McDonald’s Fires Back on Food Police First Lady Michelle Obama

Comments Off on McDonald’s Fires Back on Food Police First Lady Michelle Obama

Note to Michelle: don’t mess with the Golden Arches.

Olympic gold medal gymnast Gabby Douglas appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last week, where she told Leno that after winning her medal, she “splurged on an Egg McMuffin at McDonald’s.” Unfortunately for Douglas, she was sitting on the same set as Food Police Commissar Michelle Obama, who quickly chided her for not eating healthy. “No Gabby,” she tut-tutted, “we don’t … don’t encourage. I’m sure it was on a whole wheat muffin … You’re setting me back, Gabby!”

The implication: McDonald’s is the root of all food evil.

Now McDonald’s is fighting back. McDonald’s had already co-sponsored the Olympic Games to the tune of $100 million, specifically pushing its “Favorites Under 400” dishes, an attempt to get people to eat foods under 400 calories. And the Egg McMuffin clocks in at a robust 300 calories. “We are working hard to continue to provide our valued customers – Olympians and others alike – with great tasting, quality food and beverage options in a variety of portion sizes to fit any dietary needs,” explained McDonald’s director of communications, Dayna Proud. And dietary specialists say that it’s not out of line for Douglas to chow down on the McMuffin – she needs protein, and her calorie intake is higher than that of non-Olympic athletes.

President Obama and his wife have already made clear their distaste for the business community. Attacking one of America’s most beloved institutions by lecturing one of America’s most beloved athletes is – no pun intended – in bad taste.

Here’s one comment on this article:


But for the fact that Michelle is married to the President of the United States, her food police comments and intimidation would be marginalized at worst and mocked at best.  Who the  h*ll is she to be telling any of us what to eat and not eat while she gorges on lobster, luscious State dinners and vacations all over the world on the taxpayers’ dime?  Hypocracy thy name is Michelle Obama.

I wish some national columnist would point this out:

The whole justification for abortion is that no one can tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.  But the same people who spout that idea are the first to tell everyone what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, when it comes to what they eat or drink.


You mean like how Obama helps his poor brother, or his aunt that is on welfare, or his illegal uncle here that keeps getting DUIs?
But yet, he wants to tell us how to eat, spend our money, that we earned, while he helps no one.


Labor Department spends stimulus funds for Obama ads during Olbermann, Maddow shows

Comments Off on Labor Department spends stimulus funds for Obama ads during Olbermann, Maddow shows

The Labor Department paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal stimulus funds to a public relations firm to run more than 100 commercials touting the Obama administration’s “green training” job efforts on two MSNBC cable shows, records show.

The commercials ran on MSNBC on shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in 2009, but the contract didn’t report any jobs created, according to records reviewed recently by The Washington Times.

Spending reports under the federal Recovery Act show $495,000 paid to McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations LLC, which the Labor Department hired to raise awareness “among employers and influencers about the [Job Corps] program’s existing and new training initiatives in high growth and environmentally friendly career areas” as well as spreading the word to prospective Job Corps enrollees.

The firm ultimately negotiated ad buys for “two approved spots” airing 14 times per week for two months on “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” and “The Rachel Maddow Show,” according to a project report, which listed the number zero under a section of the report asking how many jobs had been created through the stimulus contract.

David Williams, president of the nonprofit watchdog Taxpayers Protection Alliance, called the contract “questionable” because it created no jobs and because of the placement of the ads on shows viewed as friendly to the administration’s policies.

“Hiring a PR firm does not create jobs, and this was obviously meant for selling a particular political agenda,” Mr. Williams said. “The placement really reeks of a political ad rather than a job ad, and taxpayers see through this.

“Taxpayers would be a lot happier at the end of the day to see a completed road rather than a bunch of ads on cable television,” he said.

GM goes from bad to worse despite Obama bailout

Comments Off on GM goes from bad to worse despite Obama bailout

Readers with long memories may recall that Charles E. Wilson, president of General Motors and nominee for secretary of defense, got into trouble when he told a Senate committee, “What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”

That was in 1953, and Wilson was trying to make the point that General Motors was such a big company — it sold about half the cars in the United States back then — that its interests were inevitably aligned with those of the country as a whole.

Things are different now. General Motors’ market share in the U.S. is below 20 percent. It has gone through bankruptcy and exists now thanks to a federal bailout. But Barack Obama seems to think that it’s as closely aligned with the national interest as Charles E. Wilson did.

Obama talks about the auto bailout frequently, since it’s one of the few things in his record that gets positive responses in the polls. But he’s probably wise to avoid probing questions, since the GM bailout is not at all the success he claims.

GM has been selling cars in the U.S. at deep discount and, while it’s making money in China — and is outsourcing operations there and elsewhere — it’s bleeding losses in Europe. It’s spending billions to ditch its Opel brand there in favor of Chevrolet, including $559 million to put the Chevy logo on Manchester United soccer team uniforms — and just fired the marketing exec who cut that deal.

It botched the launch of its new Chevrolet Malibu by starting with the green-friendly Eco version, which pleased its government shareholders but which got lousy reviews. And it’s selling only about 10,000 electric-powered Chevy Volts a year, a puny contribution toward Obama’s goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

“GM is going from bad to worse,” reads the headline on Automotive News Editor-in-Chief Keith Crain’s analysis. That’s certainly true of its stock price.

The government still owns 500 million shares of GM, 26 percent of the total. It needs to sell them for $53 a share to recover its $49.5 billion bailout. But the stock price is about $20 a share, and the Treasury now estimates that the government will lose more than $25 billion if and when it sells.

That’s in addition to the revenue lost when the Obama administration permitted GM to continue to deduct previous losses from current profits, even though such deductions are ordinarily wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that GM is bleeding money because of decisions made by a management eager to please its political masters — and by the terms of the bankruptcy arranged by Obama car czars Ron Bloom and Steven Rattner.

Rattner himself admitted late last year, in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, that “We should have asked the [United Auto Workers] to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay.” Nonunion employees of GM spin-off Delphi lost their pensions. UAW members didn’t.

The UAW got its political payoff. And GM, according to Forbes writer Louis Woodhill, is headed to bankruptcy again.

Read entire article