It’s obviously praiseworthy and reassuring that the current White House engages with both its leftwing critics and its rightwing critics. The stark contrast in this regard and others with the previous White House makes it even more refreshing. To characterize that as a “‘one message is diversity’ diktat,” or to claim the President is “selling the Oval Office” any time he meets with someone you don’t like, puts you into a parallel universe far from reality – the universe of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

Also, it feels good to defend, or criticize, Obama’s actions on their own merits, and judged by our own objective standards, without stooping to compare him with his execrable predecessor or point out the mindboggling double standards employed by most of his critics. Granted, the latter two tacks are often irresistible, but they should always be the FROSTING on the cake, and we should never omit the CAKE of defending or criticizing Obama on his own merits. (Sometimes you DO see nothing but frosting, on the Liberal OC for example, and sometimes even from Olbermann. But friend Crowley hallucinates that everywhere, to the degree that he only catches about half of my sentences and imagines nonexistent ones.)

Well, that’s enough for now, for this silly post.

Dude, going to someone’s house like George Will and bringing Keith “worst person in the world” Olbermann into the White House don’t even deserve mention in the same sentence. Quit trying to delude yourself.

If you think it has meaning for me to say that George Bush lessened the dignity of the Oval Office by inviting those pundits in, I would say sure. I would say George W Bush didn’t deserve to get re-elected, except that you Democrats couldn’t find anybody smarter than John Kerry to run against him. Who’s fault was that? Your obsession with my talking about George W Bush is only as interesting as it is obvious that you’re trying to lead the subject away from Barack Obama. I didn’t vote for Bush, ever, and I don’t vote Republican anymore than I do anything else. You, however, have to defend Democrats. One of us has risen above towing the party line. The other has not.

I can’t stand this “Oh, we have these problems because of George W Bush.” nonsense. We had George W Bush because we had Bill Clinton, and not enough people wanted a third Clinton term. So quit looking backward. Deal with now. You’ll be happier for it.

And yes, I am saying that Barack Obama can’t talk off the cuff. Everyone knows it. Everyone knows he brings the teleprompter everywhere. George W Bush didn’t have to do that and he was an idiot, right? What does that make Obama?

Let me see if I can perhaps phrase that more simply for you: It is hard to see how Obama is “selling the Oval Office to the left wing talkies” given the fact that he also spends plenty of time meeting with right wing talkies. Is it going to now be considered “selling the Oval Office” any time a President speaks with anybody? You stretch the facts to meaninglessness.

I like to think I can win these arguments with one hand tied behind my back, and that tied hand represents not mentioning the gobsmacking DOUBLE STANDARDS you people have when it comes to your favored leaders versus ours. It’s nearly irresistible to point that out, but I am not.

As far as this Dunne lady, I don’t know much about her. I watched your video, all ready to make excuses for her, but that speech (or that bit of it) really was in bad taste. I’d like to think she was being humorously provocative as you and I both sometimes are, but I don’t know her so I won’t speak for her.

I don’t actually know any “liberal arts professors” but I can see they are your bete noir. And I am still waiting to hear what is up with you guys and Obama and the teleprompter. Of course if you’ve read this comment as well as you read the last one, you probably think I just said “carpet muncher” and “George Bush.”

I am not here to talk about anything other than OBAMA selling the Oval Office to the left wing talkies and OBAMA having a senior advisor who thinks historys greatest mass murderer is an impressive philosopher.

You want to talk about George W Bush doing, you be my guess. You lefties seem to think that is an effective rhetorical tool. That is no more impressive than being able to spew the most facts on the tip of your tongue. Been spending too much time with liberal arts professors Vern.

Myself, I think the yawning chasm of silence from you about the topics of this piece, along with your effort to “change the subject” says all I need to say.

Let’s see, what else? What is it with you people and Obama’s teleprompter, I don’t get that. Are you suggesting he doesn’t speak well off the cuff, or think for himself? I think you’re on pretty shaky ground there, although I’m going to make a great effort to avoid the easy path of reminding everyone what an incoherent dolt your guy was.

Gotta go play for a fundraiser right now but I will certainly be back tonight. Youc an call me all the silly names you want, but when you accuse me of avoiding an argument, them’s fighting words!

Vern, you’re an idiot and a hater. The bigot is the one who uses races or gender or sexual orientation as a way of silencing opposition. It just shows the limitation of your bag o tricks.

I side with Stewie who screamed, “Who’s your daddy, bitch?”

A carpet-chewer is someone who reaches a state of blind fury and in his rage chews the carpet. An angry person, especially one who does it in public for effect.

This is from Prairie Home Companion, which might help you learn a little about the real American culture instead of feasting on nothing but MSNBC and PBS.

You parody yourself when you try to dismiss veiwpoints because you self-identify with one so-called victim group or another. Life should have taught you that doesn’t change the character of your actions.

Welcome back, now its time for school…

Of course Obama spent just as much time meeting with these left wing carpet chewers as he did with a gaggle of rightwing pundits at George Will’s house, but then, when we peruse a Crowley post we don’t really expect facts as much as we expect some colorful self-parody, no?

No big revelation. Following political protocol. Every time.

“Nobody’s quite clear by your post anonster… are Obama’s actions right or wrong?”

It is niether. It is politics. When republicans are in power they cater to their supporters including conservative media. Obama is no diffrent. What is the big revelation about his administration other than following political protocol when in power.

In a similar case of wasted energy, Los Angeles County is overstepping its bounds by wasting potentially millions of dollars for the sake of cronyism. Last year, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services procured for vendor services to operate the county’s GAIN case management services (essentially a welfare to work program). Two bids came in from the incumbent company (MAXIMUS, Inc.) and Policy Studies Inc. (PSI). The two companies were scored by a neutral third party, and PSI beat Maximus solidly in several categories, including performance and price. Maximus protested, but the findings were upheld on 3 levels and PSI was recommended by DPSS to receive the contract.

The Board of Supervisors disagreed. They rejected the recommendation with 3 votes. They claimed the process of consensus scoring somehow concealed bias from the DPSS, though no specific evidence of this bias was ever presented. Furthermore, this scoring process was documented as a valid process which had been used for years prior to 2008, and the same process whereby the incumbent Maximus had been recommended and awarded. The BOS then directed the DPSS to extend Maximus’ contract for 6 months while they reissue the RFP and devise a new scoring method.

The BOS also expressed some superficial concern that the cost of the contract may exceed county requirements (see County Prop A). Although language could’ve easily been built into the contract to ensure cost neutrality/savings, the BOS rejected that argument and asked DPSS to review their contract monitoring costs for possible reductions and eliminate or reduce pay for performance provisions that could drive up the overall contract cost should the vendor outperform expectations.

The reissue of this RFP makes no fiscal sense whatsoever, particularly given the dire state of California’s economy. What’s more, the state faces federal penalties to the tune of approximately $185 million if they do not meet a preexisting federal threshold. Why is the BOS insisting on spending MORE of our tax dollars in an effort to maintain their business relationship with Maximus – a company whose performance was scored lower and contract priced higher than PSI? (The county has estimated the cost to reissue the RFP to be $250,000). If PSI had been chosen, their contract would save the county over one million dollars annually. So why the hesitation?

An LA Times article from last year exposed just how entangled Maximus is with the BOS. In the first half of 2008, Maximus spent over $124,000 on two lobbying firms, more than doubling what they spent on marketing in the past year. Perhaps even more troubling, Maximus donated $1,000 (the maximum allowed) to the campaigns to reelect supervisors Don
Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich. They even gave $1,000 to two members whose terms had 2 years left to run.

In these lean times, something else must be motivating the board’s decisions, because it’s certainly not the bottom line.