MSNBC Uses Liberal Green Jobs Activist to Blame Solyndra on George W. Bush
The lengths MSNBC will go to deflect blame from President Obama for anything bad that can be tied to his administration is simply amazing.
On Friday, a liberal green jobs activist was brought on "MSNBC Live" to falsely accuse former President George W. Bush of making that ill-advised loan to failed solar company Solyndra (video follows with transcript and commentary):
THOMAS ROBERTS, MSNBC: Dr. Mijin Cha is a senior analyst for Demos Sustainable Progress Initiative and a blogger at Policyshop.net. Dr. Cha, it’s nice to see you this morning. And you point out on your blog that the green is under attack, basically. Take a listen, though to what one Republican lawmaker said just last night.
CONGRESSMAN MARIO DIAZ-BALART (R-FLORIDA): What the previous gentleman did not say is that Solyndra received $500 million because they have friends in high places. Despite even people in this administration that said, “Don't do it,” they received $500 million. If that was in a different country, we wouldn't call it waste. We would call it corruption.
ROBERTS: So how much damage has Solyndra done, Dr. Cha, when it comes to the greens job movement? Is this something that can't be turned around?
J. MIJIN CHA, GREEN JOBS ACTIVIST: No. I definitely don't think it can’t be turned around. I think what you find the hearings will show are two things. One is that the administration actually didn't do any wrongdoing, right? This loan was begun under the Bush administration. Solyndra had raised a billion dollars in private capital and then was invited by the Bush administration to apply for this loan program.
Yes, but as ABCNews.com reported September 13, the Bush administration unanimously denied that loan:
The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee made a unanimous decision not to offer a loan commitment to Solyndra.
You got that, Doctor? The Bush "Energy Department's credit committee made a unanimous decision not to offer a loan commitment to Solyndra."
I guess this liberal green jobs activist missed that little point.
Ironically, at roughly the same time Cha was spewing her propaganda on MSNBC, Brian Ross was reporting the truth at ABCNews.com:
The Obama administration had selected Solyndra as the first to receive a loan under a program designed to provide government support to companies that would create jobs while generating energy from cleaner sources, such as solar, wind and nuclear. President Obama personally visited the Solyndra complex, hailing it as a leader in this emerging field.
For MSNBC to allow anyone on its network to say anything contrary to the truth without being challenged is an affront to journalism.
As NewsBusters reports on a daily basis, this is par for the course at this so-called "news network."
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
This is so pathetic and
Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 5:57pm.
This is so pathetic and obvious.
You have to hand it MSNBC, they really are loyal to the DNC.
The inability to acknowledge
Submitted by dr-go on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:24pm.
any shortcoming in judgement is a prized liberal possession because they are, of course, always correct and, if not, they do mean well which compensates for their lack of understanding.
Poor frantic Liberals. The
Submitted by Van Halen on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:06pm.
Poor frantic Liberals. The country is mostly broke, unemployed, or on the battlefield. Scandals are breaking out all over the place under Obama's watch. Obama's poll numbers are tanking. The deficit is soaring. He plays golf all the time. Not looking good for Liberals. Not looking good at all.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I
Submitted by Reaver on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:21pm.
We ain’t seen nothin’ yet. I think even the most ardent Obama supporters are beginning to realize it’s not just his reelection that is in jeopardy but the entire liberal agenda is at risk now. They won’t let that happen without a fight.
"This loan was begun under
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:21pm.
"This loan was begun under the Bush administration."
This is and out and out lie. This is NOT semantics.
The original request for a loan was DENIED under the Bush administration.
The loan that they defaulted on was requested from the Obama administration making it sole and singular responsibility of the Obama administration.
The lengths that these people will go to is unfathomable.
"This is and out and out lie.
Submitted by Kenny Bunkport on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 12:25pm.
"This is and out and out lie. This is NOT semantics."
So right you are, Pickle. The watershed moment was hurricane Katrina when the MSM realized they could report made-up stuff, like it was fact, and get away with it.
The favorite ploy is to get some non-journalist to tell the lie (e.g. Feds blow up levees), then the MSM doesn't question it or give an opposing view. The lie hangs out there and since it's not refuted, people accept it's true.
In this case, the media will respond that "they" didn't say that Bush funded Solyndra. So they didn't lie. That's where semantics comes into play.
J. MIJIN CHA, GREEN JOBS MORON.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:28pm.
So $537,000,000.00 didn't turn it around, another 537 mil will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell you what you put all of your personal funds into this company Now. You can do it.
So I guess the bankers that turned down the loan in Bush era, got their arms TWISTED in the O'bama era.
You Didn't Build That.
This is dangerous
Submitted by Indie Dude on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:31pm.
It's getting real scary when News organizations is protecting the Government instead of the people.
Maybe the Solyndra scandal
Submitted by robert108 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 6:45pm.
Maybe the Solyndra scandal will be obama's "Watergate".
Doubtful, one obvious
Submitted by Reaver on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:10pm.
Doubtful, one obvious difference is that the media was beating the drum every day during the Watergate scandal. Now they are doing everything in their power to try to minimize the damage from these scandals. Consider fast and furious, unlike Watergate people have actually died as a result of this and yet even that blood in the water wasn’t enough to trigger a media feeding frenzy. I truly believe that Obama could be discovered standing over a dead body with a smoking gun in his hand and these alleged news organizations would tell us that wasn’t newsworthy.
So called mainstream media
Submitted by NotFondOfLibs on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:22pm.
Reaver's assessment is absolutely correct. The media in this country is going to stand by Barack Obama until the November 2012 election returns are complete. There were very few news outlets, print or broadcast that reported on Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and his bomber wife. I think we can depend on MSNBC to deflect, avoid and ignore any and all criticism of Obama.
Let's not forget that obama
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:19am.
Let's not forget that obama sent in his FBI minions to confiscate the records which now have probably all been run through the shredder, without records you can't blame the islamic thug in the White House.
Why are the idiots on MSNBC quoting the Democratic Underground?
Submitted by gopcongress on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:29pm.
This guy must have read this idiot's blog:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/BanTheGOP/92
That's the only place I've read where Bush was responsible.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
There's no question the MSM
Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 7:31pm.
There's no question the MSM is doing anything in its power to censor any negative information regarding Democrats especilly this President. He was never properly vetted and they've been cheerleaders for his policies, never any condemnations even though his policies are driving our economy into ruin and has lead to millions of unemployed. Compare any infraction by Bush or Palin however minor is blown out of proportion or even manufactured.
If Obama grew batwings and spewed pea soup out of his mouth, the MSM would tell everyone it's just a minor cold. No question they're protecting him to the detriment of the country. I hold the media partly responsible for our dismal economy.
When are idiot liberals going to...
Submitted by stage9 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 8:08pm.
start blaming Bush for the fact that Obama is a moron? Now THAT would be something to explain.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Other things George W. Bush is responsible for...
Submitted by lesterwink23 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 8:23pm.
*The JFK assassination
*The Challenger explosion
*The L.A. riots following the Rodney King beating trial verdict
*Watergate
*The 1994 MLB strike
*Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture at the Academy Awards
*Jersey Shore
Blaming Bush...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:10pm.
You left out my getting dumped by Dawn Poyner in the fifth grade.
Jer
Obama was dumped by...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:19am.
Donald Young. And Larry Sinclair.
There were two other openly gay men in Wright’s church: Larry Bland and Nate Spencer. In late 2007, as Obama began his ascent to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, in a span of 1½ months, all three men “conveniently” died:
Bland was murdered execution-style on November 17, 2007;
Young was murdered execution-style on December 24, 2007;
Spencer reportedly died of septicemia, pneumonia, and HIV on December 26, 2007.
McGinniss told me so. McGinniss said Palin was jealous and she asked Bush to cover it all up. So obama's homosexuality is, indeed, Bush's fault too!
Will the conspiracy ever end? Yup, in 2012.
You forgot...
Submitted by USMC8411 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:38pm.
The Ice Age, the End of the Ice Age, the end of the dinosaurs, the beginning of the human race (his DNA and skeletal remains, along with several cave drawings of him exist...), the Bible and Intelligent Design, the law of gravity, Evil Kneivel, the 60's, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, the rise of Hitler, the Vietnam War, the collapse of the Twin Towers (That stupid Bush snuck under the brilliant liberal democrat radar again), the Roswell crash... the Roswell coverup..., rap music, Milli Vanilli, Chicken nugget shortages....
And Obama's depression.
What about New Coke.
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 5:18pm.
What about New Coke.
Hi my name is Dr. Chu
Submitted by dmaley1714 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:04pm.
and I just lied on TV for some reason.
This is Only the Beginning!
Submitted by scottyusmc on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:26pm.
Expect nothing short of all our war to be declared against the American people by these idiots in their attempt to protect "the one." Oh, and this is part of "his" plan so don't believe him when he says we should all be civil. America lives or dieson the next election... Pick your side wisely!!!
Bush's loan?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:48pm.
So, that was really Bush's VP who gave a speech at the ground breaking ceremony? It was Bush's Secretary of Energy who was holding a shovel? Yea, right, and Orville Redenbacher catered the event! These people are trying to sell more whoppers than Burger King!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By the way...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 9:54pm.
By the way, do you know what else "started" with the Bush adminsitration? A triple A credit rating.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
And that rating was maintained because
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 11:53pm.
Congress authorized seven debt ceiling hikes without orchestrating any juvenile brinkmanship stunts.
Jer
Nancy Pelosi on line 1 for Jer...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 1:53am.
...she just wanted to thank him for recognizing her good work in Congress during the "Blame Bush" administration
That's highly doubtful, bigdaddy....
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:57am.
Since I've repeatedly slammed her, labeled her inept, and called for her ouster.
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:01am.
Was that before or after abysmalcare, trillion dollar stimulus packages, (with another now being proposed), and quantitative easing?
A little perspective would be nice?
RESTLESS---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:12am.
Jer gave you perspective.
His liberal one.
That's all he has. :o)
MD
Correction noted MD
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:16am.
I often make the mistake of not acknowledging wrong perspectives.
Call me ignorant, but it keeps me content. :)
perrrrrrspective!
Submitted by kata on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:20am.
I find charts help. And I have a hard time believing that political theater would be enough to shake a AA rating out of them.
RESTLESS...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:30am.
I think S & P's downgrade was completely unwarranted, but after reading the report in which the rating service attempted to justify the action, it was evident to me the primary reason was the perception that a meaningful and constructive agreement for debt reduction would not be realized in a timely fashion in light of the current level of distrust, disharmony, and disparate interests now existing between the two major parties and between the administration and the congressional Republicans.
I believe if it had been left up to Obama and Boehner that a mutual accord could have been hammered out well before the deadline. After all, Boehner was initially amenable to an 80 bil revenue package. Obama pushed for 1.2 [and significant spending reductions] because that was the number floated by the bi-partisan deficit reduction commission. Boehner then got blindsided by the tea party members and their sympathizers in congress who forced him to take every penny of revenue off the table. [To save face, he blamed Obama for reneging on the deal even though the President personally called him to say he would accept the original 80 bil offer. Boehner rejected it and walked away from the negotiations.]
The Cut, Cap & Balance proposals were nice-sounding PR gimmicks but were not really feasible legislative measures to adequately debate, dissect, and pass in both chambers in such a short period of time. Consequently, the S&P bigshots, and their kindergarten-level mathematicians, went ahead with an ill-advised downgrade.
That's basically my take. I'm sure yours is different.
Thank you for defending me against the shocking attack by USMC on the other thread. It's not the first time you have spoken up for me. I really appreciate it.
Jer
Fair's fair
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 3:55am.
You are no troll, and I will argue against anyone that says otherwise.
That said, the Tea Party did what they were elected to do. I agree the downgrade was unwarranted, but I'm not sure the 0 wasn't happy about it. Another chance to blame republicans for obstruction. It didn't work out that way, and I believe the elections of 2012 will prove this.
Could the fact that a democrat controlled Congress and democratic White House could not find time to pass a budget have factored into the downgrade?
ETA: I seem to remember the unsustainability of entitlements having something to do with it. CC&B would have done much more to address those concerns than Obama's proposal. Many states have balanced budget amendments, which is essentially all CC&B was.
I know liberals loathe fedzilla living within its means, but the breaking point is coming sooner than later, and perhaps S&P recognized that fact.
Jer
Submitted by Par for the Course on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 6:35am.
Even Msnbc has a different take on it than yours:
It appears Obama pushed for the additional $400 billion to get support from congressional Democrats, not necessarily because that was the number floated by the bi-partisan deficit reduction commission, which I think you have mistaken for the Gang of Six.
In addition:
From Msnbc again:
That doesn't sound like Obama called Boehner and said he would accept the original $800 billion.
Par for the Course
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 6:45am.
It was indeed the Gang of Six and I was indeed mistaken.
Here is a segment of a report by the liberal-leaning The New Republic, although it quotes the conservative-leaning Wall Street Journal [the entire Journal article is linked, but unfortunately I don't have a subscription so I can only reprint that portion from the WSJ which is included in Chait's account below]:
If news accounts are accurate, the Obama/Boehner talks broke down when the president proposed increasing the revenue component of the grand bargain from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. Given what he ultimately accepted, $800 billion looks pretty good. (How likely is it that the new congressional committee will be able to agree on anything approaching that figure?) To be sure, we’d have to know more than we do about the other components of the proposed deal, especially the changes in entitlement programs, to reach a solid all-things-considered judgment. And it’s not at all clear that Boehner’s fellow Republicans in the House would have gone along with him on such a bargain, either. But it has been widely reported that the White House shifted its stance only after the Gang of Six made its framework public. If the bipartisan G6 was proposing $1.2 trillion in revenue increases, how could the White House accept less? At the time, that must have seemed like a slam-dunk argument. But it was too clever by half, and the White House ended up throwing away a chance to promote the president’s “balanced” approach to deficit reduction … and, by the way, to drive a wedge into the massed ranks of the opposition.
I have a few disagreements here. First, Obama's request for more revenue did not blow up the negotiations. Here's the Wall Street Journal tick-tock:
The White House asked for an additional $400 billion in tax revenue, saying it was needed to get enough Democratic votes. White House officials say they got no signals the request would be a deal-breaker. But by week's end, the deal was dead. P
On a Friday night, July 22, the president and Mr. Boehner held dueling news conferences, each blaming the other for the breakdown. The next day, the president called Mr. Boehner and offered to return to the $800 billion target, trying to save the deal. Mr. Boehner declined. A Republican aide has also confirmed that Obama quickly abandoned his request for more revenue when Boehner balked. I think this is totally clear. The request for more revenue did not blow up the negotiations. The negotiations foundered on Boehner's inability to sell his party on any increase in revenue. [My italics for emphasis]
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/93057/no-obama-was-not-too-demand...
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Par for the Course on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 7:30am.
I think that, when Obama asked for an additional $400 billion in "revenue", to gain support from congressional Democrats, the deal started to sound more like it was about tax increases, rather than tax reform. From the previously linked Msnbc article:
I think it was possible, that Boehner could have persuaded (at least enough) Republicans to go along with tax reform. But, when the narrative changed from tax reform to tax increases, any possible deal was gone.
Just my opinion.
Well here is the framework of the bipartisan Gang of Six
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 8:10am.
plan with positive comments from both Democratic and Republican congressmen. There is also some dissent as you will note toward he end of the artticle.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-19/u-s-house-set-to-pass-doomed-spending-cut-bill-with-no-debt-deal-imminent.html
President Barack Obama embraced a $3.7 trillion debt-cutting plan by a bipartisan group of senators that would combine tax increases and spending cuts, saying it could offer a way out of the congressional deadlock over raising the U.S. borrowing limit. “We now are seeing the potential for a bipartisan consensus,” Obama said today at the White House.
He called the proposal by the so-called Gang of Six “broadly consistent” with what he has sought and “a very significant step” in so far fruitless negotiations between Republicans and Democrats over boosting the nation’s $14.3 trillion borrowing authority before a threatened default on Aug 2. Obama said talks with congressional leaders from both parties would resume at the White House this week. U.S. stocks and Treasuries extended gains after the president spoke, signaling optimism that lawmakers can reach an agreement.
At the Capitol, the bipartisan group led by Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia pitched its plan for an immediate $500 billion in spending cuts followed by a longer-term effort to force bigger reductions and $1 trillion in tax increases. The plan calls for lowering tax rates and limiting the growth of entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
Closed-Door Briefing
About 50 senators, roughly evenly divided between the two parties, attended a closed-door briefing on the plan, a sign of potentially widespread support for the kind of “grand bargain” to reduce the debt that Obama is urging. One member of the Republican leadership, third-ranking Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, publicly endorsed the plan. “In the next 24 hours, you’re going to see a significant portion of the Senate come behind this -- bipartisan -- maybe 60 members, and let’s see how things roll,” said Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who rejoined the Gang of Six today after he abandoned the talks in May over an impasse on Medicare cuts. “This doesn’t solve our problems, but this creates the way forward where we can,” he said.
[btw...obviously the 80bil figure I cited in my first post should have been 800bil.]
The question is what was the nature of the 800bil revenue package which Obama and Boehner tentatively agreed to. Did Obama offer to return to and accept that particular package after floating the 1.2 tril figure which Boehner rejected. Did he communicate that willingness to Boehner, and , if so, why did Boehner suddenly remove revenue completely off the table other than as a capitulation to the 'no revenue period" faction which appears to have ultimately dictated Boehner's negotiating posture.
Jer
The question is what was the
Submitted by Par for the Course on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 9:04am.
I would like to have seen the details of the deal, especially if Boehner thought he could get enough votes in the House for it. Obviously, if he tentatively agreed to it, it appears he thought he could get the support he needed.
I also would like to have seen the details of the additional $400 billion Obama proposed. Was it tax increases or tax reform, i.e. limiting loopholes, etc.
In my opinion, what the gang of six proposed might pass the Senate, but, I wouldn't bet that it would have passed in the House. So, why didn't Obama see if Boehner could get their tentative agreement passed in the House and, if the Senate passed something different, see if it could be reconciled in a conference committee.
Instead, Obama tried adding $400 billion of revenue to the deal up front, which I thought was the beginning of the end of the grand bargain, even if he did eventually abandon trying to add it.
P f t C: More on debt ceiling controversy and consequences.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 7:34am.
Interesting analysis of downgrade at the National Journal:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/why-s-p-s-downgrade-is-no-joke-20110806?page=2
Jer
They also created budgets, Jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 12:45pm.
Congress also created actual budgets, Jer. Something that the rating depended upon. The last budget that Congress produced was during the Bush administration. Since Obama took office, there hasn't been a budget, even though the democrats had full control of Congress for the first two years of Obama's administration. It is that lack of a budget which has negatively effected our credit ratings. Both Congress and Obama were warned about the negative effects that a lack of a budget (you know, that "stable fiscal plan" that S&P kept talking about) would produce, which was a down-grading of the credit rating, a full year before the debt limit debate even took place. The debt limit extensions had very little to do with the downgrading of our credit.
Now we're less than three month away from the 2012 budget deadline, yet there STILL isn't any budget proposals being debated in the Senate, even though the House has passed that budget. Reid has shelved any such debate. It's obvious that we're not going to have that 2012 budget, which means our credit rating will not improve. Who's fault is that, Jer?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Wow! This is a new one
Submitted by Injest on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 10:14pm.
“invited by the Bush administration to apply for”?
Wow! This is a new one.
So I see a commercial for a new Ford truck, I apply for a loan and get turned down, and it's Fords fault cuz their commercial invited me to I apply for a loan?
Law??
Submitted by grammajane on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 11:22pm.
She is a law professor and goes on tv and lies?? Maybe she should sue herself. Another example of a elite, arrogant radical with no common sense or brains. msnbc must want a law suit with all the trash they portray as news. They could go belly-up and obama will bail them out.
This tree hugging leftist
Submitted by TE on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 12:48am.
This tree hugging leftist dimwit (i.e., Minjin Cha) goes on MSNBC, and identically minded leftist dimwit Thomas Roberts, in a failed attempt to bestow some sort of scientific credibility on her, repeatedly addresses Minjin Cha as "Doctor Cha"!!!
"Doctor" Cha???!!! After "studying" Oriental and African studies at the University of London, she graduated from Hastings Law School in California!!!
As pathetic as Roberts' failed attempt to portray tree hugging, leftist hack Minjin Cha as a "doctor" is, it's just as bad that "Doctor" Cha never corrected Thomas Roberts when he repeatedly addressed her as "Doctor Cha"?
Who the hell would allow himself to be repeatedly called "doctor" and not immediately correct that person?
Gee, no agenda there, Cha?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 2:05am.
From what I can find about her at http://www.law.fordham.edu/faculty/11668.htm , her entire career has been spent dispensing diatribe and academic horse manure. Her credibility would be substantially enhanced by actually having to meet a payroll, manage people for true productivity or actually engage in a conversation that does something more than produce a lot of hot air and agenda-driven babble.
Dr.??? Gimmee a break.
Submitted by fatboy on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 9:15am.
Dr.??? Gimmee a break. Anybody can get a degree from a Cracker Jack box.
It had to be President Bush's fault
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 10:59am.
It couldn't possibly be King George's fault (Curious George, that is).
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
For somebody with a PhD, she sure don't read too good, do she?
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 5:26pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Good stuff but too
Submitted by coin of the realm on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:37pm.
limited in scope of analysis, probably bc your focus is only on discrediting Obama or creating a cogent narrative about the liberal nature of thee media and it's tacit support of democrats. Why else would you be hitting so hard on such a relatively minor event in the big picture if you were truly focused on exposing some sort of large scale msm bias? If the msm, were, as you claim, protecting Obama and biased to some political agenda then why aren't they aggressively touting the bigger picture with more successes or hitting hard on the real facts in their entirety? , Since this is an event that crosses party and administration lines it would be easy to describe without having to blame anyone politician or investment group.
Here is a complete timeline of the loan decision process and players.
May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.
July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.
February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.
December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.
Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.
October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”
November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.
March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.
June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.
September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.” OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.
January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors.
November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected.
February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.
March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): “despite the Administration’s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent.”
And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The whole point of the Democrat’s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn’t been spent.”
June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV.
August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time.
September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.
Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too slowly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: “In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning.”
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
bill we missed you
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:40pm.
but not your cutnpaste
kata
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:44pm.
Jeez, none of these libs credits anyone else when they copy and paste do they?
I hate gobs of text in a post
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:46pm.
when you can just link it. That makes me insane.
Sorry
Submitted by coin of the realm on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:01pm.
you are right about the link, but I just figured that noone would click through and actually read the content when it is easier to just malign liberals or Obama as proof positive that they did it. Lots of text is just too hard to read and validate when one knows the answers, facts and details with certainty simply by virtue of ...well, of what? What you heard on Fox or some quip made by a politician that fits neatly into one's world view or doesn't force one to think or, heaven forbid, read a lot of text?
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
it's a courtesy
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:03pm.
both for the reader and the author. Fox? To watch Fox I'd first have to own a television.
Coin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:07pm.
Oh my, another condescending little snot found his way to NB. Well, we sure won't hear much about this on MSNBC, ABC, etc, as they don't like to run any stories that don't fit their agenda of promoting Obama.
The fact that you choose not to accept information that doesn't fit into YOUR worldview, doesn't mean the rest of us live that way.
Coin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:42pm.
Your copy and pasting from sources such as Think Progress really doesn't qualify as debate around here. Try thinking for yourself, and at least giving credit when you copy and paste.
Idiot.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administra...
oh I see
Submitted by coin of the realm on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:51pm.
verifiable facts don't count if you don't like from where they came?
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"verifibel facts" are fine
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:51pm.
cutnpaste is not.
Verifiable? Really?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:55pm.
These aren't facts, it's an editorial. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough. Which Republican Representatives would they be? I could go on, but I choose not to.
there's a curious absence of reference material
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:00pm.
between January 2009 and February 2011. That alone makes me wonder about the validity of the information.
We can call it Bill's homework.
What does count as debate here?
Submitted by coin of the realm on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 8:54pm.
Anything that can be used as fodder to blame our woes on Obama or the dems?
so rebut the timeline. rebut the context. rebut the actions supporting the loan by the guys you like.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Good freakin greif
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:03pm.
Obama had 2 years of unopposed legislation making, he has used his executive power to the extreme. But yet he bears no blame? See it's morons like you, why were in the current condition were in.
Dont you have a commie protest to be at?
Boudin
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:13pm.
He's probably at Starbucks, taking a break from having to repeat what the guy on the megaphone is saying. I guess that's why he's just repeating what he's read on other websites.
Yep, I have seen better
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:24pm.
Kindergarten classes these these nitwits in Atlanta
no, no
Submitted by coin of the realm on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:19pm.
I didn't say he is without culpability, but that he is not the only one to blame.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
Are you going to ignore
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:21pm.
the connection to his campaign contributions? http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-p...
Sure of course not
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:23pm.
I think Pelousy and Dingy Harry are culpable also. As well as Dod, Shumer, Murtha, And Frank.
Ok, good points you make
Submitted by coin of the realm on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:15pm.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=8333
I am a very fast reader and guilty of bias as we all are. The comments you mentioned above about the Repubs complaints can be seen in the testimony linked above. Having just watched some of those repubs say the words quoted in the timeline I will concede that the certainty of the conclusions drawn by the writer from those words that were indeed spoken is not objective fact but a commentary of facts. Facts from which he draws conclusions that may or may not be 100% correct.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. Mayer Amschel Rothschild
counterfeit money---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:27pm.
Rad is correct - a "condescending little snot" fits your persona to a "t".
JALT works well, too.
Just Another Liberal Troll.
Same old sh*t, different thread.
MD
the point
Submitted by kata on Sat, 10/08/2011 - 9:45pm.
is that you've run into someone who doesn't fit YOUR worldview and you're forced into a 180.
Accepted debate, since you've asked, usually starts with making your own arguments, not pasting them into a comment with your own text and then conveniently NOT giving credit to the author. Especially since the author at LEAST had some references in their own text that you removed in your cutnpaste.
Here is a "gob of text" you can spend some time ingesting.