further.
1) IMO we do NOT need greater concentration of power in a particular ,an or party. We need precisely the opposite.
2) We need IMO an increase in tye number political parties and a corresponding influence that requires a collaborative effort to arrive at a governing coalition. Yeah, I know, a European style parliamentary system of sorts.
3) Again IMO this is the only way that power will be divested to a degree and the only hope that the people will regain real power over the ever encroaching executive branch of government. Our present system has resulted in what we see today,
I will add two caveats, 1) if people don't begin caring enough to educate themselves onna grander scale than exists today, and 2} voter turnout remains below 60% nothing that is done will matter all that much.
As it stands now partisanship (often blind) rules and I guess that was my main point.
To even have a chance to accomplish your points we first must greatly reduce the power of monied interests.
DeleteI agree Jerry with your main point. Where I disagree is I believe we first must take the power out of the two parties that are now driven by moneyed and other special interests. Then, and only then will we have an even shot at realizing what we both say we want.
DeleteI agree, RN. Part of the idea that we need to decentralize power, not concentrate it. Not only in regards to political parties, but also monolithic government organizations and business monopolies (the latter often created and propped up through crony capitalism, government corruption anyway)
DeleteRN, I don't see how you remove the power from the two parties without first removing the money. Additional parties will not do it. We have had multiple "third parties" around for a long time. We can't change our system of government without significant constitutional changes which won't happen with the current level of control that power/money currently hold.
DeleteHell! I'm seriously doubt that we can get money out of the system, certainly not if republicans get more control and probably not with democrats in control.
And those two are the only games in town.
Well Jerry, you may be right.
DeleteThe one thing I am sure of is as long as the majority of the actively voting electorate see it as you described the chances for change are next to nil.
Isn't tme to smash the paradigms that have put us where we are now?
There is a design to the pollitical game. It has morphed into something our founders would shudder at the thought of.
Time to smash the paradigms? Absolutely. That's not the question. The question is how.
DeleteWe may not agree on where we should go when they are smashed, but I agree with the smashing. Let's get that accomplished first, then we can fight on where we go.
(O)CT(O)PUS, I really don't blame the guy for his inner thoughts and slip of tongue. You know men will be men! ;)
ReplyDeleteGwyneth must be an ears-woman.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how much anyone cares about what Gwyneth thinks about anything except how she'll act in her next film. And what she swooned over is no more surprising than what Chris Matthews swooned over when he salivated over George W. Bush's landing on the USS Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteI find it curious Shaw that being not sure how many people care about the thrust of Paltrow's message (increasing executive power) you would comment on the post. Does that imply you do not advocate her position of increasing executive power or that you do.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what landing on the USS Lincoln and advocating increased executive power has to do with one another. Perhaps it's just me?
"I'm not sure what landing on the USS Lincoln and advocating increased executive power has to do with one another." --RN
ReplyDeletePaltrow was gushing over Obama; Tweety (Chris Matthews) gushed over GWB. Just showing that there'll always be people who take admiration for a president to foolishness. I commented on the post because it's on your blog, and I thought I'd add my two cents. The last film I saw Paltrow in that I liked was "Shakespeare In Love." Very funny. And she was good.
I've always thought Paltrow was a decent actress.
ReplyDeletePerhaps she was acting a little at the fundraiser? :)
Matthews stopped gushing over Bush in 2003, Shaw (that and he obviously found a new love in Obama).
ReplyDeleteHere are some of Matthews' quotes gushing over GWB from 2005:
ReplyDeleteChris ♥ George, Part 1: Bush sometimes "glimmers" with "sunny nobility." On MSNBC's Hardball, during a discussion with Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley of the effects on President Bush and his administration of the investigation into the leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Matthews said "[S]ometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility." [Hardball, 10/24/05]
Chris ♥ George, Part 2: "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs ..." Insulting the majority of Americans who hold an unfavorable opinion of President Bush, Matthews exclaimed on Hardball: "Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left," adding, "I mean, like him personally." [Hardball, 11/28/05]
Chris ♥ George, Part 3: Matthews praised Bush speech as "brilliant" even before it was delivered. Before Bush had even delivered his November 30 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Matthews used variations of the word "brilliant" twice to describe it, while deriding Democratic critics of the Iraq war as "carpers and complainers." [MSNBC live coverage, 11/30/05]
And there are at least a dozen more where those came from. So Matthews did not stop gushing in 2003. I love how people who don't know all the facts make definitive statements and expect no one to check the data.
Oh, come on! To cherry pick a handful of quotes from 9 years ago and try and prove from that that Matthews actually liked George W. Bush is ridiculous. I mean, I could do the same with O'Reilly and Obama and anybody who has watched Matthews over the past decade knows that the man hates with a vengeance the neocons and went absolutely ballistic over the war, the Valerie Plame fiasco, etc........That, and he obviously voted for Kerry in 2004. Oh, yeah, Matthews is major league George Bush defender. LOL
DeleteYou really can't get through to these people.
DeleteEither they can't read or they willfully misinterpret the evidence provided to show what they stated is not true: Here's what they wrote:
"Matthews stopped gushing over Bush in 2003..."
What I posted shows that is a false statement, nothing else. Nowhere do I state anything about Matthews "liking" Bush. And there's no "cherry picking." There are a dozen more fawning statements by Matthews over GWB where these came from.
Can we at least stick to evidence and not muddy what is presented? That would be good.
Shaw: I was not aware previously of Matthew's statements about Bush. Of course, these can be added to his "shiver" statement about Obama.
DeleteThe man has a clear bootlicking, toady problem,,, which has shown at times with the past two Presidents (at least). It's not something we need in journalists: regardless of the leader the journalist is figuratively genuflecting before.
a) Those aren't even quotes but words taken out of context and probably lifted from Media Matters. b) They're cherry-picked and as I told you I could find quotes from O'Reilly which are complementary to Obama and does anybody in his right mind think that O'Reilly "gushes" over Obama. c) Not being antagonistic 24/7 isn't the same thing as gushing and if you think that Matthews was gushing over Bush during the Valerie Plame fiasco then you didn't watch very much Hardball and instead relied strictly on Media Matters. d) And it was obvious that Matthews was not talking about you, me, Les, or any of the other sane critics of Bush but rather the actual whack jobs like wd, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, etc. who all went completely overboard....That, and he even pointed out that he was talking about liking Bush PERSONALLY, that most Americans liked him PERSONALLY (do you not even read your own quotes, Shaw?). e) And if Matthews ever referred to critics of the Iraq War as "carpers and complainers" (to which I would really like to see the entire quote on that one), then the dude was talking about himself in that nobody criticized the Iraq War more than Matthews (well, except for maybe me who didn't buy it from the get and who was furious that Senators like Biden, Kerry, and Clinton voted for it without so much as even reading the summary of NIE).
DeleteShaw's world, people - the President that douche-bag Matthews gushed over wasn't Obama but was actually George W. Bush.......Partisanship and selective perception at it's craziest.
DeleteWill: Not sure the point you are trying to argue here. Once one looks at the source and context of Matthew's quotes, they are truly embarassing and cringeworthy: like similar adorations uttered for President Obama. That Matthews doesn't say this sort of thing 100% of the time... or even 10% of the time doesn't go far to excuse these disturbing statements.
Delete"well, except for maybe me who didn't buy it from the get and who was furious that Senators like Biden, Kerry, and Clinton voted for it without so much as even reading the summary of NIE"
On another point, these are good examples of negligent and lazy legislators. It is not rocket science: know what you are voting on! Like with John Conyers who was too lazy to read the healthcare bill before voting on it.
Wow, Chris Mathews was a reasonable man at one time after all!
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding us all of that Shaw. I guess it just goes to show Americans have either short memories or convenient memories. Maybe both?
It isn't about "power", it's about others in Congress working with instead of against the president. Obama was elected TWICE, after all. But so far a lot of the Change the president promised has been obstructed.
ReplyDeleteHow I would rephrase what she said...
I think it would be wonderful if the voters selected representatives willing to work with the president so that the Change we all (the majority that voted for Obama) wanted could be put into action... as opposed to yet more obstruction.
Decent rephrase Dervish Sanders. You in addition provided an idea for a future post here at RN USA.
ReplyDelete