Obama threatens bankers: I’m the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks

posted at 3:30 pm on April 3, 2009 by Allahpundit

Alinsky + Chicago = mob-tastic! My dad used to know guys like this growing up in lower Manhattan. Free advice from him to me to you: If you’re strapped for cash and one of them offers to help, decline.

President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”…

“The only way they could have sent a more Spartan message is if they had served bread along with the water,” says a person who attended the meeting. “The signal from Obama’s body language and demeanor was, ‘I’m the president, and you’re not.’”…

The president spoke of public outrage over the high flying executive lifestyle. “The anger gentlemen, is real,” Obama said. He urged pay reform and said rewards must be proportional and balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company.

Slublog sums it up: “So let me see if I’ve got this right. The Democrats helped cause the crisis through bad policy, fanned the flames of outrage against CEOs and Wall Street and are now saying they’re the only ones who can protect the CEOs from all of those angry people out there.” Indeed, and all they have to do to earn that protection is fire their CEO or whatever else The One demands. Refuse — and if you follow the link, you’ll see that some of them actually want to return their TARP money — and they risk a visit from Timmy the Chin.

Anyone recognize the phrase “the anger is real,” though? The last time Obama used it was in his speech on race to back off all the haters who thought, inexplicably, that a would-be president should have piped up about Reverend Wright sometime in the course of 20 years. Evidently it’s a favorite formulation when he wants to lean on his audience. In which case, if he’s so worried about pitchforks, instead of creepily exploiting the threat of mob violence to centralize the economy, how about our modern-day Lincoln gives a speech asking Americans to cool off before bailout fatigue leads to someone getting killed? After all, the anger really is real.

Update: Comments imported from Headlines.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

he’s experienced.

Experienced at what? Giving out billions of dollars to an insurance company without ever ONCE reviewing their book? Or learning of aspects of a deal that could potentially look politically, and choosing to ignore them, hoping no one will notice?

Fed45 on April 4, 2009 at 1:59 AM

Hey BARRY,
I’ve got your f’n pitchfork right here. No one of the left has access to a pitchfork, it’s a WORKING tool.

THE CHOSEN ONE on April 4, 2009 at 2:06 AM

(you want him to be trembling in front of those car execs or what?)

ummm actually, YES. Yes I do. Frankly, Barry couldn’t carry their jocks when it comes to intelligence, decision making, and management. Barry should be asking THEM questions on how to manage a company the size of the Fed Govt.

Fed45 on April 4, 2009 at 2:08 AM

The last time Obama used it was in his speech on race to back off all the haters

Oslime-a’s behavior only reinforces the hatred that the racists feel toward him. His every action proves to them that they were right when they said no black person could EVER be a great the leader of this country. That is absurd of course, and it doesn’t prevent me from feeling that he is the most despicable person of color that I have ever had the misfortune to have been exposed to. Perhaps had he run as an American instead of The Great Black Hope, Messiah, and not married a whitey hating militant black supremist wife, and not attended an America hating church, I could stand up and defend the guy. As it is, I’d just as soon he be thrown to the racist wolves and allow this country be called eternally racist, rather than watch him defame, degrade, and embarrass this great country one more time.

At least being accused of racism when it really doesn’t exist allows the free market to thrive where wise, motivated, and patriotic black, brown, and other minority Americans can and WILL still find equality and success in our country.

Eat shit and die Oslime-a! And take your liberal ilk with you.

csdeven on April 4, 2009 at 2:09 AM

Actually, I thought it was the law that protected bankers from the mob.

oh well…as T. Geithner said:

President Zedillo had this great line in his country’s moment of financial peril, when he said, you know, markets overreact, so policy has to overreact.

r keller on April 4, 2009 at 2:10 AM

Obama is the president, he told the bankers, so what? Thats his job, deal with it.

Hmmmmm.. actually, the Constitution is very clear and specific on what the President’s “job” is. I’ve read the Constiution again, just to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Nope. Can’t find what you describe as his “job” anywhere in the duties of the President. Care to cite your reference?

Fed45 on April 4, 2009 at 2:15 AM

Administration Seeks an Out On Bailout Rules for Firms Officials Worry Constraints Set by Congress Deter Participation Wow, they are totally determined to keep these banks in the program.

msmveritas on April 4, 2009 at 2:43 AM

“The anger is real.”

If the GOP doesn’t make that line the anchor of their 2010 campaigns nationwide, they will deserve to lose.

The only thing standing between the DC Dems and the pitchforks is the fall-on-our-swords media.

sulla on April 4, 2009 at 3:59 AM

Please protect us from the bitter clingers, Barack! Please protect us from TEH 3VIL NBREDS.

Black Adam on April 4, 2009 at 6:31 AM

No one can read the history of the Fannie Mae debacle and conclude the government was sitting passively by and “allowing” a crisis to brew.

nyes, but it’s unfair and incorrect to place all blame on F/F for the mortgage bubble, even thought it’s tru that democrats had a pretty lucrative relationship with them.

I think we can give Fannie and Freddie their due share of responsibility for the mess we’re in, while acknowledging that they were nowhere near the biggest culprits in the recent credit bubble. They may finance most of the home loans in America, but most of the home loans in America aren’t the problem; the problem is that very substantial slice of home loans that went outside the Fannie and Freddie box.

deregulation has been going on for a while, and as i’ve said before, it’s a bipartisan problem. summers played a key role in deregulation and he shares the blame for this mess too. i still trust the guy because at least he seems to understand what’s happening.

And again, why are we borrowing X trillion to keep an economy with a total value of far less than X afloat? What have we accomplished, other than push the pain of dealing with the crisis down the road onto future taxpayers – who will now have to pay the bill with interest?

yes, we’re borrowing a lot of money. consider this: if you had a major accident and needed a blood IV, i’d hope that the docs’ first priority would be to make sure that you get enough blood to survive, no matter how much it costs. once you survived, you can always find a way to pay back the debt. you’re still in a better position than being dead, no?

We had to pass all those bailout bills immediately, without the slightest pause for debate, remember?

when hank paulson kneels before nancy pelosi, and tells her with a trembling voice that the economy might not survive by monday, you get a certain sense of urgency to do something, right?

He almost destroyed the currency markets with an offhand comment last week.

that’s hyperbole. he suggested that in the future, he’d be open to the idea of an international reserve currency, which sent the dollar down, meaning that for a few minutes, it was cheaper to invest in america. horror!

And even if he was some sort of savant, his tax-cheat issue should utterly disqualify him from involvement in the government at any level.

since the tax cheat thing came about because obama’s hiring standards, which are much stricter then his predecessor’s, i’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt to these people. while it’s an awful example from our leaders, i think the tax issue is really just a red herring that has no bearing on geithner’s ability to do his job.

When Obama demands the resignations of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, I’ll believe he’s serious about “fixing” the financial system.

he doesn’t agree with you that if dodd and frank resigns, things will suddenly get better. he also needs every help he can get to work his agenda through congress. think of this as going to war and needing the help of your allies, even if some of them are unsavory. you have a greater task than reforming them.

And what, exactly, is “moronic” about the idea of a tax cut? The concept of returning people’s money to them is inherently stupid?

in general, i like low taxes. however, we’re in a depression on a scale which we’ve experienced only once, in the 1930s. the ridiculed NYT article linked in the headlines yesterday described the ways countries worked their way out of the slump: through large-scale government projects. if you drain government of revenue at this time and reduce spending (which may seem prudent at first) you get the hoover effect.

That’s really a better “stimulus” than a tax cut whose effects would be felt immediately, producing positive changes in the very next budgetary quarter of the affected businesses?

tax cuts will not have as much per-dollar effect as stimulus done the right way. this is an established fact:

Nonrefundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.02
Refundable Lump-Sum Tax Rebate 1.26
Payroll Tax Holiday 1.29
Across the Board Tax Cut 1.03
Accelerated Depreciation 0.27
Permanent Tax Cuts
Extend Alternative Minimum Tax Patch 0.48
Make Bush Income Tax Cuts Permanent 0.29
Make Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Permanent 0.37
Cut Corporate Tax Rate 0.30
Extend Unemployment Insurance Benefits 1.64
Temporarily Increase Food Stamps 1.73
Issue General Aid to State Governments 1.36
Increase Infrastructure Spending 1.59

i thought this might help a fact based discussion.

Feel free to cite a few reasons we should think he’s clearly not incompetent. Best Transition Evah, right?

well, he beat the clintons, for which i will forever and ever be grateful to him – we dodged a bullet there. the transition wasn’t without bumps, but a lot of the issues arose from the fact that his ethics standards are higher than his predecessors. he has not suffered a legislative loss, yet; mostly everything he’s so far wanted from congress, they’ve passed… they’re going after rush limbaugh because they know that congressional republicans will be scrambling to be loyal to rush, who in turn drags their popularity down (congressional republicans are at 8% right now…). this means less effective resistance to his plans. how much credibility do congressional republicans have left? close to zero. so that, for one, is competent.

I want him humble before the citizens he serves.

humility is not part of the president’s job description. i want him to be effective – whether he’s arrogant or humble.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM

The best part? This is said the same day he criticized his own country for being “arrogant”. Yeah, nothing arrogant about this pitchfork statement though, huh Barry?

RightWinged on April 4, 2009 at 9:00 AM

ummm actually, YES. Yes I do. Frankly, Barry couldn’t carry their jocks when it comes to intelligence, decision making, and management.

Fed45 on April 4, 2009 at 2:08 AM

you want him to tremble just like that wimpy second-rate actor trembled in front of PATCO.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 9:27 AM

I need my bank. I don’t need Obama.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 4, 2009 at 9:35 AM

but it’s unfair and incorrect to place all blame on F/F for the mortgage bubble,

deregulation has been going on for a while, and as i’ve said before, it’s a bipartisan problem.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Again, here we have the misguided opinion that the problem is that the collapse happened in the first place. Blaming it on deregulation etc.

These kind of collapses are going to happen. The real problem is the attitude from you and others that we MUST bail these guys out! It’s total bullshit! The free market understands the concept of risk verses return. It regulates itself when it screws up IF WE ARE WISE ENOUGH TO LET IT! If the deregulation is bad for the industry, then the industry will police itself. But here we are blaming F/F and others on one hand and bailing them out on the other. They KNOW that the sheeple are scared, they have the politicians in their pockets, and can force change in policy by squeezing the money flow for reelection campaigns.

Does anyone get it that there is a reason Oslime-a has responded to this by using FDR’s model from the depression? He is simply playing on the attitude that certain chicken shit Americans have that they need the government to save them.

For F**KS SAKE! If we would let all these companies fail, the ones who take there place will NEVER take on packaged investments when the true value of those investments are unknown.

VIOLA”!!!!!!!! Problem solved FOREVER and those of us who were wise enough to eschew those risky investments wont get stuck paying to bailout the asswipes who caused this mess!

csdeven on April 4, 2009 at 9:37 AM

i don’t care about contracts, they’re not the issue here. did the free market ensure that failure is not rewarded?

1. Contracts are based on the rule of law. The USA (until Jan. 2009) is based on the rule of law.

2. Are you concerned that the free market didn’t prevent Congress from getting pay raises and giving bonuses when they have been a total failure and are the ones responsible for the banks loaning money to those who couldn’t / wouldn’t pay it back?

katablog.com on April 4, 2009 at 9:57 AM

the transition wasn’t without bumps, but a lot of the issues arose from the fact that his ethics standards are higher than his predecessors.

1. You write as if the “transition” is over. Hint: It’s not. OweBama has failed to flush out the Treasury Dept. and many other agencies.

2. Ethical standards? Let see, We have 17 lobbyists in the government of the one who swore no lobbyists! We have a tax cheater as Secretary of the Treasury. We have an illegal Secretary of State. We are not allowed to ascertain if the President of the USA actually meets the constitutional requirements. Owebama is pals with Resko, Ayers and Rev. Wright. OweBamaNation has totally ignored the US Constitution (you know, that bothersome founding document) as he takes control of private businesses and forces US taxpayers to bail out private businesses.

Ah yes, ethics!

katablog.com on April 4, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Does anyone get it that there is a reason Oslime-a has responded to this by using FDR’s model from the depression?

the reason is that we are in a depression right now.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

The real problem is the attitude from you and others that we MUST bail these guys out!

the problem is that we have a really convincing argument, too.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM

the reason is that we are in a depression right now.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

LOL! First of all, you’re not citing an economist here, you’re citing an author and journalist blogger who is quoting a LAW professor.

Second, in the real Great Depression, unemployment was up near 25%. Right now it’s at about 8%. No comparison.

BTW, if you want to believe Posner, be my guest. But remember that he’s also the same law professor who convincingly proved in a book he wrote about 10 years ago that then-President Clinton didn’t commit felony perjury just once, but multiple times. In Posner’s legal opinion, Clinton should have been thrown into Federal prison for 30 to 37 months for his crimes.

Posner also concluded that Hillary was a willing accesory to Clinton’s crimes, and that Clinton’s staff and lawyers were also willing accomplices in his breaking the law repeatedly.

BTW, Posner is also a Federal Judge. His book was solely based on the evidentary evidence from the impeachment trial. In his book he also criticized Ken Starr, so he can’t be accused of having an anti-Clinton bias.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 10:45 AM

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 8:51 AM

Read the fine print on those numbers you give… those are the straightline effects… but do not take into account the fact that the money is BORROWED.

These would be the effects if the Government actualy had the money to spend… but borrowing, especialy with no real plan to pay it back turns any short term gain, into a long tern net decrease in the economy.

Treasury and the Fed Res Bank have now commited 12.5 TRILLION dollars to the bailouts. Thats reaching close to the yearly GDP of America…

The latest budget increases Federal Spending by almost 10%…

All that money HAS to come from somewhere… if its just printed? the Dollar tanks… which means we pay more in interest…

LAST year the interest on the National debt was close to 500 Billion…. which in amazingly close to what the Budget Deficit would have been pre bailout….

With the debt now on the books, which has DOUBLED the National debt in just a few months… we will pay over 1 TRILLION dollars just on INTERST on the debt next year.

Thats 1 Trillion dollars taken from the American for a totaly non productive cause…. its antistimulus if you will.

And as there is no real plan to pay this back? or deal with it? it continues to grow, which means more interest payments in the future.

To use your own analogy from earlier… you are pumping blood transfusions into a Bleeding victim, while not bothering to bandage the wound and stop the origional bleeding… or move him off the Bandsaw which is about to cut his leg off…

Romeo13 on April 4, 2009 at 11:15 AM

you’re not citing an economist here

if you really want me to make the effort

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 11:20 AM

friggin crook

johnnyU on April 4, 2009 at 11:20 AM

First of all, you’re not citing an economist here, you’re citing an author and journalist blogger who is quoting a LAW professor.

here

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Funny how your sources think Government spending is stimulative…

Unless its Defense or War spending, which is not…

Romeo13 on April 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM

you are pumping blood transfusions into a Bleeding victim, while not bothering to bandage the wound and stop the origional bleeding.

bandage & some bitter medicine.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM

First of all, you’re not citing an economist here, you’re citing an author and journalist blogger who is quoting a LAW professor.
here

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM

LOL! What’s a “Nobel Prize”? Oh, that’s right, that’s a meaningless award given to people like Algore and Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat. In any event, your “source” is lying when it says, and I quote:

Two time Nobel-prize winner and former chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz

There is NO Nobel Prize for economics. There is a “Memorial Prize in Economics” that is administered by the Nobel Foundation, but even they do not call it a Nobel Prize. Not that it would make any difference, as the Nobel Foundation has been a joke for years.

As for Stiglitz, he’s a Clintonista and also an O’bama advisor. No bias there. He was also fired by the World Bank.
Something else your “source” fails to mention.

Can you find a larger group of economists who agree with Stiglitz? If so, then we can talk.

BTW I noted in my previous reply Posner’s expose of the Clintons, and saw in one of your subsequent posts that you voted for the empty suit in 2008 as a vote against Hillary
Clinton.

But you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that the O’bama “Administration” is packed like a fruit cake with Clinton Administration hacks. In other words, except for the puppet at the top, this is Clinton Administration #3.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Can you find a larger group of economists who agree with Stiglitz?

Diagnosing depression

America’s GDP may have fallen by an annualised 6% in the fourth quarter of 2008, but most economists dismiss the likelihood of a 1930s-style depression or a repeat of Japan in the 1990s, because policymakers are unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the past. In the Great Depression, the Fed let hundreds of banks fail and the money supply shrink by one-third, while the government tried to balance its budget by cutting spending and raising taxes.

the economists.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Depression Dynamic Ensues as Markets Revisit 1930s.

Noted leftist radical says we’re in a depression.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM

the economists.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 12:24 PM

LOL! No, “The Economist”. And an unsigned, uncredited opinion to boot. Much of which is based on, as they admit, by

A search on the internet

And then they cite exactly ONE economist, and he’s not even in our own hemipshere. He’s from Australia.

I can just see you sitting there in your basement bedroom, frantically doing internet research on “Depression” to try and make your case. So far, you’re batting 0.000

Got any better material?

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 12:36 PM

the reason is that we are in a depression right now.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 10:18 AM

Never let a crisis go to waste, right?

Anyway, the stimulus will fail and for these reasons:

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/93473/The_selfdefeating_stimulus

“Stimulus is not part of the language of economics,” says Arizona State University economics professor Edward Prescott. I talked to Prescott just hours before Obama set the presidential pen to the stimulus bill. “There is an old, discarded theory that’s been tried and failed spectacularly, which is where that language of stimulus comes from.” The stimulus bill, Prescott told me, “is likely to depress the economy.” Not long after Obama wowed the nation with his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Edward Prescott traveled to Stockholm to receive a Nobel Prize, shared with his frequent collaborator Finn Kydland, “for contributions to dynamic macroeconomics: the time consistency of economic policy and the driving forces behind business cycles.” Which is to say, Prescott is one of his discipline’s most influential and authoritative voices on precisely those technical issues behind the stimulus debate.

God, it feels good to know what you’re talking about. You should try it some time.

venividivici on April 4, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Depression Dynamic Ensues as Markets Revisit 1930s.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM

From your cite:

Bradford DeLong, a former Treasury official who is now a professor at Berkeley, says a depression is a two-year period with unemployment at 10 percent or above. He says that’s possible, though not likely

Do you even read what you cut and paste before you post it?

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Noted leftist radical says we’re in a depression.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Thanks for the laugh.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Found some more O Ethics

W.H. team discloses TARP firm ties

Millions for Axelrod in sale of firm

Wow with ethics like these, how can you help but not respect the guy?

katablog.com on April 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks

Didn’t Obama’s mentor Soros hire the pitchforks?

entagor on April 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Do you even read what you cut and paste before you post it?

the random links i found through simple google search – per your request – make it obvious that depression is either here or not yet, depending on the definition. does that reassure you?

LOL! No, “The Economist”

genius.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Do you even read what you cut and paste before you post it?

the random links i found through simple google search – per your request – make it obvious that depression is either here or not yet, depending on the definition. does that reassure you?

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 1:23 PM

It doesn’t reassure me, because you didn’t answer my question.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 1:27 PM

BTW, just because you did a Google search is proof of nothing,as it’s a search engine with a Leftist bias. They’ll only let you find what they want you to find.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM

you didn’t answer my question

this is a fruitless discussion. it doesn’t matter whose definition you apply, because the numbers speak for themselves.

a search engine with a Leftist bias

thanks for the laugh.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM

csdeven on April 4, 2009 at 2:09 AM

The great thing about free enterpries is that the only color that really matters is green.

Johan Klaus on April 4, 2009 at 2:31 PM

First of all, you’re not citing an economist here, you’re citing an author and journalist blogger who is quoting a LAW professor.
here

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

Johan Klaus on April 4, 2009 at 2:41 PM

you didn’t answer my question
this is a fruitless discussion. it doesn’t matter whose definition you apply, because the numbers speak for themselves.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Translation: “I can’t answer Del’s question, so I will simply walk away from the debate”. Saul Alinsky would approve.

Whenever Leftists are confronted with facts they can’t refute, they laugh at them. Alinsky Tenet #4, as I recall.

As to Google’s Leftist bias, the search engine was started and run by Leftists in academia. And there’s plenty of evidence Google skews left-they have blocked conservative websites like Free Republic from their news stories, and they refuse to change their Google logo on Memorial Day while happily changing the logo to celebrate the birth of Leftist icons. One prime example is on the day when two fanmous people were born, Abe Lincoln and Charles Darwin; they chose to ignore Lincoln while celebrating Darwin.

And earlier this year, they blocked the Republican National Committee website, falsely claiming that said website “could be dangerous to your computer”.

And perhaps most damning-I’m sure you remember the famous Google Bombing incident when the words “miserable failure” in a Google search resulted in Dubyah;s name coming up. Google took 4 years to fix that.

Yet when the same Google Bomb replaced Bush with O’bama earlier this year, Google fixed it in a matter of days.

Want more?

Google chief executive Eric Schmidt endorsed O’bama last fall and was a technology adviser in his transition team. Schmidt and Google co-founder Larry Page each contributed $25,000 to the inauguration events. Last year, Google regularly blocked anti-O’bama articles as well.

And perhaps most daming, Google admitted that its staff picks and chooses what appears in its search results. In the past they claimed that the search results were generated by algorhythms.

In addition, Google came out againt Proposition 8 in California last year.

And I am just getting started, kid.

As you say, thanks for the laugh!

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 3:01 PM

page/brin 2016? (a fake certificate for brin shouldn’t be a problem.)

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 3:22 PM

From the Wall Street Journal

Google employees have contributed $487,355 to Sen. Obama’s campaign and $20,600 to Sen. McCain’s as of Aug. 31. Mr. Schmidt hasn’t donated to either.

Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have leaned liberal in their politics. Mr. Brin recently wrote a post on Google’s corporate blog stating the company’s opposition to a ballot initiative seeking to eliminate same-sex marriage in California.

In addition, last year Google routinely censored anti-O’bama blogging on its Blogger platform.

As the NY Times political blog reported at the time:

The bloggers in question, most of them supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and all of them opposed to Senator Obama, received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs. “You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog,” the Google e-mail read.

In an article that appeared on Bloggasm.com, the reporter Simon Owens spoke with some of the affected bloggers, who said they believed that Google had fallen prey to a campaign by activists supporting Senator Obama. According to the bloggers, the Obama supporters had clicked on a “flag” on the anti-Obama blogs alerting Google that they were spam.

And remember, Google owns youtube, which regularly shows content put out by terrorists.

Want more?

How big do you have to be to earn the wrath of the United Nations and Internet giant Google?

If you’re journalist Matthew Lee, all it takes are some critical articles and a scrappy little Web site.

Lee is the editor-in-chief, Webmaster and pretty much the only reporter for Inner City Press, a pint-sized Internet news operation that’s taken on Goliath-sized entities like Citigroup since 1987.

Since 2005, he’s been focusing almost entirely on stories that deal with internal corruption inside the U.N., posting several stores online almost daily.

He’s been especially interested in the inner workings of what could be called the practical-applications arm of the international organization, the United Nations Development Programme.

Many of Lee’s stories were featured prominently whenever Web users looked for news about the U.N. using the powerful Google News search engine, a vital way for media outlets both large and small to get their articles read.

But beginning Feb. 13, Google News users could no longer find new stories from the Inner City Press.

“I think they said, ‘If we can’t get this guy out of the U.N., let’s disappear him from the Internet,’” Lee said.

It began with an innocuous-sounding yet chilling form letter from Google to Lee, e-mailed on Feb. 8:

“We periodically review news sources, particularly following user complaints, to ensure Google News offers a high quality experience for our users,” it said. “When we reviewed your site we’ve found that we can no longer include it in Google News.”

BTW all of the examples I cite did not come from Google searches. How the hell could they?

Once again, I say thanks for the laugh!

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 3:25 PM

Google employees have contributed $487,355 to Sen. Obama’s campaign and $20,600 to Sen. McCain’s

meh. of course.

Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have leaned liberal in their politics.

blah. what did you expect? google is probably the only large american company whose CEO is not a republican. so cry me a river.

received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs.

if blogger decides that it won’t provide platform for vile and racist anti-obama propaganda, that’s a sound business decision in my view.

the affected bloggers, who said they believed

they also believed that obama was a marxist muslim antichrist and a bunch of other colorful fantasies.

If you’re journalist Matthew Lee, all it takes are some critical articles and a scrappy little Web site.

who the hell cares about this “disaffected failed journalist accusing net giant of making him irrelevant” story?

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 3:54 PM

After that piece of friendly advice, and his comments to Europe about how ugly and nasty the US is, I guess we can now say along with all of his other “firsts” Barack Hussein Obama; the first Anti-American President.

Mr. Grump on April 4, 2009 at 4:44 PM

That’s because his administration is at the front of the mob with the torches.
BadgerHawk on April 3, 2009 at 1:28 PM

With all due respect, community agitators are cowards. They stand in the back of the crowd with their bullhorns.

Aim small, miss small.
Mel Gibson, The Patriot.

bloviator on April 4, 2009 at 5:54 PM

When a man says stifly, “The anger, gentlemen, is real,” he’s expressing his own anger.

Kralizec on April 4, 2009 at 5:59 PM

He urged pay reform and said rewards must be proportional and balanced, and tied to the health and success of the company.

I thought a $1 salary and a bonus was a pretty tight standard.

Kralizec on April 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Google employees have contributed $487,355 to Sen. Obama’s campaign and $20,600 to Sen. McCain’s
meh. of course.

Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have leaned liberal in their politics.
blah. what did you expect? google is probably the only large american company whose CEO is not a republican. so cry me a river.

received a notice from Google last week saying that their sites had been identified as potential “spam” blogs.
if blogger decides that it won’t provide platform for vile and racist anti-obama propaganda, that’s a sound business decision in my view.

the affected bloggers, who said they believed
they also believed that obama was a marxist muslim antichrist and a bunch of other colorful fantasies.

If you’re journalist Matthew Lee, all it takes are some critical articles and a scrappy little Web site.
who the hell cares about this “disaffected failed journalist accusing net giant of making him irrelevant” story?

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 3:54 PM

LOL. Thanks for the laughs.

In reality, many CEOs (26% of them) supported O’bama. And one of them, Wide Open West CEO Colleen Abdoulah, forced the firm’s employees to listen to a pro-O’bama speech. I’m sure the CEOs of NBC, CBS and NBC all voted for him, as well as the CEO of PBS.

But you’re changing the subject, as we are talking about one CEO and one CEO only, the Google one.

BTW, thanks for admitting you advocate blog censorship. Josef Goebbels would be proud of you.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 6:20 PM

When the celebrations have died down, it will be easier to look at what actually happened in London with a cool eye. The summit participants took the easy way out. Their decision to pump a further $5 trillion (€3.72 trillion) into the collapsing world economy within the foreseeable future, could indeed prove to be a historical turning point — but a turning point downwards. In combating this crisis, the international community is in fact laying the foundation for the next crisis, which will be larger. It would probably have been more honest if the summit participants had written “debt, unemployment, inflation” on the wall.
- Spiegel Online

MB4 on April 4, 2009 at 7:08 PM

The addiction to new cash injections was chronic. The US had allowed itself to sink into an abject lifestyle. It sold more and more billions in new government bonds in order to preserve the appearance of a prosperous nation. To make matters worse, private households copied the example of the state. The average American now lives from hand to mouth and has 15 credit cards. The savings rate is almost zero. At the end of the Bush era, 75 percent of global savings were flowing into the US.

The president and the head of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, knew about the problem very well. Perhaps the Americans even knew just how irresponsible their actions were — at any rate, they did everything they could to hide them from the world. Since 2006, figures for the money supply — in other words, the total number of dollars in circulation — have no longer been published in the US. As a result, a statistic which is regarded by the European Central Bank as a key indicator is now treated as a state secret in the US.

Only on the basis of independent estimates can the outside world get a sense of the internal erosion of what was once the strongest currency in the world. These estimates report a steep rise in the amount of money in circulation. Since the decision to keep the figures confidential, the growth rate for the expansion of the money supply has tripled. Last year alone, the money supply increased by 17 percent. As a comparison, the money in circulation in Europe grew by a mere 5 percent during the same period.

But the change of government in Washington has not brought a return to self-restraint and solidity. On the contrary, it has led to further abandon. Barack Obama has continued the course towards greater and greater state debt — and increased the pace. One-third of his budget is no longer covered by revenues. The only things which are currently running at full production in the US are the printing presses at the Treasury.

At the summit in London, delegates talked about everything — except this issue. As a result, no attention was given to the fact that the crisis is being fought with the same instrument that caused it in the first place. The acreage for cheap dollars will now be extended once again. Only this time, the state is also acting as the dealer, so that it can personally take care of how the trillions are distributed.
- Spiegel Online

MB4 on April 4, 2009 at 7:20 PM

well, he beat the clintons, for which i will forever and ever be grateful to him – we dodged a bullet there.

Hell, at this point I’d even take Roger Clinton over that jug-eared no-op

Fed45 on April 4, 2009 at 7:55 PM

What will it be, O? Pitchforks, or a rope from a tree?

Coronagold on April 4, 2009 at 8:00 PM

you want him to tremble just like that wimpy second-rate actor trembled in front of PATCO.

I know it’s tempting to bring up a random reference to past event deals with a Republican you don’t like, and that has no relevance whatsoever to this conversation. Typical when you don’t have a cogent response.

We are talking about Barry, not some event in the past that has no relevance whatsoever. Try to stay focused and on topic. Your illogical debating tactics really expose your ignorance. I mean, c’mon. The illogical false analogy argument is the best you can do? (I will await another response that likely disparages another Republican, yet has no relevance to this topic

Fed45 on April 4, 2009 at 8:06 PM

another response that likely disparages another Republican

that reagan didn’t actually tremble should have alerted you to my sarcasm.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM

It is amazing cons support these greedy bankers that bet huge and lost huge.

They are not victims cons they deserve to be held accountable.

getalife on April 3, 2009 at 3:57 PM

They bet huge because they had no other way of making money in their mortgage operations, because of the artificial market created by Freddie and Fannie, which were government run. I will keep saying this until you grasp that fact.

John_Locke on April 3, 2009 at 3:59 PM

Wow. Now that’s commitment!!

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on April 4, 2009 at 8:47 PM

BTW, thanks for admitting you advocate blog censorship. Josef Goebbels would be proud of you.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Slight modification:

Thanks for admitting you advocate blog censorship as a “sound business decision”.

Josef Goebbels is still proud of you.

Another Joe, Stalin, would also like to have what you’ve been ingesting.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2009 at 9:06 PM

This move is a perfect example of ChiTcago thuggary. It is much like what Bawney Fwanks and his fellow democrats [including ACORN] did to push Fannie/Freddie into making such lousy loans, except they explicitly pushed the race card whereas DaBama IS the race card. I mean, I sure wouldn’t give any of my family a buck within the terms those loans were made on.

Where is the accountability for the toxic assetts? Just ask DaBama. He knows!

DannoJyd on April 4, 2009 at 10:04 PM

The message I see is that the crisis is real, but not nearly the size Obama, Geithner and Co. make it out to be, certainly not requiring a fundamental shift of government into the private sector, with the attendant loss of freedom, rights etc.

.
Wait; wasn’t the Congressional Budget Office reporting that doing nothing would have the same, and possibly better end-result, but at far less cost, and no loss of freedom, rights, etc?

Arbalest on April 3, 2009 at 7:26 PM

Obama says we have the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. But his deeds show he’s lying.

If the crisis was that bad, would he be trying to fulfill the liberal wish list they’ve accumulated over the last 50 years.

Why is he not fixing the crisis before trying to implement universal health care?

Why is he not fixing the crisis before trying to expand green power?

Why is he not fixing the crisis before instituting a cap-and-trade system to restrict so-called global warming?

All these things would be much easier for our nation to accomplish if the economy were stronger. With a strong economy, we could afford to spend more money on liberal wet dreams.

But it’s the opposite, in fact. They’re trying to push through all these things BEFORE fixing the economy.

And that tells us that the economic crisis makes it EASIERpolitically — to push these things through (“Don’t let a good crisis go to waste” — Rahm Emmanuel), so they really are not in such a hurry to fix it.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on April 4, 2009 at 10:07 PM

A substantial number of U.S. companies are freezing salaries and reducing or eliminating bonuses for their executives, according to a survey by human resources consulting firm Watson Wyatt. The survey says that of 145 companies polled during the first week of March, 55 percent have frozen executive salaries and 48 percent plan to decrease their bonus pool by an average of 40 percent.

http://www.areadevelopment.com/newsItems/3-17-2009/watson-wyatt-executive-compensation-freeze.shtml

Nice work President Obama.

getalife on April 3, 2009 at 9:14 PM

I usually ignore getalife, but self-pwnage is always so entertaining.

Yes, companies are doing hiring freezes, salary freezes, and bonus freezes or reductions. Because the economy is so bad.

To which Obama’s greatest fan, getalife, adds, “Nice work President Obama.”

Oops!

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on April 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM

President Barack Obama wasn’t in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and offered a blunt reminder of the public’s reaction to such explanations. “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that.”

Meanwhile the MSM continues as the PR Firm for President TelePrompter. Betcha we won’t see any of the CEO’s on the Sunday news shows, or any news shows.

It is HUGE news that President TelePrompter wants to stop the banks from paying back TARP. HUGE!

TN Mom on April 5, 2009 at 12:48 AM

BTW, thanks for admitting you advocate blog censorship. Josef Goebbels would be proud of you.

Ummmmmm….. you do realize blogs are private entities, thus not subject to censorship laws, right? Whoever owns the blog decides what is published, and what level of feedback they want.

Fed45 on April 5, 2009 at 3:36 AM

that reagan didn’t actually tremble should have alerted you to my sarcasm.

I don’t think the word ‘sarcasm’ means what you think it means

Fed45 on April 5, 2009 at 3:38 AM

the problem is that we have a really convincing argument, too.

sesquipedalian on April 4, 2009 at 10:28 AM

How is a bailout option more convincing that a bankruptcy option? Before you answer, please demonstrate you know how bankruptcy works.

Fed45 on April 5, 2009 at 3:43 AM

no. i was referring to this arcane concept called majority rule.

It is arcane. Which is why our govt. doesn’t subscribe to it, jackass! Do you understand what a Republic is? Do you REALLY want to live in a society where the minority has no rights? Because that’s how a democracy works. 51% always wins. If you are always in that 49%, well….sucks to be you.

I’ll gladly send you my kid’s copy of “Schoolhouse Rocks”, if you aren’t quite grasping this concept

Fed45 on April 5, 2009 at 4:01 AM

please demonstrate you know how bankruptcy works

why, the company’s eliminated, the executives are dragged away for stoning while the assets are burned.

How is a bailout option more convincing that a bankruptcy option?

in a nutshell, because the recession would probably be much longer if we didn’t bail out some of these companies.

51% always wins. If you are always in that 49%, well….sucks to be you.

tell me about it. it’s even more infuriating when sometimes you get 51% and you still lose.

sesquipedalian on April 5, 2009 at 7:48 AM

Ummmmmm….. you do realize blogs are private entities, thus not subject to censorship laws, right? Whoever owns the blog decides what is published, and what level of feedback they want.

Fed45 on April 5, 2009 at 3:36 AM

Of course I know that. But censorship laws were written before Algore invented the internet, so there is some wiggle room. The blogs are private, but they are distributed over a public medium.

Del Dolemonte on April 5, 2009 at 9:23 AM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html

Wall Street Journal says Obama won’t accept payoff of TARP moneys. This tells me he works under Chicago Mafia business rules.

seven on April 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM

I want to know what this f*cker is going to do about the North Korea situation. My guess is “nothing”.

I hate obama. But I hate obama voters more.

obama sought power and got it. His voters were simply too stupid to know they were suckered into America’s destruction.

ErinF on April 5, 2009 at 3:52 PM

I’m waiting for Hopenchains to speak to UAW officials the same way.

NYT tells Boston Globe they have 30 days to get $20 million in concessions from its union employees, or they shut the rag down. Maybe NYT’s Pinch Sulzberger should consult with TOTUS Yomama on how to handle the pesky unions. Now THAT would be something to see!

Holding my breath starting….

Sweet_Thang on April 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM

For the thinking and those who wish to be this kind. Gnats have more blood than brains and this w/b lost on them.

Start from the bottom, #1 and take a few notes.

Entelechy on April 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM

Also, spread the site around.

Entelechy on April 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM

The only things standing between Congress and the pitchforks? Ignorance and apathy.

RandyChandler on April 5, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Please send a postcard to the U.S. Treasury, reminding Secretary Geithner that the deadline for paying his taxes is April 15.

poplicola on April 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM

Obama, get the hell out of business. You have no right to dictate what private business does.Oh yeah, thanks for that middle class tax rebate. Oh thats right i’m a small business owner so i get screwed.

Hazmat on April 6, 2009 at 12:50 PM

forget the pitchforks, maybe you should think about burning the witch pelosi first.

We need to realize that these people went into public service because they couldn’t cut in private enterprise, so they don’t know anything about anything. They certainly have no business messing with any business, they were sent there to legislate, not to meddle.

workingforpigs on April 6, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Obama had me worried with all his bad decisions. After this comment and all the peace with Islam crap and huge military cuts, I’m a bit scared to be honest with you. What concerns me more is that while most of here like to complain, probably few us are willing to organize in a way that will make a change (It’s not natural to the conservate mindset I guess). Perhaps it’s time we stopped complaining and started organizing. Give the Liberals in this decade what they gave us in the 60′s. Let them know how it feels to see the streets full of protest and their form of government questioned. BTW, throwing tea into water wont make a difference to a liberal. Most don’t know thier history and won’t get the point being made. They do remember the 60s though and seeing conservatives take it to them will make an impact. Any one up for a sit in at the IRS office? How about blocking traffic for several days in front of the White house?

MichiganMatt on April 6, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6