There is, it turns out, a line. Early Tuesday morning, Roseanne Barr crossed it. And within half a day, ABC, though Ms. Barr had given the network its biggest hit of the past season, enforced it.
First, the comedian and star of the revived “Roseanne” leveled a dehumanizing insult at Valerie Jarrett, calling the African-American former adviser to Barack Obama the offspring of “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes.” Then she tried to pass off the slur, by way of halfhearted apology, as a “joke” — as if, somehow, a racist joke were any better than a racist statement.
Here’s the sad thing. Ms. Barr’s tweet, while shocking, was not unbelievable. What was truly surprising was that a commercial TV network took action against a valuable star, quickly and definitively, and in plain words.
“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” the ABC entertainment president, Channing Dungey, said in a statement.
You could criticize ABC for working with Ms. Barr, who has a long history of offenses, especially since she joined Twitter. You could argue that the network was just trying to stave off bad publicity or boycotts. You could wonder if behind-the-scenes troubles or declining ratings (common to many TV revivals) played a role.
But credit where due: ABC canceled its highest-rated show, a linchpin of its fall schedule, as a stand against its star’s racism. That decision will probably cut into the network’s advertising profits. There may be no perfect moral actors in this world, but that’s still a moral action.
As we’ve seen with #MeToo, which has taken figures like Louis C. K. and Matt Lauer off TV, this is the sort of decision that corporations in our society often make more quickly and punitively than voters. But it is not a step you can take for granted.
Take Donald Trump. Forget his statements as president or on the “Access Hollywood” bus. He began peddling the birther slur — that Mr. Obama, the first black president, was not born in the United States — while the fourth “Celebrity Apprentice” was on NBC. The network kept him as host for three more seasons, and aired one more on which he was executive producer.
In 2013, the “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson gave an interview likening “homosexual behavior” to bestiality and suggesting that black people in the South were more content before the civil rights movement. The A&E network suspended him for nine days before reversing its decision, less a slap than a tap on the wrist.
The “Roseanne” decision, on the other hand, will come at a price for ABC — and like any such step, will have collateral costs. In a Twitter post, Sara Gilbert, Ms. Barr’s co-star and an executive producer of the revival, deplored Ms. Barr’s comments as “abhorrent.” She added that the series was “separate and apart from the opinions of one cast member.”
There’s some truth to that last comment. “Roseanne,” the revival, was imperfect but complicated, trying to engage with important if volatile issues. At times, it had ugly racial overtones, including a snide swipe at ABC’s sitcoms about “black and Asian families” and references to “illegals.” At other times the show pushed back against her character, or even ridiculed her.
But finally, none of that matters. “Roseanne” is a story. The issue here was the real act of a real person, saying the sort of thing that leads to real corrosion in the real world when it becomes normalized.
Make no mistake: The “Roseanne” decision would also have been expensive if ABC hadn’t canceled the show. It’s just that the costs would have been borne, as they generally are, by vulnerable people whose tormentors would be emboldened by seeing someone famous and powerful get away with it.
For that matter, it would insult people in small towns like the Lanford, Ill., of “Roseanne” — towns like the one I grew up in — for a TV network to imply that the only way to represent them is by indulging racism.
The character Roseanne said something like that a quarter-century ago, when her son was reluctant to kiss a black girl in a school play. “I didn’t raise you to be some little bigot!” she told him. “Black people are just like us. They’re every bit as good as us, and any people who don’t think so is just a bunch of banjo-pickin’, cousin-datin’, barefoot embarrassments to respectable white trash like us!”
Corporations involved in controversies like this usually simply want them to disappear. This one, because “Roseanne” has long since been drafted into the culture war, probably won’t.
Even if the president, who praised “Roseanne” to his supporters as being “about us,” doesn’t weigh in, even if Ms. Barr herself stays off Twitter, recent history tells us people will seize on the opportunity to say that the p.c. thought police are repressing us, because a rich woman lost her job for calling a black woman an ape. ABC will have picked a side regardless.
At least it picked the right one here. The battle against bigotry is not just about bigots. It’s about those who reap the benefits of ignoring bigots, and still think they should be able to call themselves good people. When an institution like ABC takes a stand — in prime time, where people notice it — that matters.
I’ll be cynical again tomorrow. For now I’m glad that a corporation had an opportunity to think only of its bottom line, and chose to draw a line instead.
OBAMA & HIS OPERATIVES FIGHTING AGAINST TRUMP ADMIN (PROTESTS & LEAKS):
TRUMP ACKNOWLEDGES THIS BUT WON'T LET OBAMA'S OPPOSITION STOP HIM FROM HEALING THIS NATION.
TRUMP SAYS IT'S "JUST POLITICS".
Sources: CNN, Fox News, YouTube
****** Trump: Obama and former aides behind protests, leaks
President Trump said in an exclusive interview Tuesday that he believes former President Barack Obama and his top aides are behind the protests and leaks that have tormented the new administration – and he doesn’t expect it to stop anytime soon.
Trump, during an interview with “Fox & Friends,” blamed Obama acolytes and the ex-president himself for the organized demonstrations that have sprung up nationwide since the Nov. 8 election, and also for the politically embarrassing leaks that have hindered Trump’s messaging.
“I think that President Obama’s behind it because his people are certainly behind it,” Trump said. “And some of the leaks possibly come from that group, you know, some of the leaks – which are very serious leaks, because they’re very bad in terms of national security.”
Trump didn’t provide evidence to support the charge.
He certainly is not alone, though, in his view that top Obama administration officials could be involved. A former senior intelligence official told Fox News earlier this monththat he suspects ex-CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper – among others – were connected to leaks.
Some of those officials have pushed back. A Clapper spokesman, in a recent statement, appeared to distance the former intel boss from any leaks, voicing support for a probe while urging the new administration to take a sober approach to the investigation.
“Leaks need to be investigated, but those investigations should be conducted in a manner that is not disparaging of our dedicated IC professionals, nor destructive to the entire community,” spokesman Shawn Turner said.
Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser, also denied any involvement in leaks in an email to The Atlantic.
“It’s totally absurd and doesn’t make any sense,” he wrote.
But the assertion that Obama – who began his political career as a community organizer – is actively aiding protests against Trump is new. Though, Trump added, it doesn’t necessarily bother him.
“But I also understand that’s politics,” Trump said. “And in terms of him being behind things, that’s politics. And it will probably continue.”
He added: “I’m not really surprised because I understand the way the world works. It’s politics. I mean I’m changing things that he’s wanted to do.”
A bankrupt green energy company will create both real and political problems for President Obama today, as the U.S. House of Representatives continues its investigation into how Fremont, California-based Solyndra LLC used its access to the president and his inner circle in order to secure and lose half a billion taxpayer dollars.
Until last Thursday, the investigation into Solyndra had been coming only from the legislative branch of the federal government. In February, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Michigan ) opened a probe into a $535-million loan guarantee awarded to the maker of innovative solar panels by the Obama Department of Energy. That loan followed multiple visits to the White House by Solyndra officers and by George Kaiser, a Tulsa, Oklahoma billionaire and Obama fundraiser. Late in August Solyndra announced it would declare bankruptcy.
Last week, following a cycle of negative news coverage and revelations about the company’s close ties to the president, the executive branch response began with a raid on Solyndra’s headquarters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Energy’s Inspector General. News coverage highlighting DoE Inspector General Gregory Friedman’s hawkishness about insufficient due diligence in making lending decisions suggests the Obama Administration’s image management apparatus is making an effort to show the president takes the Solyndra scandal seriously.
Because of the depth and documentation of Obama’s relationship with Solyndra, as well as new House revelations that White House officials pressed the Energy Department to expedite its lending to the troubled company, the effort to distance him from the scandal will almost certainly fail.
Obama did a photo opp at Solyndra headquarters last year and has emphasized the company’s cylindrical solar panels in his propaganda for green energy subsidies. Kaiser, whose Argonaut Ventures owned a 35 percent stake in Solyndra, bundled nearly $100,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign. Solyndra executives met with White House executives about 20 times. In the period before and just after the March 2009 loan guarantee (Solyndra eventually borrowed and blew through $527 million), Kaiser met with senior advisors Austan Goolsbee, Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett; chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and others.
FBI and Energy both report to the president. While suspicion of overt crime could have triggered the executive-branch investigation, the involvement of these two departments clouds what had been a straightforward congressional investigation. In addition to the risk that Obama appointees can steer investigators away from evidence harmful to the president, the involvement of a competing presidential investigation detracts from what has so far been very effective work by the House.
Shortly after Solyndra announced its bankruptcy, I made the none-too-daring prediction that this scandal would prove to be durable. The figure of a half-billion dollars is easy to understand yet still incomprehensibly large. There is no distance between the president and the scandal. And the company name is memorably goofy enough that there’s no need to add the lame suffix “-gate.”
Ron Bailey remarked earlier that Solyndra is already getting shoehorned into Republocrat he-said-she-said. Although it would be a shame if this lesson in the folly of subsidizing industry degenerated into simple point-scoring, it’s also true that in this case it is because of competitive politics that we know about the scandal at all. Solyndra’s dim financial prospects, its dubious technology and its unlikely survival as anything other than a ward of the state were known before the loan was approved. (In a Business Insider article, Bruce Krasting says the company’s only valuable item may be its net operating loss.) Yet in the period after that loan, Solyndra continued to behave as a green-energy market leader, even attempting an initial public offering. Who knows how much longer the company could have gone on wasting public money, deluding investors and delaying formal bankruptcy, if not for Upton’s investigation?
It’s also clear that “contextualizing” the Solyndra scandal in the way Bailey regretted (by noting that Republicans do it too) only makes the story more infuriating. While Solyndra will be useful as a campaign issue, the real outrage is that the government is proudly putting your money into companies that private investors are unwilling to put their own money into. Once this violation of common sense has taken place, the story can only end, as it appears to have ended here, in suffering and crime. That’s not a corruption of the system. It’s the natural way the system works.
Republican lawmakers, escalating the political furor over the collapse of a solar equipment manufacturer that received a $528 million government loan, released excerpts from Obama administration emails Wednesday suggesting that the White House pressed federal officials to wrap up their review of the loan quickly for political purposes.
In the emails, officials at the Office of Management and Budget expressed frustration that they were being put under time pressure to sign off on the loan to the company, Solyndra, two years ago so that Vice President Joe Biden could announce its approval at a groundbreaking for a factory.
The White House wanted an announcement that would show progress on job creation.
The disclosure became a focus of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing Wednesday about the loan to Solyndra, which has developed into a political headache for the Obama administration. The administration used the company as a prime example of stimulus-bill dollars creating "green jobs."
But Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy protection and closed its factory, and its headquarters was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, apparently in connection with the loan.
The bankruptcy filing and the raid "clearly show that the committee was more than justified in its scrutiny of the deal," said the panel's chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich. "Why did the administration think Solyndra was such a good bet?"
Critics of the loan have focused on whether political considerations played a role in awarding the loan to Solyndra, which the Obama administration denies. But the hearing also cast doubt on the government's competence to assess how sure a bet it is making, regardless of politics.
Officials of the Energy Department's loan office and the White House budget office defended their decisions, which they said were carefully reviewed and not politically inspired. The administration said the emails showed only that the White House wanted to know when a decision would be made for its planning.
"As the emails indicate, there was interest in when a decision would be made because of its impact on whether an event involving the vice president could be scheduled for a particular date or not," said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. "But the loan-guarantee decision was merit-based and made by career staffers at the Department of Energy, and the process for this particular loan guarantee began under President George W. Bush."
Suspicions that the administration might have pushed the loan for political reasons have centered on the fact that a major investor in the company is a charitable foundation associated with George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., who raised $50,000 to $100,000 as a "bundler" for President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.
Logs show that Kaiser visited the White House on several occasions during the spring and summer of 2009, while the loan to Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., was being considered. Among the officials he met with were chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, both senior advisers to Obama.
"It seems like crony capitalism was trumping the smart decision-making," Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said at the hearing.
Campaign finance records analyzed by OpenSecrets.org show that there were about 235 other bundlers for the Obama campaign in Kaiser's range, while about 326 bundlers raised significantly larger sums.
Administration officials said the White House meetings were not about Solyndra but rather were related to Kaiser's charitable interest in policy matters such as early-childhood education. The George Kaiser Family Foundation has said that Kaiser "did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan."
Three factors pushed the market price of solar arrays below Solyndra's cost of production, according to experts. The cost of silicon, a key ingredient in competitors' cells but not in Solyndra's, fell sharply. The economic crisis in Europe cut demand for solar cells. And China subsidized a huge increase of solar equipment production, producing a surplus.
Republican lawmakers, escalating the political furor over the collapse of a solar equipment manufacturer that received a $528 million government loan, released excerpts from Obama administration e-mails on Wednesday suggesting that the White House pressed federal officials to wrap up their review of the loan quickly for political purposes.
In the e-mails, officials at the Office of Management and Budget expressed frustration that they were being put under time pressure to sign off on the loan to the company, Solyndra, two years ago so that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. could announce its approval at a groundbreaking for a factory. The White House wanted an announcement that would show progress on job creation. The emails were first reported by the Washington Post and on the Web site of ABC News, in partnership with iWatch.
The disclosure became a focus of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Wednesday about the loan to Solyndra, which has developed into a political headache for the Obama administration. The administration used the company as a prime example of stimulus bill dollars creating “green jobs.” But Solyndra recently filed for bankruptcy protection and closed its factory, and its headquarters was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, apparently in connection with the loan.
The bankruptcy filing and the raid “clearly show that the committee was more than justified in its scrutiny of the deal,” said the panel’s chairman, Representative Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan. “Why did the administration think Solyndra was such a good bet?”
Critics of the loan have focused on whether political considerations played a role in awarding the loan to Solyndra, which the Obama administration denies. But the hearing also cast doubt on the government’s competence to assess how sure a bet it is making, regardless of politics.
Officials of the Energy Department’s loan office and the White House budget office defended their decisions, which they said were carefully reviewed and not politically inspired. The administration said that the e-mails showed only that the White House wanted to know when a decision would be made for its planning.
“As the e-mails indicate, there was interest in when a decision would be made because of its impact on whether an event involving the vice president could be scheduled for a particular date or not,” said Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman. “But the loan guarantee decision was merit-based and made by career staffers at the Department of Energy, and the process for this particular loan guarantee began under President George W. Bush.”
Suspicions that the administration might have pushed the loan for political reasons have centered on the fact that a major investor in the company is a charitable foundation associated with George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., who raised $50,000 to $100,000 as a “bundler” for President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Logs show that Mr. Kaiser visited the White House on several occasions during the spring and summer of 2009, while the loan to Solyndra was being considered. Among the officials he met with were the chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and Pete Rouse and Valerie Jarrett, both senior advisers to Mr. Obama.
“It seems like crony capitalism was trumping the smart decision-making,” Representative Steve Scalise, Republican of Louisiana, said at the hearing.
Campaign finance records analyzed by OpenSecrets.org show that there were about 235 other bundlers for the Obama campaign in Mr. Kaiser’s range, while about 326 bundlers raised significantly larger sums.
Administration officials said the White House meetings were not about Solyndra but rather were related to Mr. Kaiser’s charitable interest in policy matters like early childhood education. Mr. Kaiser has declined to comment directly about the meetings. But the George Kaiser Family Foundation has said that “he did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan.”
While Mr. Kaiser’s connection to the Obama campaign and to Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., have helped draw attention to the loan, he was not a major topic of discussion at the hearing on Wednesday. Republicans did, however, press those testifying on whether the Solyndra bankruptcy offered proof that the government should not be lending to companies that have trouble raising money from private investors.
“In this time of record debt, I question whether the government is qualified to act as a venture capitalist, picking winners and losers in speculative ventures and shelling out billions of taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat,” Mr. Upton said.
Three factors pushed the market price of solar arrays below Solyndra’s cost of production, according to experts. The cost of silicon, a key ingredient in competitors’ cells but not in Solyndra’s, fell sharply. The European economic crisis cut demand for solar cells. And China subsidized a huge increase of solar equipment production, producing a surplus.
While taxpayers could lose the $528 million the company borrowed from the Treasury, Jeffrey D. Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that the system for evaluating such loans was sound. He said it was inevitable that some cutting-edge firms would fail but that over all, the investments would prove worthwhile. He did allow, “The lesson learned here is that marketplaces can change even more rapidly than one would have anticipated.”
Executives from Solyndra are scheduled to testify before the subcommittee next week.
Meanwhile, the White House provided about 900 pages of e-mails this week to the committee, which had asked for all correspondence between Obama aides and Solyndra executives. Most of the correspondence concerned logistics for a visit by Mr. Obama in the spring of 2010.
However, several e-mails from the company to the White House flagged and sought to discredit a handful of articles that had questioned the company’s financial viability as far back as July 2010. A Solyndra official, David Miller, called one such report baseless and noted that Solyndra “had no intention of going out of business” and that its goal was to be “a true success story for this administration to point to.”
Another Solyndra e-mail, from this past May, informed the White House that “things are going well” at the company and that it had “good market momentum, the factory is ramping up and our plan puts at cash positive later this year. Hopefully, we’ll have a great story to tell toward the end of the year.”
A White House official, Greg Nelson, replied: “Fantastic to hear that business is doing well — keep up the good work! We’re cheering for you.”
I haven't written much about the California solar company Solyndra, which recently went bankrupt after receiving over $500 million in taxpayer money as part of the Department of Energy's program of loan guarantees for renewable energy companies. Short story: the sudden demise of the California-based company—which went out of business on Aug. 31, costing more than 1,000 employees their jobs—raised speculation that the Obama Administration may have channeled money toward Solyndra for political reasons.
Republicans in the House launched an investigation, and turned up emails that seemed to show White House staffers pushing officials at the Office of Management and Budget to sign off on the loans in time for a major public appearance by Vice-President Joe Biden at Solyndra's headquarters.
On Sept. 14 , a House subcommittee held hearings on the Solyndra affair, and Republican representatives tried to portray the Solyndra loans, and the White House's renewable energy support policy, as an expensive, politically motivated failure.
My response: meh. TIME's Michael Grunwald has covered this from the start, and while he's unhappy—to say the least—with executives at Solyndra for misleading the government on its financial health, the solar industry more broadly is doing well, thanks in part to the money the Obama Administration has channeled towards more successful companies. And it's worth noting that in addition to government loan guarantees, Solyndra also scored over $1 billion in private capital—including from GOP-friendly investors like the Walton family of Wal-Mart.
Solyndra turned out to be a bad investment—the company failed in part because it made the wrong bet on solar technology, failing to foresee that silicon prices would drop drastically.
Bad investments are a part of business, especially a cutting-edge industry like renewable energy, and failure is a necessary ingredient for innovation. (Just ask the famously fired Steve Jobs.) The idea that the collapse of one solar company discredits the entire solar industry is absurd.
Still, many Republicans would argue that the real question here is whether government policies like loan guarantees and subsidies can actually help support companies and create new jobs rather than simply engendering failure and waste. That's a fair debate to have. But the haters are being hypocritical.
Nosing for federal money and federal support is the name of the game in Washington—otherwise the expense accounts of lobbyists on K Street wouldn't be so generous.
Oil and gas and coal companies all spend millions in lobbying, putting former government regulators on their payrolls to ensure that policy goes their way.
House Speaker John Boehner himself has received more than $1.5 million from the coal industry—money that was spent well. It's not just Republicans—Democrats from oil or coal states know to look out for industry.
And it's not just the energy industry either—every major business sector is happy to lobby in Washington and bend legislation to their favor. That's the way things work—or don't, I suppose.
If Solyndra threw its weight around Washington to pull in that $500 million-plus loan guarantee, the firm was only copying its more entrenched competitors. In fact, maybe it was a sign that the renewable energy industry was finally ready for prime time. You can criticize the White House for spending public money foolishly in support of one of the President's signature policy objectives: building green jobs. But there's nothing here that makes the Solyndra debacle special. It's business as usual.
As The 2012 Elections Approach Us, Once Again Pres. Obama Looks To His "Chicago Political Machine" For Another Victorious Ride.
Here's Why This Strategy May Or May NOT Work This Time..
Upon Pres. Obama's Election In 2008 He Felt Obligated To Bring Along Most Of The Members From His "Chicago Political Machine" To Help Govern In The White House.
What Was Wrong With This Plan?
Chicago Style Politics Don't Work Well On Capitol Hill.
For Example: Valerie Jarrett Was NOT The Right Person To Work With Business Leaders From D.C. & Wall Street.
Why?
Did Pres. Obama Really Think A Black Woman From Chicago Would Be Totally Respected & Accepted By White, Extremely Wealthy CEO's From Wall Street & The American Business Community?
NO!!!!
Please Don't Get It Twisted.
As A Black Woman I'm All For Diversity But Come On Pres. Obama!
Although Valerie Jarrett Is Well-Educated, It Doesn't Mean She Was The Right Individual For That Particular Position.
You See Diversity On Such A High Level Takes Time.
Such A Bold Move Has To Be Made Gradually NOT Forced In The Faces Of Wall Street CEOs!
Especially NOT New Yorkers!
Dealing With New Yorkers Vs. Mid-Westerners Is Like Oil & Water!
In Addition I Don't Think Ms. Jarrett Cared Two Cents About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Constituents.
Just As Most Chicago Politicians Don't Give A Darn About Middle Class & Lower Income Blacks & Hispanics Voters There Either.
Another Example Is Bill Daley.
Daley Was NOT The Right Person To Become Obama's NEW Chief Of Staff.
Why?
The Daley Family's Relationship With Blacks & Hispanics In Chicago Has NOT Been A Successful One. NOT EVER!
Including How Poorly Old Man Daley Treated Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Years Ago.
Thus After Hiring Bill Daley Obama Lost Respect From Many Black Voters.
Black Voters Are NOT Stupid!
We Still Support Pres. Obama But We Do NOT Respect Bill Daley Because We Remember How The Daley Family Has Treated Blacks In Chicago For Decades.
Newly Elected Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Appeared To Be Effective In His Former Role As White House Chief Of Staff.
But Rahm's Harsh Language (Profanity) & Bull Dozer Personality Wasn't Well Received By Many Congressional Members Who Were STILL Experiencing Culture Shock By The Election Of A BLACK President!
There's Nothing Wrong With Being Tough, Especially When Dealing With Some Of Those Hard-Nosed, Racist GOP Leaders On Capitol Hill.
However There Is A Time To Be Tough & A Time To Just Out Think Your Opponents Via Practicing Reverse Psychology.
To Avoid Appearing Like A Weak Coward Among One's Peers, Actually A Combination Of Both People Skill Sets Are Preferable.
I Now Firmly Believe That Had Pres. Obama NOT Placed So Much Trust In His Chicago Buddies & NOT Hired So Many Of His Chicago Buddies To Become Senior Advisers, His Presidency Would Have Been Much More Successful.
So Going Forward It May Be Alright For Pres. Obama To Seek Advice From His "Chicago Political Machine" For Re-Election, However AFTER Being Re-elected He Should NOT Hire Those Same People To Help Him Govern.
President Barack Obama's relationship with his hometown may be best described as a long-distance love affair. He lavishes attention on it from afar and proud Chicago pines for its hometown hero, though the two rarely see each other.
That looks like it's about to change.
Obama is returning to his roots as he embarks on his re-election race for 2012. He's setting up his campaign headquarters in a downtown high-rise near Grant Park, the site of his victory celebration on election night in November 2008.
He's coming back Thursday to raise money, a week after launching his second White House bid with an understated email and online video.
The president is putting Chicago in the spotlight again as he tries to recreate the grass-roots, start-up flavor of his first campaign and do what no incumbent president has done in decades: try to win re-election from a location outside Washington.
A Chicago base also could reinforce a connection to a city that aides say keeps Obama grounded while he lives in the nation's capital.
"Nobody is more eager to be out and nobody is more eager to be here than him," said David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist who left the White House this year to return to Chicago to work on the re-election and be closer to his Chicago-based family. "The conversation in Washington is completely different than the conversation you hear out here."
Obama's advisers hope a Chicago location could insulate his campaign from some of the Washington chatter and news leaks that often plague campaigns. A beyond-the-Beltway headquarters could allow them to offset the notion that Obama, who campaigned as an outsider above the partisan fray and promised a new approach to politics, has become the ultimate political insider.
"Basing it in Chicago says, 'I'm not of Washington,' but if he doesn't spend time in Chicago, he is of Washington," said Paul Light, a public service professor at New York University.
Obama's relationship with his town has evolved over the years.
He was a community organizer, worked on a major voter drive and practiced law in his early days in the city. When he entered politics, he focused on the state capital of Springfield, and cast himself as above the brass-knuckled nature of Chicago politics, whose history is pockmarked with corruption and scandal.
During the 2008 campaign, Obama was a fixture in Chicago when he wasn't crisscrossing the country for votes. He took his wife, Michelle, around town to dinner at some of the city's best restaurants. He hung out with his daughters. He worked out at the gym. He played basketball with his buddies. He attended meetings at his campaign office, all under the watchful eye of reporters and Secret Service agents. His family, friends and neighbors talked openly about the candidate and his lifestyle.
As president, Obama has made only about a half a dozen visits to Chicago, often to raise money for candidates. He's made only a few overnight trips to his South Side house.
His neighbors don't seem to hold it against him.
"He's got a whole world to deal with," says Hosea McKay, a 73-year-old retired substance abuse counselor, who lives several blocks away. "Chicago . we can't be so egotistical that we think he's supposed to pop in every three or four months and hang out with us."
The area around Obama's house looks much like it did during the last campaign when extra security measures were added. Even when Obama isn't there, guards and barriers – both metal and concrete – restrict access to his street. His house can be seen through some trees from a nearby busy thoroughfare.
But the neighborhood has changed somewhat since the Obamas left. They're getting new neighbors because the home next door to theirs was sold last year.
While sharing a neighborhood with the president has its share of hassles, Prince Ella Murphy, who lives about a block away, doesn't mind, especially when it comes to the security that increases when Obama is in town.
"I love it. I feel protected because, I mean, they have police everywhere," said Murphy, a 61-year-old retired hotel worker.
Over the past two years, the Obamas have devised ways not to be homesick. They've brought Chicago to them in Washington.
They tapped into their network of hometown connections when they moved into the White House. Among those who relocated to Washington with the Obamas were friend Valerie Jarrett, now a White House adviser, and the family's personal chef. Obama's Chicago buddies, Eric Whitaker and Marty Nesbitt, are constant vacation companions. Countless Chicagoans have visited the White House over the past two years.
The president hosted the 2010 Stanley Cup winners, the Chicago Blackhawks at the White House, last month and put the city's other professional teams on notice. He said: "Let me just say to all the Bears fans, Bulls fans, White Sox fans, and Cubs fans, I want to see all of you sometime soon, as well."
In another nod to their hometown, the Obamas dyed the water in the White House fountains green to celebrate their first St. Patrick's Day in the White House. The city colors the Chicago River that cuts through downtown to celebrate the holiday.
He also swapped one chief of staff from Chicago for another. Rahm Emanuel is Chicago's mayor-elect, while Bill Daley, the current mayor's brother, joined the White House as part of a staff reshuffling aimed at getting ready for the campaign.
While Axelrod said more presidential visits are likely, given that the campaign headquarters is in Chicago, just how much time Obama and his family will spend in Chicago this time is unclear. The duties of the presidency don't lend themselves to much down time.
His team is setting up shop in a downtown high-rise not far from offices the Obama operation used in 2008. Campaign manager Jim Messina, a former White House deputy chief of staff, is directing the effort, and Axelrod is certain to be a constant presence.
"It's nascent group and it's going to grow," said Axelrod, who stopped by the offices recently. "You could sense, you could feel some of that old excitement coming back and you know people are really eager to get going."
Some are hoping to see Obama, himself, more.
Says Freddie Fitch, 53, who lives just a few blocks from the Obamas, "We love him here."
Democrat Barack Obama piled on the praise last month as he stood beside Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and embraced the mayor's bid for a sixth term.
"I don't think there's a city in America that has blossomed as much over the last couple of decades than Chicago, and a lot of that has to do with our mayor," Obama said, supporting Daley ahead of Tuesday's city election.
It was a switch from a year earlier, when the Illinois senator brushed off questions about endorsing Daley and said reported corruption at Chicago's City Hall gave him "huge pause."
What happened in the meantime? Obama decided to run for president.
The endorsement is one example of the sometimes complicated relationship between Obama _ who offers himself as an untainted, non-traditional alternative _ and Illinois' sometimes tarnished political establishment.
While Obama prides himself as an independent-minded Democrat, he's maintained relations with important parts of the establishment, from remnants of the legendary Chicago Democratic machine to the city's leading black politicians.
Yet as an outsider who came to the city as an adult, he doesn't owe his political fortunes to ward bosses and can claim distance from the political corruption for which the city is famous. He's ruffled feathers in the past by taking on incumbents or bucking his party's anointed candidate in a statewide race, but he has also mended fences and now has Illinois' most important politicians lined up to support his run for president.
"He understands ... about politics and how you make friends in politics," said Rep. Bobby Rush, who Obama unsuccessfully challenged in 2000 for his seat in Congress.
Rush said Daley, for one, can be helpful to Obama because of his national reputation. Daley's brother, William, who headed Al Gore's presidential campaign in 2000, has already signed on as an Obama adviser.
Rush is also backing Obama's bid for the White House.
Growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, Obama didn't come up through the ranks of traditional Chicago Democratic politics.
Obama writes in his book "The Audacity of Hope" that he got into his successful first race for the Illinois Senate at the encouragement of friends who thought his work as a civil rights lawyer and experience as a community organizer made him a good candidate.
That 1996 election put him in conflict with the incumbent, Alice Palmer. She planned to run for Congress and endorsed Obama as her successor. But when Palmer lost the congressional primary, Obama would not step aside so she could keep her state Senate seat.
Once he got to the state Senate, Obama was no radical. He became a political protege of current Senate President Emil Jones, a 35-year veteran of the legislature and one of the state's most influential black lawmakers.
Obama was in the Illinois Senate just a few years when he went after the congressional seat held by Rush.
In his book, Obama calls it an "ill-considered race," and he and another state senator who challenged Rush were trounced in the primary. Rush had the support of the powerful Cook County Board president and widespread support in his district.
Obama also was viewed as a long shot in his 2004 bid for the U.S. Senate. He decided to run even though most party leaders were backing the state comptroller, who was the son of a powerful Democratic leader. Other candidates included Mayor Daley's former chief of staff and a millionaire who had helped elect the Democratic governor. Obama's candidacy gained momentum when the millionaire businessman, who had once led in the polls, acknowledged striking his ex-wife and calling her names.
Once Obama's fortunes started rising with his starmaking address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his Senate win, he found almost uniform support from Illinois Democrats.
Yet Obama still didn't always stick to the party line, most notably last year when he rejected the party-backed candidate for state treasurer to support a political newcomer, putting him at odds with the state Democratic chairman, Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan of Chicago.
Over the summer, Madigan derisively referred to Obama as "the messiah" in a published report. But by early this year, Madigan was proposing moving up the state's 2008 primary from March 18 to Feb. 5 to give Obama more momentum early in the presidential race.
For his part, Obama has lined up with party leaders in some recent local races. He supported the party's choice to become the new Cook County board president, despite allegations of political nepotism surrounding the man, who was the son of the previous board president.
Obama also endorsed Daley, saying he was still concerned about City Hall corruption but thought Daley had taken steps to clean it up. And he supported the November re-election of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose administration is under federal investigation for hiring fraud.
Attorney Gery Chico, the Daley former chief of staff who lost to Obama in the 2004 Senate primary, said Obama has been under increasing pressure to play a role in local races and it's smart for him to get in the mix.
"You don't want to go the route of Al Gore," Chico said. Gore famously didn't win his home state of Tennessee in his failed bid for president in 2000.
But the Daley endorsement in particular _ featured in one of the mayor's campaign mailers _ isn't sitting right with some people in this city known for its legendary political machine.
Daley's father, the late Mayor Richard J. Daley, built the once-mighty machine that doled out jobs and favors in exchange for support for Democrats on Election Day. The courts have mostly dismantled the machine by outlawing political patronage, but the city's powerful Democrats _ like Daley _ can still turn out the vote.
Obama's decision to support Daley turned off voter Alan Dobry, who's part of a Chicago independent-voters group.
"He's trying to play with the machine," Dobry said. "I'm very unhappy about it."
Mayor Bloomberg took at shot at President Obama’s cabinet - and his own - today, saying the President needs more business expertise.
“We can all use better advisors. I can use some too,” he said [as two of his top aides exchanged a look of dismay].
“One of those things that I’ve urged the president to do is to get some business people in his close, tight circle,” Bloomberg said of the president. “I think business is—one of the president’s job is to promote American business around the world, sell our products around the world, get people from around the world to come and invest here. That’s a big part of the job.
That’s our tax base. That’s how Americans earn a living and I don’t think he has enough advisers.”
Bloomberg was responding to a question about comments he made about the president in the December issue of GQ Magazine in which he accused the president of breaking campaign promises.
"The president, I think, needs some better advisers," Bloomberg told GQ in an article that named Bloomberg one of its men of the year for being "the most interesting—and most fearless—politician in America."
"He campaigns, 'I'm gonna do A,' and then he doesn't do it. Now he's pissed off the supporters and the opponents."
The mayor did not name any specific promises Obama had broken.
Bloomberg has adamantly denied rumors that he plans to challenge Obama in 2012 but he’s been openly critical about some of the president’s efforts.
His comments today came just minutes after he refused to weigh in on whether the House should censure Charlie Rangel.
“You have to ask the members of the House. I don’t know what the procedures are,” Bloomberg said when asked about Rangel. “I shouldn’t be criticizing. I don’t want them to come to the city and try to tell us how to run New York City.”
In a year when Democrats became the party that dared not speak its name and Republicans would not shut up, one diminutive New York mayor stood tall. Once the GOP made a national issue of whether or not a mosque (actually part of an Islamic community center) should be allowed at Ground Zero (actually two long blocks away), Mayor Michael Bloomberg was the one politician who spoke to his city—and the country—in a way that made a citizen proud.
He delivered a beautiful, and beautifully straightforward, speech that embraced the idea of the community center and dared to evoke the firefighters, police, and emergency workers who made the ultimate sacrifice on September 11: "We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights—and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked."
Bloomberg is surely the most intriguing politician in America today, by turns earthy and high-minded, funny and dismissive, modest and self-congratulatory. Scorned by right-wingers for his social liberalism, reviled by some liberals for his avid support of developers, he is a one-man party of the "sensible middle" that so many voters and commentators claim to want.
They won't get it, as American third parties never emerge from the middle. Instead, Mayor Mike, a Massachusetts native who speaks with fierce pride of his adopted city, a rich man who takes the subway twice a week (even if he takes an SUV to his stop), a leader who can see the practical benefits of the First Amendment, is likely to remain sui generis. And that's fine by us.
First, as somebody who has lived in New York for almost thirty-five years, I have to say your stand on the non-mosque that's not at Ground Zero marked the first time I've ever written a mayor to say thanks for doing the right thing.
It's a First Amendment issue. About a month ago, my girlfriend, [financial-services manager and public activist] Diana [Taylor], and I were at J.G. Melon, 74th and Third, great hamburgers, and a big hulking guy comes up to me. I have a rule with my security guys: Anybody can come up to me. Now, if you shoot me, you won't get away, but I should be accessible to the people—that's the job.
You don't want to run the risks, get out of the kitchen. Anyway, big guy comes up to me, says, "Can I talk to you?" I say, "Sure." I've got a hamburger in one hand, I got a glass of beer in the other one, and I said, "Whaddya wanna talk about?" He says, "The mosque," and I'm thinkin', Ah shit, I don't need this. But he said, "I just want to say, I just got back from two tours in Afghanistan, and a couple of my friends never came back. You get out there and keep reminding everybody why we're fighting."
Your speech did a great job of tracing the fights for immigrants' rights, the fights for religious freedom in New York, all the way back to the Flushing Remonstrance of the seventeenth century. Is New York City the place, more than any other, where we have fought it out over who gets to be a full American and what that means? Is the Islamic community center the latest chapter in that fight?
I don't know that it's as big a battle as the others you describe. I think it's fair to say that the mosque as an issue goes away on November 3 [the day after election day]. Keep in mind these guys don't have the money to build a mosque and there's already a mosque down there.
This is an issue on the stump, in the polls, with the op-ed writers. We don't man the barricades and burn torches. There are a lot of cities in the world that are as diverse as New York: London, Singapore—cities that have been welcoming to immigrants and where they speak 150 languages and all that sort of stuff. But New York is different, because we live as a mixture and they live as a mosaic.
In London, there is an Arab quarter, if you will, an Irish quarter, a Roma quarter, whatever. In New York, in one block you have signs in Arabic and in Korean and in Spanish and English.
New Yorkers, I don't know that they like each other or socialize together, but they go down the same steps to the subway, they hail a cab at the same corner, they buy their coffee at the same Starbucks, their newspaper at the same kiosk—and so people who look different, act different, sound different, smell different, dress different, whatever, they are not threatening, because you are next to them all the time. That gets people to work together in a way here that's not true elsewhere.
You're saying this is an issue manufactured by politicians, and very much the kind of thing people hate about politics nowadays?
A hundred percent. None of this stuff is done on a rational basis. It's all in the world of the twenty-four-hour news cycle and of the blogs, and also the economics of the news business. You know the old joke: "If it bleeds, it leads." Well, the news business is so tough that if today it's not bleeding, they take a knife to it.
So in standing up to that, does that make you the model for the twenty-first-century American politician—somebody who understands the political news business but whose independence nevertheless lets him be the sort of leader we like to say we all want? It's pretty hard for me to say no to that! Although if, in my daily press conference, I stood up and described myself the way that you just did, the blogs here would probably rip me apart.
I am a believer that the public is a lot smarter than the press—that they don't read the press, listen to the press, remember what the press wrote. If you go out in the street and say, "Who is Monica Lewinsky or Gary Condit?" a lot of people wouldn't know. And the public wants somebody they believe is genuine. I've always believed that George W. Bush was elected and reelected not because people agreed with him but because people think [he] believes in something.
Bush ran against Gore and he ran against Kerry, and people never believed that either of those two guys stood for something. They thought they flip-flopped and looked for the right issue all the time. George W., if you call him today, he would say he did a good job, he did what was right. And you may find that so laughable, you don't agree with that at all, [but] the Bushes believe.
Is that an ongoing problem with Democrats? Do you think that's also the case with President Obama? Listen, the last thing I'm ever going to do is criticize the president. I think we should work very hard to make this president a good president, even if you would prefer somebody else. The time to prefer somebody else is two years from now, not while he's president.
We need him to be good, for our country, for our kids. But I think that it is too easy to let your political guys set your agenda; you'll never do anything if you have your political guys that close. It is too easy to look at the polls and lead from the back. I have always said what I believed, even when it's not popular, and the results are that today if you did a poll in New York City, after the mosque, after nine years in office, we'd have a 65 percent approval rating. I think the ways to be popular are to say what you believe.
Watching you up close at a couple of political functions, I don't think I've ever seen a major politician less worried about whether people liked him, whether they're reacting well to him.
No, but I care as much as anybody else. You know, if you don't want people to like you, you should see a shrink. The first day I ever campaigned was on South Beach in Staten Island. And this nice little old lady with white hair comes up to me and she said, "Oh, I'm glad you're running. You're a breath of fresh air. I'm going to vote for you. All my friends are going to vote for you. Anybody that wants to run against you is going to drop out right away."
And I'm thinking, "Shit, this is easy. First day and I'm elected." Then she looks up at me adoringly and says, "And I'm so glad you're pro-life." And I remember for a billionth of a second in my mind: What do you say? Do you lie? You want someone's vote. She's got all her friends; she's influenced the whole city already the first day! I don't wanna piss her off. But I said, "Well, I'm so sorry, I happen to be very much pro-choice. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I do think it's totally up to the woman's right to choose." And I will bet you anything that I got that woman's vote.
Consistency is paramount?
It's the old saying: You dance with the one that brung ya. The president, I think, needs some better advisers. He campaigns "I'm gonna do A," and then he doesn't do it. Now he's pissed off the supporters and the opponents. You go for it.
Do you have any ideas for better advisers? No. I don't know. David Axelrod, when I've talked to him, he seems very smart, and Rahm Emanuel, who I've known forever, he is very smart. [But] you know, if you're going to stand up for the mosque Friday night, you don't walk away from it Saturday morning.
Who has been the past New York mayor you admire most or are most interested in, or who had to deal with problems that are most similar to yours?
I have a friend, David Rockefeller; he's 95 years old. My father, if he were alive, he wouldn't find my success fascinating. He would have found fascinating the fact that I can tell you David Rockefeller is a friend on a first-name basis. That would have been something. But David's first job was as secretary to a mayor. And the mayor was Fiorello La Guardia, and his job was to walk around and write down everything that La Guardia said.
And La Guardia said, you know, "There's no Republican or Democratic way to pick up the garbage." La Guardia did what he thought was right; he was not afraid of anybody. That is, I'm sure he was afraid of people, but he never let it show. And he was willing to tackle the big things. He had a good feel for people. He wanted to help the less fortunate, but he understood you needed a tax base. And I think, you know, he's as good an example as any. And we're the same height, I think.
Is there a big, transformative idea you could imagine getting behind, for the city and/or the country, or is the job of the mayor just the daily grind, getting it done?
Collect the garbage, educate the kids, and keep it safe. That's why mayors never go on, incidentally, to higher office—I prefer to call it "other office," I don't think it's higher. The mayor's job is not to cave in, and just as we've resisted those wages and benefit increases for city workers that we can't afford, we've also resisted tax cuts that businesses and conservative ideologues may want but that we can't afford.
So you're not running for "other office," including president? I've said many times, I have no intention of running for president or any other office.
After Business Leaders sank Millions into the Midterms to defeat Democrats, a chastened Obama administration is seeking reconciliation with the Corporate community.
But after two years of building frustration, the executives say they won’t be won over by another round of private lunches and photo opportunities at the White House.
If President Barack Obama has any hope for a truce with corporate America in time for his 2012 reelection campaign, he needs to drop the name-calling, try to see their point of view better and step up with some specific proposals.
“No amount of relationship-building is a substitute for policy,” said Johanna Schneider, executive director for external affairs at the Business Roundtable, which was once one of the administration’s most enduring corporate allies.
“We have to see some concrete policies that will help grow business because everyone’s goal is to grow jobs. This isn’t hocus-pocus. There are concrete steps to take for job growth,” she added.
The White House is embarking on a new round of corporate outreach, said Valerie Jarrett, a key White House adviser, who told POLITICO in an interview that she is lining up a fresh round of private, luncheon sessions and that other events could be in the works.
The White House is also mulling over an Obama appearance at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — even though the group spent about $75 million attacking Democrats and assisting the Republican takeover of the House. (See: Obama plans truce with Chamber)
“Our position moving forward is to find as many opportunities as possible to interact with the business community,” said Jarrett. “The president is very interested in the coming weeks in hearing additional input from the business community.”
The White House’s relationship with the corporate world has always had a sort of Mars-Venus quality to it. Business leaders say Obama simply doesn’t get them and has no one in the White House with corporate experience or who is steeped in the daily challenges of operating in a global economy. It didn’t help when Obama lashed out at “fat cat bankers” on Wall Street at the height of the regulatory reform effort or attacked BP, a onetime White House ally on energy reform, in the midst of the Louisiana oil spill. (See: OMB's Lew confirmed after hold lifted)
The message to other sectors: "You could be next," said one corporate lobbyist.
Some White House officials, in turn, privately express frustration that the business world seems to give Obama no credit for supporting bailouts of Wall Street and the auto industry as well as an economic stimulus bill that likely spared the country a deeper recession. Many CEOs now are enjoying hefty corporate profits and a Dow at healthy levels in part because of Obama’s efforts in steering the economy through the global meltdown, administration officials contend.
But the stakes for Obama couldn’t be higher, economically or politically, in rebuilding relations. Cooperation with the business community is vital for job growth and economic recovery. Expanding trade and cutting the deficit, two other Obama priorities, will require Republican votes — which the business community could deliver.
David Cote, the chief executive officer of Honeywell Corp. and a supporter of the White House policies, said gains can occur with a concerted effort by the administration.
“The administration is being thoughtful about getting input. You will see more outreach,” said Cote, who recently traveled with Obama to Asia to highlight trade and serves on the White House deficit commission. “I find it hard to believe people in the business community will turn a deaf ear to that. I don’t view that as being unrecoverable.”
In September, Obama called for deep investments in infrastructure projects. He also proposed expanding and permanently extending the research and development tax credit and allowing businesses to write off 100 percent of the expenses for new plants and other investments immediately — three items on the business community's wish-list for years.
Other administration officials are also reaching out.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met privately with Chamber President Tom Donohue during the White House Asia trade trip and appeared before the Chamber’s board a week after the midterms — a striking departure from a White House-Chamber feud that briefly grabbed headlines last year and during those very same elections.
On Dec. 8, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are scheduled to meet with the Business Roundtable, an association that includes the CEOs of the nation’s largest companies.
But there have been some bumps along the way.
Last week, Treasury’s Gene Sperling appeared at a retreat for technology executives. “He expressed a desire to work closely,” said one attendee. “Then, when we brought up the issue of repatriation [the opportunity for corporations to bring overseas earnings back to the U.S. at lower tax rates], he openly showed frustration with us for just bringing the subject up.”
It’s a complaint heard often from the business community. “Access isn’t the issue. The question is: Where is the delivery?” said one corporate representative who, like others, sought anonymity to speak freely.
Greg Brown, CEO of Motorola and an administration ally, said the White House had to take necessary but politically difficult steps to stabilize the economy. But he also noted, “Now that we are moving from stability to growth, I think there is an acknowledgment that the relationship needs to get closer and we collectively need to find common ground.”
To achieve that, the White House must overcome a hefty wariness in the business community about Obama’s populist bent that exploded into open warfare during the midterms when wealthy individuals and corporations spent more than $200 million trying to defeat Democrats.
“The amount of money they spent was rather stunning,” said an administration official.
One of the most striking break-ups of 2010 was between Obama and the Business Roundtable.
From the start of his administration, Obama framed the coalition of CEOs as the grown-up alternative to the Chamber. In turn, the Roundtable CEOs made a conscious decision to try to work with the White House.
But as final negotiations over health care heated up earlier this year and several of their concerns were left unresolved, frustrated voices dominated the monthly CEO meetings. They grew even louder when the White House turned to Wall Street regulatory reform.
Still, the CEOs voted in February, March, April and May to stay at the table. In June, they gave up.
Why? The infamous consumer watchdog office? The new health care mandates? No, say insiders familiar with internal discussions, the roundtable walked away because of a group of technical fixes to the health care and Wall Street reform laws they sought — and in some cases were assured would be done — that never got done.
For instance, one provision they wanted deleted from the Wall Street bill gives labor leaders and other minority shareholders a chance to change the way corporate boards are formed — viewed as a “poke in the eye” by the Roundtable’s CEOs.
Another removed a tax incentive for providing retiree drug coverage, which roundtable officials warned would increase Medicare costs and force companies that dropped the coverage to publicly restate their earnings because of the lost tax breaks.
When several did, the headlines that followed linking their action to the reform bill prompted a profanity-laced call from former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and threats of hearings on Capitol Hill. And a third curbed corporate trading of special purpose derivatives, a long-standing revenue-generating mechanism that wasn’t related to the highly speculative trading that led to the economic collapse.
“These weren’t issues that got the president any votes or political leverage,” said one insider to the conversations. “These were issues that demonstrated that this administration doesn’t get it. It’s like talking to your dog.”
The Roundtable’s Schneider conceded that “the tone and tenor of the dialogue wasn’t as collegial as one might have hoped.” But she said the trade group kept up a dialogue with the White House and that several Roundtable CEOs were on Obama’s recent Asia trip, which became “an important relationship-building effort.”
Other executives complain that the White House continually promised a “hard pivot” to job creation and the economy that never fully materialized, at least not in a way that made corporate America feel it could be part of the solution.
“There was no challenge to come work together for a common purpose,” one executive said. “There was never a call for weekly conference calls with the president and demands to go get stuff done. That’s the power he has as president. And instead they kept pushing people away.”
The way Jarrett sees it, the White House was dealt a bad economic hand and had no choice but to move aggressively with legislation that had sweeping and intrusive impacts on the private markets — a course Obama had not necessarily advocated when he launched his presidential bid before the economic meltdown.
As a consequence, the business community had a lot to digest about what exactly the Obama administration meant to them, which created some uncertainty about the course ahead.
Now that the administration is drafting the regulations to implement the reform laws, White House officials said, tensions should ease as business leaders see that they are coordinating to ensure there are no unintended consequences.
Jarrett also said trade, tax reform, deficit reduction and education are all areas where the business community and the White House share common ground and could join ranks for action.
Brown, of Motorola, said it will take “compromise, conviction and courage” for both parties to make the changes necessary to improve the economy and create a robust job environment.
“The fact of the matter is these are tough times, politically charged and very emotional. As a country, there is no easy formula or short cut here. This is tough stuff,” he said.
“We’re coming out of a dark tunnel, and it’s been hard. It’s been hard on everybody, the public and private sector. Now, we need to lock and go.”
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
