This option will reset the home page of The Hayride restoring closed widgets and categories.

Reset The Hayride homepage
RSS Feed Facebook twitter
Home  »  Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute…

Wait, Wait – Hold On Just A Minute…

Posted by: macaoidh on Thursday, March 18, 2010, 9:50
Tagged with:             

…in our rush to cover the bases on President Obama’s Fox News appearance yesterday, we only touched on the poor advocacy he offered on behalf of Mary Landrieu’s Louisiana Purchase deal to fix the glitch in federal FMAP funding. We didn’t quite catch how bad he really was…

(Hat tip: Breitbart.tv)

In case you didn’t pick this up, here’s a transcript:

OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example.

BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in?

OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though. Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that.

(CROSS TALK)

OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe. Now I have said that there are certain provisions, like this Nebraska one, that don’t make sense. And they needed to be out. And we have removed those. So, at the end of the day, what people are going to be able to say is that this legislation is going to be providing help to small businesses and individuals, across the board, in an even handed way, and providing people relief from a status quo that’s just not working.

BAIER: OK, the Florida deal, in or out?

OBAMA: The Florida deal —

BAIER: Paying for Medicare Advantage, exempting 800,000 Floridians from —

OBAMA: My understanding is that whatever is going to be done on Medicare is going to apply across the board to all states.

Two things here. First, Obama is subject to the exact same criticism on the Louisiana Purchase that Landrieu is – namely, if providing the state with $300 million to help fix the flawed Federal Medical Assistance Percentage formula for Medicaid is such a good idea, then why wasn’t it inserted into the Omnibus or Stimulus bills last year when Gov. Bobby Jindal first asked for it? After all, the stimulus was more than $800 billion, the vast majority of which was to prop up state and local governments. Obama brags about all the jobs the stimulus bill saved, and when pressed about which jobs those were he’s talking about cops, teachers, firefighters and other public employees. Well, if that’s the case, alleviating Louisiana’s FMAP burden which Obama now inarticulately advocates constitutes righting a wrong would certainly qualify.

And second, what earthquake in Hawaii? There hasn’t been a major earthquake in Hawaii since 1975. Is Obama talking about the earthquake in Chile which brought the surf up in Hawaii a couple of weeks ago? Is he that out of touch?

Or does he know something we don’t?

Perhaps this is horribly inappropriate, but that apparent gaffe is an eerie reminder of a spoof campaign ad which made the rounds in 2008…

Tagged with:             
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-38904-Phoenix-Small-Business-Management-Examiner Gil

    I have been wondering about this earthquake in Hawaii comment. which fits into the impression I get that Obama is having a nrevous breakdown. There are stories that he is now tired and needs to rest. There are rumors that he is chain smoking. As a matter of fact on the Baier interview at Fox his lip looks discolored like a chain smoker lip. If he gets off teleprompter he is completely unintelligible. Keep up the pressure and this man will turn to dust.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-38904-Phoenix-Small-Business-Management-Examiner Gil

    I have been wondering about this earthquake in Hawaii comment. which fits into the impression I get that Obama is having a nrevous breakdown. There are stories that he is now tired and needs to rest. There are rumors that he is chain smoking. As a matter of fact on the Baier interview at Fox his lip looks discolored like a chain smoker lip. If he gets off teleprompter he is completely unintelligible. Keep up the pressure and this man will turn to dust.

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    In 2006 a 6.7 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Hawaii. Pres. Bush declared it a disaster. It's on the google, but I guess speculating on the Obama's mental health is more titillating.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

      Hawaii's 2006 earthquake was not a major event. It caused a four-inch tsunami and knocked out power for no longer than 14 hours. Save for causing damage to one hotel which was in need of renovations anyway, that earthquake did little in terms of the kind of damage that would necessitate federal FMAP funds be redirected four years later.

      • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

        That's all fine. It's interesting that you know so much about the event but didn't mention it in the post, yet in bizarre fashion you speculated that Obama might be referring to the Chile quake, which did NO damage whatsoever in Hawaii.

        You were asking the questions, I'm answering them. Obama's referring to the 2006 quake.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

          In the post I said that Hawaii hasn't had a MAJOR earthquake since 1975. I stand by that statement, for the reasons enumerated in the response above.

          • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

            Yes, I read and understood your post. Again, I'm providing the information you requested.

            However, since you obviously knew about the non-MAJOR 2006 quake in Hawaii (that Pres. Bush declared "a major disaster"), why did you make the bizarre suggestion that Obama might be referring to the Chilean quake, when you were aware of a much more plausible alternative? That's my question to you.

            • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

              Let me ask you this question – is it your understanding that Hawaii requires an alteration of its FMAP formula based on the 2006 earthquake there? If so, can you provide documentation of same?

              If not, what Obama said was patent bovine scatology and what you are complaining about here amounts to irrelevant semantics. As relates to the current discussion, the 2006 earthquake was not a major one in that the recovery from it had no effect on federal policy in 2010.

              Besides, lefties accuse Bush of lying about almost everything under the sun – now all of a sudden you're going to consider him a valid source for your claims?

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    In 2006 a 6.7 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Hawaii. Pres. Bush declared it a disaster. It's on the google, but I guess speculating on the Obama's mental health is more titillating.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

      Hawaii's 2006 earthquake was not a major event. It caused a four-inch tsunami and knocked out power for no longer than 14 hours. Save for causing damage to one hotel which was in need of renovations anyway, that earthquake did little in terms of the kind of damage that would necessitate federal FMAP funds be redirected four years later.

      • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

        That's all fine. It's interesting that you know so much about the event but didn't mention it in the post, yet in bizarre fashion you speculated that Obama might be referring to the Chile quake, which did NO damage whatsoever in Hawaii.

        You were asking the questions, I'm answering them. Obama's referring to the 2006 quake.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

          In the post I said that Hawaii hasn't had a MAJOR earthquake since 1975. I stand by that statement, for the reasons enumerated in the response above.

          • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

            Yes, I read and understood your post. Again, I'm providing the information you requested.

            However, since you obviously knew about the non-MAJOR 2006 quake in Hawaii (that Pres. Bush declared "a major disaster"), why did you make the bizarre suggestion that Obama might be referring to the Chilean quake, when you were aware of a much more plausible alternative? That's my question to you.

            • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

              Let me ask you this question – is it your understanding that Hawaii requires an alteration of its FMAP formula based on the 2006 earthquake there? If so, can you provide documentation of same?

              If not, what Obama said was patent bovine scatology and what you are complaining about here amounts to irrelevant semantics. As relates to the current discussion, the 2006 earthquake was not a major one in that the recovery from it had no effect on federal policy in 2010.

              Besides, lefties accuse Bush of lying about almost everything under the sun – now all of a sudden you're going to consider him a valid source for your claims?

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    As for the last paragraph, that's just a clumsy attempt to bully. I didn't make any claims based on the validity of what Bush said, as you falsely assert. I merely made the claim that Bush declared the quake a "Major disaster". You apparently have studied the 06 quake, and disagree with Bush's assessment. That's fine. I have no idea one way or the other– I 'd venture to guess that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, between your position and Bush's, but I don't know and don't care to find out. However: mocking what I DIDN'T say, while ignoring what I DID say, and dismissing my comment with an unwarranted linkage to uncritical "lefties" strikes me as a rather poor form for a blog that claims to "welcome all political perspectives". C'est la vie, I suppose.

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    I'll answer your queries as you as you avoid mine. I haven't a clue about the 2006 earthquake. It's not something I know much about. However, I presume that it was more serious than you describe, since the President (who at the time happened to be Bush) declared it a "major disaster", but I don't know the extent of the damage, nor if Hawaii requires an alteration of its FMAP formula. I would assume not.

    (more below– the comment system here forces you to split up a reply of any length)

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    I'll answer your queries as you as you avoid mine. I haven't a clue about the 2006 earthquake. It's not something I know much about. However, I presume that it was more serious than you describe, since the President (who at the time happened to be Bush) declared it a "major disaster", but I don't know the extent of the damage, nor if Hawaii requires an alteration of its FMAP formula. I would assume not.

    (more below– the comment system here forces you to split up a reply of any length)

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    As for the last paragraph, that's just a clumsy attempt to bully. I didn't make any claims based on the validity of what Bush said, as you falsely assert. I merely made the claim that Bush declared the quake a "Major disaster". You apparently have studied the 06 quake, and disagree with Bush's assessment. That's fine. I have no idea one way or the other– I 'd venture to guess that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, between your position and Bush's, but I don't know and don't care to find out. However: mocking what I DIDN'T say, while ignoring what I DID say, and dismissing my comment with an unwarranted linkage to uncritical "lefties" strikes me as a rather poor form for a blog that claims to "welcome all political perspectives". C'est la vie, I suppose.

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    So this is not about "irrelevant semantics" at all. We're not arguing about the meaning of a word you chose to use. This is about feigned ignorance that misled at least one of your readers (Gil) who bought the idea that Obama's comment was so off-the-wall that it was evidence of Obama having a breakdown, when in fact the only plausible event Obama could've been referring to was the 2006 quake– which you, macaoidh, apparently knew about, yet you suggested Obama made a gaffe or was losing touch.

    I'm basically wondering why you felt compelled to (apparently) dissemble in this post and mislead your readers, when you could've simply made the points you made in the comments to me. Instead of feigning complete wonder at what Obama could possibly be talking about, you could've written something along the lines of "The earthquake Obama is probably referring to is a small non major one that occurred in 2006 and damaged one hotel. This doesn't merit any redirection of FMAP funds." Wouldn't that have been preferable?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

      All of this is very nice, but it does nothing to answer my question. The fact is that concocting the Hawaii example, which Mary Landrieu parroted today during her interview with Greta Van Susteren, was a terribly disingenuous move on the part of the president and it cheapens what is otherwise a perfectly valid argument in favor of fixing the FMAP formula – an argument that Landrieu has made a thorough hash of throughout this ordeal. The total cost of damage to Hawaii from its 2006 earthquake was a paltry $200 million, $150 million of which came as a result of the renovation of one hotel.

      As for Bush calling the event a "major disaster," that's hardly dispositive. Presidents call minor disasters major disasters all the time; every time a tornado hits a town, or there's a drought, or a hurricane or a plague of locusts it's a "major disaster." Doesn't make them Katrina. Those overreactions and cheap political theatrics are part and parcel of both Republican and Democrat governance; the fact that Hawaii had a Republican governor in Linda Lingle at the time – who was running for re-election – probably had a good bit to do with what was done.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

        We know what this Hawaii business was about. It was about trying to take the heat off Landrieu for the Louisiana Purchase by using the same dishonesty that Obama has made part and parcel of his presidency, when none was necessary. If you want to say that Obama was talking about the 2006 earthquake in Hawaii, go ahead; it makes him no less dishonest given what we've shown to be a non-sequitur as it relates to the FMAP formulas.

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    (cont'd) But that brings me to the reason I commented here in the first place. I thought I was providing information to you (and Gil), that Obama was actually referring to an earthquake that occurred a few years back. He didn't make an apparent gaffe, and certainly wasn't referring to the Chile quake, which I find curious in light of your knowledge of the 2006 event. It's one thing if you want to have an argument about whether the 06 earthquake was MAJOR or NOT MAJOR, but it went totally unmentioned. Instead, Obama's comment was treated as a gaffe, or evidence that he was making a bizarre reference to Chile, or that he was "out of touch".

    (more below)

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    (cont'd) But that brings me to the reason I commented here in the first place. I thought I was providing information to you (and Gil), that Obama was actually referring to an earthquake that occurred a few years back. He didn't make an apparent gaffe, and certainly wasn't referring to the Chile quake, which I find curious in light of your knowledge of the 2006 event. It's one thing if you want to have an argument about whether the 06 earthquake was MAJOR or NOT MAJOR, but it went totally unmentioned. Instead, Obama's comment was treated as a gaffe, or evidence that he was making a bizarre reference to Chile, or that he was "out of touch".

    (more below)

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    So this is not about "irrelevant semantics" at all. We're not arguing about the meaning of a word you chose to use. This is about feigned ignorance that misled at least one of your readers (Gil) who bought the idea that Obama's comment was so off-the-wall that it was evidence of Obama having a breakdown, when in fact the only plausible event Obama could've been referring to was the 2006 quake– which you, macaoidh, apparently knew about, yet you suggested Obama made a gaffe or was losing touch.

    I'm basically wondering why you felt compelled to (apparently) dissemble in this post and mislead your readers, when you could've simply made the points you made in the comments to me. Instead of feigning complete wonder at what Obama could possibly be talking about, you could've written something along the lines of "The earthquake Obama is probably referring to is a small non major one that occurred in 2006 and damaged one hotel. This doesn't merit any redirection of FMAP funds." Wouldn't that have been preferable?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

      All of this is very nice, but it does nothing to answer my question. The fact is that concocting the Hawaii example, which Mary Landrieu parroted today during her interview with Greta Van Susteren, was a terribly disingenuous move on the part of the president and it cheapens what is otherwise a perfectly valid argument in favor of fixing the FMAP formula – an argument that Landrieu has made a thorough hash of throughout this ordeal. The total cost of damage to Hawaii from its 2006 earthquake was a paltry $200 million, $150 million of which came as a result of the renovation of one hotel.

      As for Bush calling the event a "major disaster," that's hardly dispositive. Presidents call minor disasters major disasters all the time; every time a tornado hits a town, or there's a drought, or a hurricane or a plague of locusts it's a "major disaster." Doesn't make them Katrina. Those overreactions and cheap political theatrics are part and parcel of both Republican and Democrat governance; the fact that Hawaii had a Republican governor in Linda Lingle at the time – who was running for re-election – probably had a good bit to do with what was done.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

        We know what this Hawaii business was about. It was about trying to take the heat off Landrieu for the Louisiana Purchase by using the same dishonesty that Obama has made part and parcel of his presidency, when none was necessary. If you want to say that Obama was talking about the 2006 earthquake in Hawaii, go ahead; it makes him no less dishonest given what we've shown to be a non-sequitur as it relates to the FMAP formulas.

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    "We know what this Hawaii business was about."

    Ok, but the second point of the post was that you DIDN'T know what the Hawaii reference was about, when apparently you did. Once again, I'm compelled to (futilely) ask: why the previous dissembling?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

      Your question was answered; you just didn't like the response you got. The 2006 earthquake in Hawaii was not significant enough to warrant Obama's mention as an attempt to dilute the Louisiana Purchase. Period. That's why it wasn't included in the original post. If that doesn't do it for you, that's OK; nobody gets a 100 percent approval rating, and your readership on the Hayride is appreciated regardless of your disagreement.

      • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

        I'm getting off this merry-go-round, but I'll just say that your explanation doesn't hold water, in light of your decision to mention the Chilean earthquake in the post as a plausible explanation for Obama's reference. If the 2006 earthquake was insignificant, the (non-)effect of the Chilean earthquake on Hawaii was infinitely less significant. So, "significance" obviously couldn't have been the standard you were using. I'm left to conclude you were just dissembling for political purposes.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

          And you're entitled to that opinion, though it doesn't seem anyone is coming to your defense and it seems like you've chosen a rather small bone to pick.

  • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

    "We know what this Hawaii business was about."

    Ok, but the second point of the post was that you DIDN'T know what the Hawaii reference was about, when apparently you did. Once again, I'm compelled to (futilely) ask: why the previous dissembling?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

      Your question was answered; you just didn't like the response you got. The 2006 earthquake in Hawaii was not significant enough to warrant Obama's mention as an attempt to dilute the Louisiana Purchase. Period. That's why it wasn't included in the original post. If that doesn't do it for you, that's OK; nobody gets a 100 percent approval rating, and your readership on the Hayride is appreciated regardless of your disagreement.

      • http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/ oyster

        I'm getting off this merry-go-round, but I'll just say that your explanation doesn't hold water, in light of your decision to mention the Chilean earthquake in the post as a plausible explanation for Obama's reference. If the 2006 earthquake was insignificant, the (non-)effect of the Chilean earthquake on Hawaii was infinitely less significant. So, "significance" obviously couldn't have been the standard you were using. I'm left to conclude you were just dissembling for political purposes.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/macaoidh macaoidh

          And you're entitled to that opinion, though it doesn't seem anyone is coming to your defense and it seems like you've chosen a rather small bone to pick.