MORE OF THE SAME

It's really quite astonishing to me how someone can be so hypocritical, not only from speech to speech but within the same speech - sometimes even the same paragraph! But, I suppose I shouldn't be b/c President Obama and Gibbs have both done this repeatedly. The tendency seems to be getting worse. I suppose that's because he has to start changing his tone a bit if he wants to get anything done, but he wants to save face by somehow saying he's not changing his stance. In the end, he looks like a fool. Admitting he was wrong and approached things incorrectly would go a long way toward achieving bi-partisanship and trust from the American people (at least a bunch of them).

Again, I found this information off of a link from Instapundit:
ABC NEWS: Wall Street Bonuses President Obama Once Called ‘Obscene’ and ‘Shameful’ Now He Doesn’t Begrudge. Posted at 10:31 am by Glenn Reynolds

Highlights of the hypocrisy:

As recently as just a few weeks ago, President Obama called massive Wall Street bonuses “obscene,” language that fit right in with his previous descriptions for them such as “the height of irresponsibility” and “shameful,” an “outrage” and a violation “our fundamental values.”

And, then now,

I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

In context, this statement was attached to the typical cronyism and treating friends and/or his inner circle differently than everyone else,

Asked about the $17 million bonus given to Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and the $9 million bonuses going to Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO, the president said, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen. I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.”

And, this boggles my mind,

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs denied that President Obama had changed his tone at all, pointing out that the president has said "countless times" that he doesn't begrudge wealth or success.

Gibbs insisted that the president was not saying he doesn't begrudge the bonuses.

How can one say those two things simultaneously with a straight face? And, we've seen him want to poke his influence into football....now it's baseball, too.

Discussing the bonuses, Mr. Obama told the reporters, "listen, $17 million is an extraordinary amount of money. Of course, there are some baseball players who are making more than that who don't get to the World Series either. So I'm shocked by that as well."

And then, he says,

Back then, a White House official told ABC News that on the subject of executive compensation, President Obama told bank executives, “you guys are like overpaid pitchers on a team doing poorly. The concern is less when your team is successful -- but you guys didn’t win the World Series this year.”

I find that ironic because, according to his logic, he's getting overpaid, too. I don't think anyone could say that he's "winning the World Series" during his first year in office. OTOH, perhaps his is being consistent in his logic in his own warped way. Recall,

Asked about the $17 million bonus given to Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., and the $9 million bonuses going to Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO, the president said, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen.

These CEO's had to also be a part of the financial meltdown, but because he knows them to be "savvy businessmen", it's okay for them to get the bonuses. I have no doubt that many other of these executives are savvy businessmen too, but b/c he doesn't know them personally, their bonuses are "obcsene." I see the way he looks at himself is the same consistent, but warped logic as how he sees his CEO friends. He sees himself as smart and savvy and so for him, that's enough for accolades.

And going back to his indictment on baseball player's salaries, will he start to begrudge actors or actresses from getting millions and millions of dollars for a part, even if in the end the movie is a flop? I don't think so......their dollars and support to his causes is too important. Without those millions, they wouldn't donate as much. And, come to think of it, why in the world is he troubled that anyone is making a gazillion dollars? Those are the salaries that he's going to steal anyways.