(Akiit.com) It was only a matter of time before the enshrined celebrity tabloid obsession would ensnare the Obama family. They have been ripe for the pickings of a media that for the past two decades has successfully parlayed gossip, innuendo, rumor, half-truths and outright lies into a hugely profitable growth industry. New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor put the capper on the media industry’s swap in kinky titillation by bagging a reported seven-figure deal to write a juicy tell all book about the president and her special target, First Lady Michelle Obama. The White House lightly pushed back against the gossipy tripe with a carefully guarded statement that blew off the book’s revelations as “old news.”

This won’t stop the tongues from wagging about it as if the gossip from the dozens of the unnamed sources cited on the purported inner workings of the White House is the paragon of truth and accuracy. It’s another case of flim-flamming the public into taking a voyeuristic look into the alleged squabbles, fights, bickering, and confusion, with a strong hint of dysfunctionality that supposedly reigns between the president, Michelle and staff members. The cover to sell the tabloid hit-job on the Obamas is that the alleged personal foibles and quirks of the Obamas in some way has some bearing on the weighty matters of politics and public policy. But that’s what the book tries to do. It ridicules a Halloween party in which Michelle wore a leopard-print sweater, cat ears and sparkly eye makeup.

This supposedly is a prime example of extravagance, frivolity, and plain goofiness that supposedly goes on behind the White House doors. The proof of this is that Obama supposedly hid the party from the press and the public. They didn’t. The press corps were invited, and the party was for the children of military personnel. What does this or any of the other gossipy tales about the Obamas have to do with administration policy and decision-making about job creation, deficit reduction, immigration reform, the war on terrorism, the Afghan war, the European debt crisis, environmental and labor protections, and transportation polices, is anybody’s guess. But that’s irrelevant anyway. The point is to tantalize the public and belittle the administration. The timing that this purported tell-all-stuff hit is no accident. It comes as the 2012 presidential campaign kicks into high gear, and this ensures that it’s even more fodder for the GOP political sleaze machine oiled by right-wing bloggers, talk show hosts, and websites that delight in spewing out the litany of race baiting slurs and lies about the Obamas.

News editors, TV executives, and publishers insist that the alleged foibles and peccadilloes of celebrities, even those that wear the mantle of the presidency, and now in the case of Michelle, their wives, are fair game for exposure. They are public figures and there is no such thing as privacy when that’s the case. This is bunkum. Their only interest is how high ratings can be shoved upward, and how many newspapers and books can be sold in mining journalistic muck.

News gathering is, of course, a business and it’s certainly well established that sensational news, manufactured or otherwise, sells more than any other news. The rash of books on presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and most recently with Nixon, as with The Obamas, that purport to tell all about their foibles, insecurities, the behind the scenes squabbles and domestic or sexual quirks, are guaranteed to be big hits and will almost always translate into jingling cash registers at book stores, and in online sales. By contrast, a book about the inside debates and deliberations in a White House over a job or health care bill or a foreign policy issue is guaranteed to draw snores from the public and gather dust on bookstore shelves.

The only difference between The Obamas and the latest frivolities and inanities about the Kardashians is that publishers make no pretense that they are informing or educating the public about any vital public policy issue. It’s just pure titillation, and industry flacks cull the most lurid and prurient quotes and anecdotes from the books and stories on them to grab a headline or a sound bite.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) Entering 2012, President Barack Obama’s re-election prospects are essentially a 50-50 proposition, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. It found that most Americans say the president deserves to be voted out of office even though they have concerns about the Republican alternatives.

Obama’s overall standing in the poll suggests he could be in jeopardy of losing re-election even as the survey showed that public’s outlook on the economy appears to be improving. For the first time since spring, more people said the economy got better in the past month than said it got worse. The president’s approval rating on unemployment shifted upward – from 40 percent in October to 45 percent in the latest poll – as the jobless rate fell to 8.6 percent last month, its lowest level since March 2009.

But Obama’s approval rating on his handling of the economy overall remains stagnant: Thirty-nine percent approve and 60 percent disapprove.

Heading into his re-election campaign, the president faces a conflicted public. It does not support his steering of the economy, the most dominant issue for Americans, or his overhaul of health care, one of his signature accomplishments, but it also is grappling with whether to replace him with Republican contenders Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.

The poll found Americans were evenly divided over whether they expect Obama to be re-elected next year.

For the first time, the poll found that a majority of adults, 52 percent, said Obama should be voted out of office while 43 percent said he deserves another term. The numbers mark a reversal since last May, when 53 percent said Obama should be re-elected while 43 percent said he didn’t deserve four more years.

Obama’s overall job approval stands at a new low, with 44 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. The president’s standing among independents is worse: Thirty-eight percent approve while 59 percent disapprove. Among Democrats, the president holds steady with an approval rating of 78 percent while only 12 percent of Republicans approve of the job he’s doing.

“I think he’s doing the best he can. The problem is the Congress won’t help at all,” said Rosario Navarro, a Democrat and a 44-year-old truck driver from Fresno, Calif., who voted for Obama in 2008 and intends to support him again.

Robin Dein, a 54-year-old homemaker from Villanova, Pa., who is an independent, said she supported Republican John McCain in 2008 and has not been impressed with Obama’s economic policies. She intends to support Romney if he wins the GOP nomination.

Obama, she said, “spent the first part of his presidency blaming Bush for everything, not that he was innocent, and now his way of solving anything is by spending more money.”

Despite the soft level of support, many are uncertain whether a Republican president would be a better choice. Asked whom they would support next November, 47 percent of adults favored Obama and 46 percent Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. Against Gingrich, the president holds a solid advantage, receiving 51 percent compared with 42 percent for the former House speaker.

The potential matchups paint a better picture for the president among independents. Obama receives 45 percent of nonaligned adults compared with 41 percent for Romney. Against Gingrich, Obama holds a wide lead among independents, with 54 percent supporting the president and 31 percent backing the former Georgia congressman.

Another piece of good news for Obama: People generally like him personally. Obama’s personal favorability rating held steady at 53 percent, with 46 percent viewing him unfavorably. About three-quarters called him likable.

The economy remains a source of pessimism, though the poll suggests the first positive movement in public opinion on the economy in months. One in five said the economy improved in the last month, double the share saying so in October. Still most expect it to stay the same or get worse.

“I suppose you could make some sort of argument that it’s getting better, but I’m not sure I even see that,” said independent voter John Bailey, a 61-year-old education consultant from East Jordan, Mich. “I think it’s bad and it’s gotten worse under (Obama’s) policies. At best, it’s going to stay bad.”

Despite the high rate of joblessness, the poll found some optimism on the economy. Although 80 percent described the economy as “poor,” respondents describing it “very poor” fell from 43 percent in October to 34 percent in the latest poll, the lowest since May. Twenty percent said the economy got better in the past month while 37 percent said they expected the economy to improve next year.

Yet plenty of warning signs remain for Obama. Only 26 percent said the United States is headed in the right direction while 70 percent said the country was moving in the wrong direction.

The president won a substantial number of female voters in 2008 yet there does not appear to be a significant tilt toward Obama among women now. The poll found 44 percent of women say Obama deserves a second term, down from 51 percent in October, while 43 percent of men say the president should be re-elected.

About two-thirds of white voters without college degrees say Obama should be a one-term president, while 33 percent of those voters say he should get another four years. Among white voters with a college degree, 57 percent said Obama should be voted out of office.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) We’ve watched the Republicans dropkick President Obama for months now… the ones in Congress, the pundits on FOX, the wannabee candidates (Palin and Trump), and the gonna be candidates for the Republican nomination in the 2012 election. The race to get beat by Obama has been a funny one. Mean, but funny. It’s funny to watch eight people try to dropkick the President while trying to dropkick each other. Their party hasn’t done anything to help them as Republican obstructionism has become the failing mark of American politics lately. It’s about to be on though, as the American public get their turn to dropkick somebody. We’ll see what kinda impression they make in Iowa.

The Republicans finally played themselves last week when the House tried to dictate to the Senate after the upper house left for Christmas vacation. The House threatened not to pass the bi-partisan Payroll Tax extension passed by the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said “Go for it. We ain’t comin back in session.” With the eyes of the world on the House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner, who had been walked out on a plank several times by the Tea Party activists—Particularly Rep. Eric Kantor (whom he can’t control)—finally grabbed his nuts and came on in the house and told his party to “Shut da f*#k up,” while he announced the House was signing the bill. The Republican Party is on the verge of imploding in Congress, and they want to lead the country? Not even the Republican candidates for President can figure out this Congress, so what signal could they be sending to the American public?

What makes the Republican primary candidates interesting to watch is waiting to see which one says the most outlandish comments, knowing someone else is going to try to top it. I must say that the campaign has been a lot less entertaining since Herman Cain left. Cain was good for at least two five star dumb gaffes a week, followed by Rick Perry’s one, Mitt Romney’s “me too,” Ron Paul’s “what for,” Newt’s “It wasn’t me,” and Michelle Bauchmann’s “Partridge in a pear tree” stare. Without Cain to “set it off” we now see the candidates turning on each other and ideas about solving problems falling by the wayside. Funny how they can ignore the foolishness going on in Congress (for the most part) but can focus on President Obama for not providing leadership in Washington. What would they do with a Tea Party led Congress? Well, we’d know what Newt would do, but the rest would have no solution for legislative obstructionism. So stop frontin.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) Even before President Obama publicly announced that he would tap Eric Holder for Attorney General, he knew Holder would be a tough sell job. So he quietly asked key Senate Republicans whether they would go to war to block his confirmation. The GOP response was at best a tepid, and a far from satisfactory no.

The last thing Obama needed was a bitter, partisan, and contentious fight over Holder. Yet during the confirmation hearing, Holder was grilled over his role as Deputy Attorney General in Bill Clinton’s administration in a handful of controversial Clinton pardons.

The panel also dug at him for lobbying on behalf of telecom giant Global Crossing after the company went belly up in 2002. Global Crossing incurred millions in debt. The Republican National Committee first brought this up and claimed it would push to make it a campaign issue in the 2008 election, because Holder was an advisor to the Obama campaign. The RNC didn’t say just what the issue was. It didn’t matter since the issue was really to hit Holder, on any and everything it could to sully Obama.

Then there was the Elian Gonzalez case. In 1999 Cuban leaders in Florida were furious at Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno for enforcing a court order requiring that the 6-year-old Gonzalez be removed from his relatives’ home in Miami’s Little Havana and returned to Cuba. Holder took some heat for enforcing the court order.

The same year Holder drew more fire for his role in approving the clemency request for 16 members of the radical Puerto Rican independence group FALN, convicted of a string of terrorist bombings and murders. The FBI, Bureau of Prisons and U.S. state attorneys opposed clemency for the 16. Holder refused to comment on what part he played in the clemency action. This charge against him also went nowhere.

Holder was overwhelmingly confirmed as AG. But there was always the sense that GOP leaders were just watching, waiting, and marking time until they could pounce on him again. He was clearly seen as a pawn in their relentless attack plan on Obama. If they could discredit, taint, and tarnish Holder for even the most picayune act, it would be another slap at Obama.

Since the GOP got back in the saddle in the House, Holder was back in their gun sights. The issue is Holder’s alleged duplicity in the botched ATF’s Mexican gun sting operation “fast and furious.” The issue is just as partisan politically vengeful as the other GOP ploys to taint Obama through Holder.

The ATF gun sting is nothing new. Former President W. Bush’s DOJ ran a similar gun sting a year before Obama took office. The program resumed in 2010 with no evidence that Holder knew all the details or the problems with the sting operation. Many of which as he testified were not disclosed to him by operatives. The program ultimately was not a DOJ operation but a local law enforcement program that should have drawn fire but should not have been blown up into a manic partisan crusade against Holder.
Read The Full Story…

(Akiit.com) The NAACP has been collecting information about early voting advocacy by black churches in Florida, hoping to convince the Justice Department to strike down a slew of new state voting laws it claims are intended to thwart growing minority participation at the polls ahead of next year’s presidential election.

In a report released Monday, the NAACP argues that the new laws amount to a coordinated and comprehensive assault on minorities’ voting rights at a time when their numbers in the population and at the ballot box have increased.

NAACP President Ben Jealous said he personally delivered a copy of the report over the weekend to Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, who oversees the agency’s civil rights division. Jealous said the NAACP wants to diligently document how the laws affect African Americans and Latinos, and provide the attorney general ample evidence for finding the laws unconstitutional.

Several states have passed laws requiring voters to present specific types of photo identification and proof of citizenship to vote; creating new rules for voter registration drives; reducing early voting days and voter registration periods; and further preventing ex-felons from voting. The NAACP refers to these in its report as “block the vote” tactics.

“In some ways, these tactics are not Jim Crow. They do not feature Night Riders and sheets … This is in fact, James Crow, Esq.,” said the Rev. William Barber, NAACP North Carolina president and a pastor. ” … Jim Crow used blunt tools. James Crow, Esq. uses surgical tools, consultants, high paid consultants and lawyers to cut out the heart of black political power.”

For example, a law passed in Florida reduced its early voting period from 14 to 8 days, including the last Sunday before Election Day.

In 2008, 54 percent of black voters in Florida cast their ballots early, and blacks comprised 32 percent of the entire statewide turnout on the last Sunday before the election, said Ryan Haygood, director of political participation for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

“It’s widely known in Florida that black churches would organize what they called ‘Get Your Souls to the Polls’ where they urged their members, after fulfilling their spiritual duties on Sundays to discharge their civic ones by voting,” Haygood said.

Florida’s black and Latino populations grew during the past decade, inching it closer to being a majority-minority state.

Jealous said the NAACP also will send its report to other federal agencies, secretaries of state and attorneys general in the 50 states, congressional committees and the United Nations. The NAACP holds special status with the U.N. that allows it to make presentations to a committee overseeing race and discrimination.

Asked about the report, the Justice Department cited a copy of a speech Perez gave last Thursday. In the written speech Perez said several of the states’ laws are being reviewed for compliance with protections for minority voting rights under the Voting Rights Act. Perez said those states bear the burden of showing the new laws are not intentionally discriminatory and will not have a retrogressive effect.
Read The Full Story…