"My suggestion was that we be consistent with that strategy and start talking to outlets like FOX and the Wall Street Journal.'

The foregoing is a quote from Palin's book. It illustrates why she should not be anywhere near the White House. She wanted to eschew an interview with Katie Couric on CBS because she failed to realize that Republicans had already secured the votes of most of the Fox and Journal audience. She needed to expose herself to a wider audience. Of course, she also failed to realize that at its lowest rating's ebb during the Presidential campaign season, CBS's ratings still exceeded those of any cable news outlet (and still does).

Obama won't back down to Korea

TOKYO -- President Obama slapped down North Korea today with a stern warning that the United States and its Asian partners "will not be cowed" by the hermit kingdom's continued defiance over nuclear weapons.

"Respect cannot be earned through belligerence," Obama told an audience of 1,500 prominent Japanese during a 40-minute address.

"It should be clear where that path leads," he added vowing to "continue to send a clear message through our actions, and not just our words: North Korea's refusal to meet its international obligations will lead only to less security, not more."

But the president took a different tack with China, welcoming the nation's ascendance on the world stage.

"We welcome China's efforts to play a greater role on the world stage, a role in which their growing economy is joined by growing responsibility," he said.

Obama also said China's growth is not to be feared.

"In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another," he said.

Earlier the president and Japanese Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama vowed to revitalize their strained security alliance as they adapt to a rising China, which is set to overtake Japan as the world's No. 2 economy.

But they left unresolved a feud over a US military base on Okinawa that has frayed Washington's ties with Hatoyama's government.

"I told him that the US-Japan alliance is the cornerstone of everything," Hatoyama said after their summit. "But given the changing times and global environment, I would like to deepen the alliance and create a new US-Japan alliance that is constructive and future oriented."

Obama, on his first Asian tour as president, agreed.

"Our alliance will endure, and our efforts will be focused on revitalizing that friendship so that it's even stronger and more successful in meeting the challenges of the 21st century."



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internation...N#ixzz0Wr98mSSG

Haha! He knows from whence he came!

I'm still laughing at her claim she did Couric because her staff told her Couric had "low self-esteem."

What bullshit. Why not just admit she didn't bother to take the gig seriously and prepare?

Its what the McCain camp claims. And whom I believe.

Really the GOP in 2012 have some real winners. You have Mitt Romney, the self-proclaimed new Reagan who was a pro-choice Governor and oversaw a mandated health care system in his state much similar to that Obama is trying to get passed for the country. The social conservatives hate him for being pro-choice/pro-life, whatever is political convenient. Oh and that Mormon thing too.

Then you have Mike Huckabee. Likeable enough (if too right-wing) guy, the wingnut activists love him, but Wall Streets distrusts him on the level of whether in 1961 you would want to leave your daughter alone with JFK. Also Jon Stewart "made him," so that'll be used against him.

Oh and the only Palin funnier than Michael.

Now I guess '12 could be a dark horse that comes in to take that party's nomination. Because Romney could easily (i.e. probably would) end up as the Republican John Kerry. Huckabee is nice, but I honestly don't see him as a President. Not a knock necessarily, just my impression. And Palin...she could end up being a Walter Mondale 1984. A choice between something or nothing. Something always wins.

And I didn't mention Tim Pawlenty because fuck him.

Mondale '84, or Geraldine Ferrara '84? Same difference.

The Republican party would be insane to back her, and I don't think they will. There's a chance it will get ugly (like Obama-Hillary), but I don't think Palin is a serious enough threat/contender for it to get to that point.

I think Huckabee/Jindal would be a competitive ticket. Like you say, Huckabee is likeable enough, and Jindal has that young guy thing going on for himself. But if lower income, white Americans wouldn't vote for Barack "Hussein" Obama, will they vote for Piyush Jindal? I doubt it. Plus, the guy has all the personality of a lanced boil.

Probably not the best look he could have gone for.
He's getting clowned for this by people across the political spectrum.

He's just respecting another culture. Since when is that a bad thing?

I admit, Obama is having a tough go of it in a lot of areas, but for the talking heads to get on him about this is just silly.

It's not in and of itself a bad thing per se. It's not as bad as vomiting all over the Prime Minister for example or getting a kiss from the Saudi King.

But my understanding is that the President isn't supposed to bow to anyone. In any event the image fits perfectly into an ugly narrative about the President which his political enemies have been honing for quite some time. He has to be careful about such things.

To paraphrase Vito, "Men, women and children can be careless, not the President".

That is absolutely true. We discussed this a bit when Obama bowed before Saudi royalty.

Im not sure where to put this, so I'll stick it here.

Mike Lupica, who should stick to sports writing, because his political views are slightly to the left of Meathead's, from "All in the Family," was atypically dead-on this morning in his article about the 9/11 trial and how it shouldn't take place in New York City. As a New Yorker, I happen to agree with him.


Evil 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should not be given the stage he seeks

Mike Lupica - News

DALLAS - They never got to try Lee Harvey Oswald here on Houston and Main, in the old courthouse they've turned into a museum.

It is a block away from what was once called the Texas School Book Depository, the place where Oswald was the terrorist 46 years ago this week, sitting in that window and shooting President John F. Kennedy in the head.

"They tried Jack Ruby in the old County Courthouse," a man named Michael Livingston said Sunday, standing next to a fountain in Dealey Plaza. "And I'm sure they would have tried Oswald there if they could have."

Now, all this time later in New York, there is to be a trial for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan Federal Court, a few blocks away from where 2,751 of our own died because of terrorism he is charged with masterminding. Not as close as Oswald would have been to the old Texas Depository, now known as the Dallas County Administration Building. Close enough.

This trial is supposed to be an example of how we are better than Mohammed and all fanatics like him, who stop off at courthouses on their way to the gates of hell.

We are to show Mohammed we are a country of law and justice, even though there are New Yorkers who think the only proper justice for this Mohammed would be a trip through certain neighborhoods of the city where he could try explaining to cops or fireman or family members of the victims of Sept. 11 what a mastermind he truly is.

Or maybe just a few hours in a bar in Brooklyn, explaining to some of the patrons why he's the real martyr here, why America is the enemy.

It wouldn't be enough. Frontier justice, "Dead or Alive" justice, is never enough, and never brings back the dead, could never make the world what we want it to be, which is the world of Sept. 10, 2001. We could never turn back the clock after Oswald and make it the day before Nov. 22, 1963. A fair trial in New York for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed doesn't change the worst day the city has ever had.

The other day, I was talking to a friend who lives downtown. He was there the day the planes hit, and got separated from his wife in the panic and chaos of the morning, neither one of them knowing if the other was safe, on the day when no one in America felt safe.

I asked if he wanted the trial here and he said, "Yes. Justice here. As close as possible to the scene of the crime." He was there that morning and I wasn't and he wants the trial for noble reasons, about the city and the country. But I don't. I don't want Mohammed to get the stage he has sought for years.

Not here.

I'm not sure how many other people who live in Manhattan and work in Manhattan want it, either. What do they really think about this? This is one where you want to hear the voice of the people. This is one where everybody deserves to be heard, because it was New York that got hit.

There are a hundred ways to look at this, of course. One of the reasons O.J. Simpson got acquitted of murder - I believe - is because he didn't get tried in Brentwood, the scene of his hideous, cowardly crime. But Mohammed isn't going to get off if he gets tried on the moon, or by a military tribunal, he's going to be convicted whether he defends himself or not.

Tim McVeigh blew up a building in Oklahoma City, murdered scores of innocents in the process. His trial was held in Denver. He got his fair trial and his justice there, McVeigh being afforded the rights of an American citizen, something Mohammed sure is not.

You can see the coverage of Mohammed already, and it isn't about the best of us, or even close. This is a trial that will dominate the city and hold it hostage and bring back the day and none of the dead. This bum will get the stage he wants and tell the city it is a target all over again.

Who wants that? We don't need a trial here to show him we're better than he is. New York showed him that eight years ago.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_evil_911_mastermind_.html#ixzz0WzvXKDLF

Was it in this thread?

I don't know exactly what posters mean when they type that the President isn't supposed to bow to anyone. The President can bow to anyone he wants to.

But why should he? Has any other President/King/Prime Minister of any other country ever bowed to anyone of our Presidents?

The President is not royalty; the Emperor of Japan is royalty and it is a common practice to bow to royalty.

No previous US President has bowed to the Emperor of Japan.
None of the other heads of state bowed to the Emperor.

Clinton ran into a little bit of hot water back in 94 when he appeared to be initiating a bow to the Emperor and was taken to task for it by the NY Times. The Chief of protocol said that "Americans do not bow" and that Clinton had not bowed.

I don't think is a huge deal. But it is funny to me. And as I predicted Obama's political enemies are today furiously frothing with outrage over this. I fully expect the picture to show up again at midterm elections.

Okay, the past several hours have resulted in a deluge of information regarding bows by US Presidents to not only foreign leaders and personalities. I mention just two of them that are making the rounds: Prsident Eisenhower bowing to the President of France Charles DeGualle in 1959 after a speech given by DeGualle, and President Nixon bowing (get this) to the Emperor of Japan Hirohito (the very Japanese Emperor who presided over the attack on Pearl Harbor) while on American soil (Alaska).

The Obama and Nixon greeting do not appear to be the same thing at all.
Nixon Bow?

The Obama picture looks bad. It appears to give off excessive deference rather than mutual respect. Politically that's not something which I think he needs right now.

Presidents are also not supposed to salute to U.S. military. Reagan started doing it in the '80's, presumably thinking he was playing a general or something, and it has continued ever since. I didn't see any GOPers getting all worked up about that.

Wouldn't that be a sign of respect also?

I think so. It was soon after Obama attended the summit in London. I'm guessing it was the early summer.

I'm sure there are instances of presidents bowing and I don't mean to imply that a president shouldn't show a suitable sign of respect. I don't mean to sound arrogant about a president not bowing as I would not and should not expect a world leader- or anyone for that matter- to bow before a US President.

We are not subjects, but free people, who have fought for the principles of freedom and equality. Bowing before those whose authority comes from birthright alone contradicts and insults the principles of equality. I think a handshake and a nod of the head would be fitting for the emperor. There's no need to bestow more reverence on him than he would a freely elected head of state.

I don't think the bow is earthshattering, and wouldn't mind it at all if the emperor bowed making it a mutual show of respect.

Members of the armed forces are required to salute the President. However, their command's orders about how to present that salute is a matter of command discretion. The Marines who greet the President's helicopter will follow their commands orders.

Lilo, you originally posted that "No previous US President has bowed to the Emperor of Japan." The picture of Nixon meeting Hirohito in Alaska is of Nixon bowing to the Emperor. As I posted above, the President can bow to whomever he wants to bow to and in the way he wants to without impugning anything. This Nation and its Presidents have enough quality and self-esteem to "endure" any attendant criticism. Right TB. It's not earthshattering.

Okay. Hell has indeed frozen over.

By Chris Ariens on Nov 17, 2009 07:49 AMIt's official.

Fox News' Major Garrett will interview Pres. Obama at 9:20pm ET tonight.

I never wrote it was earth shattering but it is funny. I should have written "No previous US president has ever kowtowed to the Emperor of Japan". My mistake..

White House at odds with bishops over abortion

WASHINGTON – The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill's attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage — even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid's bill is the worst he's seen so far on the divisive issue.

The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill. Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through the Senate.

So far, Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that beneficiaries' own premiums are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current federal restrictions on abortion funding.

Despite criticism, there were growing indications Reid would prevail on an initial Senate showdown set for Saturday night. He needs a 60-vote majority to advance the bill toward full debate, expected to begin after Thanksgiving and last for weeks. It's during that debate that the battle over abortion will be joined in earnest. Reid will need to clear other 60-vote hurdles before senators cast their final vote on the bill.

At the White House on Thursday, health reform director Nancy Ann DeParle praised Reid's effort to find a compromise on abortion.

"It was carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy," DeParle told reporters. Obama has said he wants the bill to remain neutral on abortion, and DeParle said Reid struck just the right balance.

But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid's "is actually the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."

He called it "completely unacceptable," adding that "to say this reflects current law is ridiculous."

The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.

In all cases, the money to pay for abortions would have to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries themselves, kept strictly separate from federal subsidy dollars. Government funds could be used for abortions only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother — reflecting a current law known as the Hyde amendment.

The Hyde amendment restrictions apply to Medicaid, military health care and the federal employee health plan. Many states provide abortion coverage to low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, but they must do so separately with their own funds.

Abortion opponents say Reid's bill circumvents Hyde. For example, they say that any funds a government insurance plan would use to pay for abortion would be federal funds by definition — even if the money comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries.

"All the money the government has starts out being private money," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "Once the government has them, they're federal funds."

The restrictive language passed by the House would forbid any health plan that receives federal subsidies from paying for abortions, except as allowed by the Hyde amendment. Women would have to purchase separate coverage for abortion services.

Abortion rights supporters say that fencing off government funds from private premiums would achieve the same goal, without forcing women to get special coverage for a legal medical procedure now routinely included in many private health insurance plans.

On the White House crashers-someone needs to lose their job over this.

Crashers

Actually I thought that was funny.

It shows that the security is deficient.

So did I.

If these two can make it past security, what the hell was the Secret Service doing??

The couple is claiming they weren't party crashers.
But this evidently isn't the first time they tried to get into an event where the President was without benefit of an invitation/vetting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_uninvited_guests

The Secret Service is around the President at all times. But the fact people who were apparently uninvited and didn't go through the correct background checks could shake hands with the President has to be an embarrassment to the Secret Service and White House staff. It shows that there is room for improvement in security-a lot.