"PREEZY" SETTING AN EXAMPLE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obama-campaigner-in-chief/2012/04/30/gIQATAfbsT_story.html?wpisrc=emailtoafriend

When Dana Milbank decides to call Obama out, you know he has really gone over the line.

I especially like the conclusion:

"Still, Obama’s acquiescence to an intolerable status quo raises a question: Shouldn’t presidential leadership be about setting an example?

Instead, he is erasing the already blurred lines between campaigning and governing. During his “official” speech to the union group Monday, he hailed Tim Kaine as “the next United States senator from the great commonwealth of Virginia,” and his partisan speech spurred audience members to shouts of “Vote ’em out!” and “Gotta throw ’em out!”

“Not everything should be subject to thinking about the next election instead of thinking about the next generation,” Obama said of the Republicans. “Not everything should be subject to politics.”

He should follow his own advice."

Shouldn't we expect the President to set a positive example? Shouldn't we expect the "preezy" to have an uplifting message for the country he governs? Or are the citizens of this country expected to accept our "campaigner in chief" vilifying segments of the population for his own political aggrandizement?

Oil speculators, the Presidents new villian

For your consideration. Yesterday President Obama came out with an anti-speculator speech, vilifying oil speculators. Absolute snake oil being sold to the clueless masses. The oil speculation commodities market is one of the most pure forms of capitalism you can experience in America.

The President made the case that the evil oil speculators are making millions while millions of Americans are suffering from high gas prices. What he fails to mention is that for every speculator who made millions, another speculator lost a similar amount. What the President failed to mention in his rush to judge the speculators is that the speculators are just as happy when the price declines as they are when the price increases. This is because speculators are able to speculate on the fall in demand as well as the increase in demand. They are able to speculate on the increase in supply as easily as they speculate on the decrease in supply. In fact, many speculators who purchased long positions before 9AM this morning lost a considerable amount of money when the price of oil dropped precipitously later in the day. Currently, the price of oil (WTI -- May delivery) is more than $1.50 per barrel lower than it was at this time yesterday.

I find it very ironic that the President is willing to spend $52 MILLION DOLLARS to pay for a watchdog group to look into a pure market when he has his Department of Energy speculating as venture capitalists, and piss poor ones I might add, in extremely questionable green energy projects.

Perhaps the President should stay out of the energy business, tell his bureaucrats tom approve the exploration and recovery leases on public lands and allow the market to work without his interference. If he were to do so, he wouldn't have to look for a new scapegoat for his failed policies.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/04/11/obamas-ten-worst-energy-policies/