The push is on. Rep Jim Murphy (Dist 133) wrote in an op-ed recently about the deadlines established in the state legislature that keep order in the process of moving bills through for passage.
"The Memorial Day (May 30) end of session is well known. However, the deadlines leading up to it triage bills, establish hierarchies, and prevent a last minute flood of legislation.
We have already passed the May 9 deadline for committees to report (pass) house bills. Any bill still in committee is dead, unless it has a Senate companion. May 12 was a very major deadline, the last day to pass House bills. Again, if you have a Senator carrying a companion, that bill can still pass.
Our calendar on May 12 had more than 100 bills eligible. We can consider Senate bills until May 25 for second reading and for final passage."
An interesting development was announced as an end of session surprise - Comptroller Susan Combs declared an additional $1.2 billion in revenue and now the mad scramble is on to pass a state budget.
Governor Perry said of the additional money reported by Comptroller Combs:
"The revised revenue estimate shows the strength of Texas job creation and economic growth, but it does not mean lawmakers can abandon necessary budget reductions. Just as Texas families and employers have had to tighten their belts during the national recession, so must state government.
"Because of our nation's economic uncertainty, looming federal mandates and possible natural disasters, we must protect the remaining balance of the state's Rainy Day Fund. A budget that drains the Rainy Day Fund, depends on accounting gimmicks or spends more than available revenues is harmful and unsustainable for taxpayers, employers and state lawmakers alike.
"I will not sign a partial state budget or allow it to become law. However, I remain confident we can pass a fiscally-conservative balanced budget in regular session, and will continue to work with the Senate and House to responsibly live within available state revenues."
Speaker of the House Straus spoke to the fact that the House remains committed to no new taxes and keeping hands out of the Rainy Day Fund. He said the House has made compromises, as in any negotiations, and now it is time for the Senate to step up and do the same:
"Earlier this week, Comptroller Combs updated her projections of state revenue and House conferees on the budget promptly agreed to put those dollars toward our first priority, our public schools. The additional revenue from the Comptroller and the improving economy have allowed House budget negotiators to find an additional $2 billion to fund public schools and another $1 billion for border security, nursing homes, transportation, and higher education, for a total of $3 billion. We are prepared to enact legislation that will allow us to pay for these priorities within a balanced budget and without raising taxes or further using the Rainy Day Fund."
Rep Linda Harper Brown, House Dist 105, announced a bill she authored to save some money for the state by eliminating 150 printed reports deemed unnecessary and unhelpful .
"I have authored a bill that will eliminate more than 150 unnecessary government reports. These are reports that have been previously compiled by agencies, but were deemed useless by the recipients of the reports. The purpose of HB 2870 and its Senate companion bill, SB 1179, is to increase government efficiency by eliminating unnecessary and outdated state agency reports that serve no purpose and take up staff time, printing costs, and storage space. As a result of these savings, this legislation will have a positive fiscal impact to the state."
Maybe it's not a monumental amount of savings, but every action helps. Common sense is so important in governing and yet so often missing for the equation.
If a state budget is not passed before the end of session deadline, a special session will be called by Governor Perry. The last day is May 30th (Sine Die). Eliminating the need for a special session would be a cost-saving measure, too.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Greater Houston Council Polls on U.S. Senate Candidates
On the heels of a big endorsement announcement by Madison Project of U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz,it is apparent that Cruz is a popular candidate with the Republican women in southeast Texas
The Madison Project announcement stated the tough race ahead for the candidates:
This is going to be a long haul for Ted to win this primary-already there are four other high profile candidates in the race with rumors that a fifth will enter within the next few months and the opportunity to elect a solid conservative for the U.S. Senate seat from Texas, vacated by retiring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Though I do not - DO NOT - agree with this organization's caricature of Senator Hutchison as a "RINO" and do not respect the use of that term by conservatives, I do agree it's a full out competitive race developing. Madison Project describes Cruz as a "comprehensive conservative" and I think that is accurate. He has a record of both fiscal and social conservatism.
The popularity of Cruz with other Republican women is not a surprise to me. I've been to lots of Republican events sponsored by Republican women - particularly in the last three years - and, as a rule, Ted Cruz comes and doesn't just stop by for a few minutes to be introduced as a guest. He stays and shakes hands and answers questions with anyone who comes up to speak with him. He works a room. His wife is a Republican woman and she and Ted are fond of saying they are raising the next generation of Republican women now with their two little daughters.
So, with all this in mind, I was interested to hear the thoughts of other Republican women leaders Tuesday morning as I attended the bi-monthly meeting of Greater Houston Council. Greater Houston Council is an arm of the Texas Federation of Republican Women. It represents Republican women in 40 Republican Women's Clubs in Southeast Texas - in 9 counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, Montgomery, Waller, and Walker. Each federated Republican Womens club has two delegates to Greater Houston Council - the club president and another delegate, usually the club vice-president. So, I've been a delegate for three years now. It is a hard working group of women committed to electing Republicans into office in Texas, and at the federal level. Recently, Republican women were credited with being the force behind turning Hardin County into a deeply 'red' county.
The program consisted of taking a poll using a list of characteristics of a candidate. We were asked to score the characteristics from 1 to 12, most important to least, for the U.S. Senate race and then for the candidates for President.
The characteristics were: Tactful/Diplomatic, Communication skills, Persuasive, Understands government, Common sense, Comprehends constituent needs, Ethical, Professional, Sense of humor, Pro family, Moral convictions.
Then we were asked to write down the name of a declared or undeclared Republican candidate for U.S. Senate that we think most embodies these characteristics. The results were:
Ted Cruz 45%
David Dewhurst 36.4%
Elizabeth Ames Jones 9.1%
Michael Williams 3%
Roger Williams 3%
Michael McCaul 3%
The final question had us write down the name of the candidate we think can win against a Democrat. The results were:
David Dewhurst 55.2%
Ted Cruz 27.6%
Michael Williams 13.8%
Tom Leppert 3.4%
Interesting, right?
The Madison Project announcement stated the tough race ahead for the candidates:
This is going to be a long haul for Ted to win this primary-already there are four other high profile candidates in the race with rumors that a fifth will enter within the next few months and the opportunity to elect a solid conservative for the U.S. Senate seat from Texas, vacated by retiring Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Though I do not - DO NOT - agree with this organization's caricature of Senator Hutchison as a "RINO" and do not respect the use of that term by conservatives, I do agree it's a full out competitive race developing. Madison Project describes Cruz as a "comprehensive conservative" and I think that is accurate. He has a record of both fiscal and social conservatism.
The popularity of Cruz with other Republican women is not a surprise to me. I've been to lots of Republican events sponsored by Republican women - particularly in the last three years - and, as a rule, Ted Cruz comes and doesn't just stop by for a few minutes to be introduced as a guest. He stays and shakes hands and answers questions with anyone who comes up to speak with him. He works a room. His wife is a Republican woman and she and Ted are fond of saying they are raising the next generation of Republican women now with their two little daughters.
So, with all this in mind, I was interested to hear the thoughts of other Republican women leaders Tuesday morning as I attended the bi-monthly meeting of Greater Houston Council. Greater Houston Council is an arm of the Texas Federation of Republican Women. It represents Republican women in 40 Republican Women's Clubs in Southeast Texas - in 9 counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Jefferson, Montgomery, Waller, and Walker. Each federated Republican Womens club has two delegates to Greater Houston Council - the club president and another delegate, usually the club vice-president. So, I've been a delegate for three years now. It is a hard working group of women committed to electing Republicans into office in Texas, and at the federal level. Recently, Republican women were credited with being the force behind turning Hardin County into a deeply 'red' county.
The program consisted of taking a poll using a list of characteristics of a candidate. We were asked to score the characteristics from 1 to 12, most important to least, for the U.S. Senate race and then for the candidates for President.
The characteristics were: Tactful/Diplomatic, Communication skills, Persuasive, Understands government, Common sense, Comprehends constituent needs, Ethical, Professional, Sense of humor, Pro family, Moral convictions.
Then we were asked to write down the name of a declared or undeclared Republican candidate for U.S. Senate that we think most embodies these characteristics. The results were:
Ted Cruz 45%
David Dewhurst 36.4%
Elizabeth Ames Jones 9.1%
Michael Williams 3%
Roger Williams 3%
Michael McCaul 3%
The final question had us write down the name of the candidate we think can win against a Democrat. The results were:
David Dewhurst 55.2%
Ted Cruz 27.6%
Michael Williams 13.8%
Tom Leppert 3.4%
Interesting, right?
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Senate Wastes Time on Energy Votes
Liberal reporters are stating that it was a failure for the GOP in the Senate that a bill opposed by a Republican senator from Louisiana failed in the trial balloon vote Wednesday. Got that bit of irony? A bill put forward by Republicans in the Senate to counter the unconstitutional money grab by Senate Democrats - yanking the tax 'credits' of the top five oil and gas companies - was opposed by a Republican senator from an oil producing state. Why did Senator Vitter oppose his party's bill? He said it didn't go far enough.
He is right.
So, it's ok that the bill failed. It was meant to get the Republicans on record by Democrats who wish to use votes in campaign ads in 2012. To Democrats, it is bad to be on record voting in support of the energy producing sector. Unless it is "green energy". Then, it is ok to be in favor of throwing good money after bad in energy production that will not bear fruit for decades to come. There is no common sense in Democratic leadership when it comes to energy. They will blindly support a liberal and illogical ideology to the bitter end. They are complacent as we pay big bucks to fill our gas tanks because they view high gas prices as a way of rationing America's driving habits.
Apparently, it is a-ok with Democrats to stop domestic offshore oil and gas drilling in our waters because in their logic, we'll never have enough anyway. What?
Democrats argued that no amount of domestic drilling would satiate the nation’s thirst for energy.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., accused Republicans of wanting “to begin rushing in to drilling with the same reckless practices that led to the spill” in the Gulf last year.
“Not only does the Republican bill not add any new protocols to ensure that increased drilling will be safe, it revokes some of the additional requirements that were instituted following the BP spill,” Durbin said. “They haven’t learned any lessons from what happened in the Gulf of Mexico.”
The Senate voted 42-57 to launch debate on the legislation — falling 18 votes shy of the 60 needed to advance the bill.
The facts are written in plain language in the final reports produced on the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. It was a build up on bad human decisions and failure of a piece of equipment which had nothing to do with additional layers of bureaucratic red tape and more pencil pushers dictating "new protocols" that are neither useful nor helpful. It has nothing to do with safety on a drilling rig. That's the lesson that should be learned, if Senator Durbin were really serious.
For the record, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, also opposed the bill as not strong enough.
Vitter took issue with a provision in the legislation that would require a third-party review of oil companies’ spill response plans.
The legislation “increases the burdens and requirements and hurdles of even the new Obama regulations that have been put in place since the BP disaster,” Vitter said on the floor Tuesday.
In addition, the legislation does not go far enough to expand domestic drilling, Vitter said, noting it does not require dramatic new lease sales in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off parts of the Pacific coast.
“I’m disappointed that the bill is so modest in terms of the increased access,” he said.
Vitter rightly pointed out that both bills - the one targeting oil companies and the one that was a weak response from the GOP - are a waste of precious time.
“There’s going to be a whole bunch of sound and fury in the end signifying nothing,” Vitter said.
He is right.
So, it's ok that the bill failed. It was meant to get the Republicans on record by Democrats who wish to use votes in campaign ads in 2012. To Democrats, it is bad to be on record voting in support of the energy producing sector. Unless it is "green energy". Then, it is ok to be in favor of throwing good money after bad in energy production that will not bear fruit for decades to come. There is no common sense in Democratic leadership when it comes to energy. They will blindly support a liberal and illogical ideology to the bitter end. They are complacent as we pay big bucks to fill our gas tanks because they view high gas prices as a way of rationing America's driving habits.
Apparently, it is a-ok with Democrats to stop domestic offshore oil and gas drilling in our waters because in their logic, we'll never have enough anyway. What?
Democrats argued that no amount of domestic drilling would satiate the nation’s thirst for energy.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., accused Republicans of wanting “to begin rushing in to drilling with the same reckless practices that led to the spill” in the Gulf last year.
“Not only does the Republican bill not add any new protocols to ensure that increased drilling will be safe, it revokes some of the additional requirements that were instituted following the BP spill,” Durbin said. “They haven’t learned any lessons from what happened in the Gulf of Mexico.”
The Senate voted 42-57 to launch debate on the legislation — falling 18 votes shy of the 60 needed to advance the bill.
The facts are written in plain language in the final reports produced on the Deepwater Horizon tragedy. It was a build up on bad human decisions and failure of a piece of equipment which had nothing to do with additional layers of bureaucratic red tape and more pencil pushers dictating "new protocols" that are neither useful nor helpful. It has nothing to do with safety on a drilling rig. That's the lesson that should be learned, if Senator Durbin were really serious.
For the record, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu, also opposed the bill as not strong enough.
Vitter took issue with a provision in the legislation that would require a third-party review of oil companies’ spill response plans.
The legislation “increases the burdens and requirements and hurdles of even the new Obama regulations that have been put in place since the BP disaster,” Vitter said on the floor Tuesday.
In addition, the legislation does not go far enough to expand domestic drilling, Vitter said, noting it does not require dramatic new lease sales in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off parts of the Pacific coast.
“I’m disappointed that the bill is so modest in terms of the increased access,” he said.
Vitter rightly pointed out that both bills - the one targeting oil companies and the one that was a weak response from the GOP - are a waste of precious time.
“There’s going to be a whole bunch of sound and fury in the end signifying nothing,” Vitter said.
Run, Mitch, Run
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is near announcing a decision about a run for President, if we are to believe recent nuggets in the news. It is evident that the media who are clearly in the re-election camp of President Obama are a bit worried about a potential GOP rival who would give Obama a run for his billion dollar campaign.
A story line developing about the private life of Daniels is both disappointing and completely expected. Though labeled by the press as Daniels' political enemies or rival campaigns, it is easy to think of those descriptions as thoughts from Team Obama. Seems these rivals and enemies are hoping to include personal attacks on the Governor's wife, Cherie, and their marriage as campaign material fodder.
From the Washington Post:
The governor’s political enemies — those who are eager to box out a promising contender with a reputation for fiscal seriousness, establishment backing and intellectual heft — are taking him at his word.
A rival campaign has identified the first lady’s reticence as a pressure point before she steps fully into the limelight. The couple has a complicated personal history. They divorced in 1994, and Cheri Daniels moved to California, where she remarried. The future governor, then a senior executive at the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, raised the couple’s four daughters, who at the time spanned the ages of 8 to 14. Cheri Daniels later returned, and the couple remarried in 1997.
In exchange for anonymity, an official for another GOP prospect provided contact information for the ex-wife of the man Cheri Daniels married, in the years between her divorce and remarriage to Daniels. Other officials at potential rival campaigns to Daniels disagreed about whether the personal history of Cheri Daniels would ever be a vulnerability or even germane to the race. One key adviser to a potential candidate said that the guardedness the first lady had exhibited about her past signaled a lack of enthusiasm that, more than any personal baggage, would handicap her husband’s chances over time. An official at another candidate’s campaign said the marital history wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter.
So, to recap, while Mitch Daniels was running Eli Lilly his wife left, divorced him, went to California and Mitch stayed in Indianapolis with the four daughters. Neither were politicians. They were private citizens. They worked it out, whatever was not right and Cherie and Mitch re-married. All of this was in a three year time span. Daniels now says, "If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story.”
The same conservatives who would have you believe they are all about family values and pro-family will now criticize the Daniels for separating and then coming back together. The daughters remained in their home and maintained their lives in Indianapolis, in their familar environment. Isn't that pro-family? Isn't that family values? Doesn't Mitch Daniels get some extra credit for being a single dad to four daughters, the oldest 14 years old and the youngest 8? Having been a 14 year old girl at one time, I can speak from experience - 14 year old girls are no picnic, especially for their dads.
And, if some of this nonsense is from Team Obama who would be surprised? We were told by liberals and Democrats that the Clinton marriage was none of our business - as long as they were ok with it, we should be. He, at the time, was a sitting President. She did the groundwork for a run for the U.S. Senate in her last years in the White House. Neither of them were private citizens.
That was then, this is now.
Daniels is very popular in Indiana - he won re-election even though Barack Obama carried the state in 2008. He ended the union benefit contracts that were bankrupting the state. He ended state funding to Planned Parenthood - the first Governor in the nation to do so. Indiana is not broke, as most other states are. Daniels expertise is economics. He was critical of former President Bush's big spending and as his budget director,left that administration over it. He was a member of the Reagan administration.
Daniels is unwavering in his convictions, courageous in execution, socially and fiscally conservative, intelligent, experienced in executive leadership and a numbers guy. He's a Republican.
Run, Mitch, run. Get in there and mix it up with the others.
A story line developing about the private life of Daniels is both disappointing and completely expected. Though labeled by the press as Daniels' political enemies or rival campaigns, it is easy to think of those descriptions as thoughts from Team Obama. Seems these rivals and enemies are hoping to include personal attacks on the Governor's wife, Cherie, and their marriage as campaign material fodder.
From the Washington Post:
The governor’s political enemies — those who are eager to box out a promising contender with a reputation for fiscal seriousness, establishment backing and intellectual heft — are taking him at his word.
A rival campaign has identified the first lady’s reticence as a pressure point before she steps fully into the limelight. The couple has a complicated personal history. They divorced in 1994, and Cheri Daniels moved to California, where she remarried. The future governor, then a senior executive at the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, raised the couple’s four daughters, who at the time spanned the ages of 8 to 14. Cheri Daniels later returned, and the couple remarried in 1997.
In exchange for anonymity, an official for another GOP prospect provided contact information for the ex-wife of the man Cheri Daniels married, in the years between her divorce and remarriage to Daniels. Other officials at potential rival campaigns to Daniels disagreed about whether the personal history of Cheri Daniels would ever be a vulnerability or even germane to the race. One key adviser to a potential candidate said that the guardedness the first lady had exhibited about her past signaled a lack of enthusiasm that, more than any personal baggage, would handicap her husband’s chances over time. An official at another candidate’s campaign said the marital history wouldn’t and shouldn’t matter.
So, to recap, while Mitch Daniels was running Eli Lilly his wife left, divorced him, went to California and Mitch stayed in Indianapolis with the four daughters. Neither were politicians. They were private citizens. They worked it out, whatever was not right and Cherie and Mitch re-married. All of this was in a three year time span. Daniels now says, "If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story.”
The same conservatives who would have you believe they are all about family values and pro-family will now criticize the Daniels for separating and then coming back together. The daughters remained in their home and maintained their lives in Indianapolis, in their familar environment. Isn't that pro-family? Isn't that family values? Doesn't Mitch Daniels get some extra credit for being a single dad to four daughters, the oldest 14 years old and the youngest 8? Having been a 14 year old girl at one time, I can speak from experience - 14 year old girls are no picnic, especially for their dads.
And, if some of this nonsense is from Team Obama who would be surprised? We were told by liberals and Democrats that the Clinton marriage was none of our business - as long as they were ok with it, we should be. He, at the time, was a sitting President. She did the groundwork for a run for the U.S. Senate in her last years in the White House. Neither of them were private citizens.
That was then, this is now.
Daniels is very popular in Indiana - he won re-election even though Barack Obama carried the state in 2008. He ended the union benefit contracts that were bankrupting the state. He ended state funding to Planned Parenthood - the first Governor in the nation to do so. Indiana is not broke, as most other states are. Daniels expertise is economics. He was critical of former President Bush's big spending and as his budget director,left that administration over it. He was a member of the Reagan administration.
Daniels is unwavering in his convictions, courageous in execution, socially and fiscally conservative, intelligent, experienced in executive leadership and a numbers guy. He's a Republican.
Run, Mitch, run. Get in there and mix it up with the others.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
TPPF Amicus Curiae Accepted By 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
For the first time in the foundation's history, Texas Public Policy Foundation has filed an amicus curiae (friend of court) brief in the in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and it was accepted. The case - Florida et al v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al, the lawsuit by 26 states – including Texas – challenging the constitutionality of the last year’s federal health care reform law, is that important.
Twenty-six states have joined together to say no to Obamacare and its mandates to states. A big sticking point is the individual mandate - currently in the news as presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has come out on the wrong side of that issue.
The foundation's brief asks the court to hold that the Medicaid expansion provisions are a commandeering of state governments for federal purposes, which is unconstitutional under the Spending Clause. The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) included provisions requiring state governments to cover tens of millions of additional low-income individuals through the Medicaid program.
Here is an explanation of an amicus curiae:
Amicus curiae is a Latin term for “friend of the court.” Persons who are not a party to a particular case may submit amicus curiae briefs with information and analysis that may help the court resolve legal issues in that case. Today is the first time in the 22-year history of the Texas Public Policy Foundation that it has authored such a brief. The appeal is scheduled for June 8.
Onward.
Twenty-six states have joined together to say no to Obamacare and its mandates to states. A big sticking point is the individual mandate - currently in the news as presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has come out on the wrong side of that issue.
The foundation's brief asks the court to hold that the Medicaid expansion provisions are a commandeering of state governments for federal purposes, which is unconstitutional under the Spending Clause. The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (ACA) included provisions requiring state governments to cover tens of millions of additional low-income individuals through the Medicaid program.
Here is an explanation of an amicus curiae:
Amicus curiae is a Latin term for “friend of the court.” Persons who are not a party to a particular case may submit amicus curiae briefs with information and analysis that may help the court resolve legal issues in that case. Today is the first time in the 22-year history of the Texas Public Policy Foundation that it has authored such a brief. The appeal is scheduled for June 8.
Onward.
Gingrich Implodes
That didn't take long, did it? Newt Gingrich just ended his very narrow shot at the GOP presidential bid. Only a matter of days after declaring his intention to run for President via social media, Newt was basking in the buzz around Washington, D.C. and made the mistake of doing a Sunday morning interview on an alphabet network show.
When asked about his opinion on the health care proposal delivered by the GOP through Rep Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives, Newt declared that "far right social engineering" is just as dangerous as it is coming from the far left. He said the legislation proposed was too drastic.
Alrighty then.
Rep Ryan responded by saying who needs Democrats with allies like this.
True enough. For a man who pretends to be Reaganesque at every opportunity, Newt sure did fall victim to what many conservatives trip up on - Reagan's number one rule was that of the 11th commandment - do not speak ill of a fellow Republican. In this case, the Ryan plan is wildly popular among the House GOP and all but four of them have signed off on the plan.
Paul Ryan isn't running for President. What in the world was Newt thinking?
Gingrich went on to declare support - in a kinda sorta veiled way - that he agrees with an individual mandate in health care reform.
Check, please.
There was one shining moment for Gingrich during that Sunday morning interview, to be fair. The host asked if opposition to Obama was racist from the GOP. Yes, folks, it is re-election time and the alphabet dinosaur media outlets are just as committed to Obama's re-election as they were in electing him in 2008. Now it's back to the meme that the GOP is racist because we are not behind a big government takeover style of governing. Newt firmly and quickly slapped back at the interviewer with his response that race has nothing to do with opposition to Obama policy.
During a speech given Friday in Georgia, Gingrich said, “President Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history,” Gingrich said. “I would like to be the most successful paycheck president in American history.”
See, if you are a member of the dinosaur, liberal media, any reference to President Obama and food stamps in the same sentence must be a racist remark. Never mind that Gingrich was referring to the fact that today more Americans are dependent on money from the government to survive than any other time in recent history. And, by the way, fewer Americans pay income tax than ever before. Yeah, something is very wrong.
As has been written before, Newt Gingrich is a smart man without the necessary discipline to think before speaking. His time to lead in elected office has come and gone.
When asked about his opinion on the health care proposal delivered by the GOP through Rep Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives, Newt declared that "far right social engineering" is just as dangerous as it is coming from the far left. He said the legislation proposed was too drastic.
Alrighty then.
Rep Ryan responded by saying who needs Democrats with allies like this.
True enough. For a man who pretends to be Reaganesque at every opportunity, Newt sure did fall victim to what many conservatives trip up on - Reagan's number one rule was that of the 11th commandment - do not speak ill of a fellow Republican. In this case, the Ryan plan is wildly popular among the House GOP and all but four of them have signed off on the plan.
Paul Ryan isn't running for President. What in the world was Newt thinking?
Gingrich went on to declare support - in a kinda sorta veiled way - that he agrees with an individual mandate in health care reform.
Check, please.
There was one shining moment for Gingrich during that Sunday morning interview, to be fair. The host asked if opposition to Obama was racist from the GOP. Yes, folks, it is re-election time and the alphabet dinosaur media outlets are just as committed to Obama's re-election as they were in electing him in 2008. Now it's back to the meme that the GOP is racist because we are not behind a big government takeover style of governing. Newt firmly and quickly slapped back at the interviewer with his response that race has nothing to do with opposition to Obama policy.
During a speech given Friday in Georgia, Gingrich said, “President Obama is the most successful food stamp president in American history,” Gingrich said. “I would like to be the most successful paycheck president in American history.”
See, if you are a member of the dinosaur, liberal media, any reference to President Obama and food stamps in the same sentence must be a racist remark. Never mind that Gingrich was referring to the fact that today more Americans are dependent on money from the government to survive than any other time in recent history. And, by the way, fewer Americans pay income tax than ever before. Yeah, something is very wrong.
As has been written before, Newt Gingrich is a smart man without the necessary discipline to think before speaking. His time to lead in elected office has come and gone.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Obama Takes Baby Steps Towards Oil & Gas Production
Following the disaster that was the Senate Finance Committee's hearing with the CEOs of the top five oil and gas companies, with the Democrats looking like utter buffoons, the President of the United States decided to use his weekly radio address to change course and go with the notion that we do, in fact, need an adjustment in his destructive energy non-policy.
The Democrats who were supporting yanking the tax incentives given to the oil companies - though it is the same as what is given to all big businesses in our country - were so thoroughly discredited that there has been nary a peep from them.
Here's the thing - it's full out 2012 campaign season and Barack Obama is struggling. He got a bit of a bounce from killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan but it is nowhere near what, say, either of the two Bush presidents received after the Kuwait war or capturing Saddam. He'll use it for all it's worth, of course, but there is little hope that it is enough to counter the dismal economic numbers which will no doubt follow him into re-election voting time.
So, Obama being the pol from Chicago that he is and forever being in campaign mode, looked at the polling numbers and noticed that the majority of Americans want to drill for our own oil. Most Americans don't want to be beholden to nations who wish us ill for our oil supply. Most Americans realize that to reap rewards of good energy policy decisions, the groundwork must be done years in advance.
Barack Obama took to the airwaves and video camera to announce a half-assed solution to the challenges we face today. Unable to admit he is wrong in his ideologically driven non-policy and that simply shutting down an entire industry is not the way to go. He should have fired Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu and brought in common sense, trained experts. That is a long overdue necessity. Instead he made small steps while trying to make them sound like great strides for solely political posturing.
Let the teeth gnashing and arm flailing begin.
A little review from www.mullings.com :
On December 1 CNN reported that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced
"Barack Obama will not be allowing new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years" and "the exploration of drilling possibilities in sensitive areas of the Arctic will proceed 'with utmost caution.'"
According to the CNN report, that announcement - again five months ago -
"Effectively reverses White House plans announced at the end of March [14 months ago] to open the Gulf region - along with other large swaths of U.S. coastal waters - to oil and natural gas drilling."
President Barack Obama, who has switched to All-Campaign-All-The-Time mode, according to the NY Times' John Broder:
In his weekly radio and Internet address, the president said the administration would begin to hold annual auctions for oil and gas leases in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, a 23-million-acre tract on the North Slope of Alaska.
Obama will also
-- Accelerate a review of the environmental impact of drilling off the southern and central Atlantic coast;
-- Extend leases already granted for drilling in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that had been frozen after last year's BP spill; and, according to the Broder piece;
-- Will provide incentives for oil companies to more quickly exploit leases they already hold.
Barack Obama was for more drilling in our own waters before he was against it and now he's for it again. Re-election converts, anyone?
I agree with what Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee said of Obama's weekly address: “One weekend address announcing minor policy tinkering, while positive, does not erase the Administration’s long job-destroying record of locking-up America’s energy resources,” said Doc Hastings (R-Wash)
The Democrats who were supporting yanking the tax incentives given to the oil companies - though it is the same as what is given to all big businesses in our country - were so thoroughly discredited that there has been nary a peep from them.
Here's the thing - it's full out 2012 campaign season and Barack Obama is struggling. He got a bit of a bounce from killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan but it is nowhere near what, say, either of the two Bush presidents received after the Kuwait war or capturing Saddam. He'll use it for all it's worth, of course, but there is little hope that it is enough to counter the dismal economic numbers which will no doubt follow him into re-election voting time.
So, Obama being the pol from Chicago that he is and forever being in campaign mode, looked at the polling numbers and noticed that the majority of Americans want to drill for our own oil. Most Americans don't want to be beholden to nations who wish us ill for our oil supply. Most Americans realize that to reap rewards of good energy policy decisions, the groundwork must be done years in advance.
Barack Obama took to the airwaves and video camera to announce a half-assed solution to the challenges we face today. Unable to admit he is wrong in his ideologically driven non-policy and that simply shutting down an entire industry is not the way to go. He should have fired Secretary Salazar and Secretary Chu and brought in common sense, trained experts. That is a long overdue necessity. Instead he made small steps while trying to make them sound like great strides for solely political posturing.
Let the teeth gnashing and arm flailing begin.
A little review from www.mullings.com :
On December 1 CNN reported that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced
"Barack Obama will not be allowing new drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for at least seven years" and "the exploration of drilling possibilities in sensitive areas of the Arctic will proceed 'with utmost caution.'"
According to the CNN report, that announcement - again five months ago -
"Effectively reverses White House plans announced at the end of March [14 months ago] to open the Gulf region - along with other large swaths of U.S. coastal waters - to oil and natural gas drilling."
President Barack Obama, who has switched to All-Campaign-All-The-Time mode, according to the NY Times' John Broder:
In his weekly radio and Internet address, the president said the administration would begin to hold annual auctions for oil and gas leases in the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, a 23-million-acre tract on the North Slope of Alaska.
Obama will also
-- Accelerate a review of the environmental impact of drilling off the southern and central Atlantic coast;
-- Extend leases already granted for drilling in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico that had been frozen after last year's BP spill; and, according to the Broder piece;
-- Will provide incentives for oil companies to more quickly exploit leases they already hold.
Barack Obama was for more drilling in our own waters before he was against it and now he's for it again. Re-election converts, anyone?
I agree with what Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee said of Obama's weekly address: “One weekend address announcing minor policy tinkering, while positive, does not erase the Administration’s long job-destroying record of locking-up America’s energy resources,” said Doc Hastings (R-Wash)
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Herman Cain Pays Visit to TFRW in Austin
Potential GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain was in Austin to deliver a speech Friday. Upon learning that the Texas Federation of Repubican Women was holding a board meeting nearby, Cain paid an unexpected visit to the women.
From the press release:
HERMAN CAIN MAKES SURPRISE VISIT TO TEXAS REPUBLICAN WOMEN
Austin- Members of the Texas Federation of Republican Women were just finishing lunch when 2012 Presidential hopeful Herman Cain paid them an unexpected visit on Friday afternoon. In town for a speaking engagement with the Austin Economic Club, Mr. Cain rearranged his flight schedule when he learned the group was meeting nearby.
Mr. Cain spoke to the women about his potential candidacy and outlined some of his proposals for solving America's current financial difficulties. While he has not officially announced his candidacy for president, Cain said he would be speaking at a large "news-worthy" event in his home state later this month; implying that an official announcement would come then.
Cain's statements were well received by the group; when he urged President Obama to "get our oil out of the ground," the 100 women in attendance eagerly joined him in reciting the 'American Oil Independence' slogan, 'Drill here, drill now!"
Among Cain's proposals to stimulate and strengthen the economy were calls to reduce the capital gains tax to "zero," lower corporate taxes, suspend taxes on repatriated profits, and provide a payroll tax holiday for both employers and employees. He emphasized that many federal programs need restructuring.
"We need to move from an entitlement society to an empowerment society."
Mr. Cain also paid tribute to the Republican women's organizations, saying he knew how important they were in his home state of Georgia. He encouraged the women to "stay informed, stay involved, and stay inspired." He mentioned his grandchildren and future American generations saying, "It ain't about us."
During his remarks, made in the Embassy Suites Atrium, other hotel guests lined the balconies to listen. Afterwards, Cain took time to visit with the TFRW women and hotel guests.
"We are absolutely delighted that Herman Cain took time out of his busy schedule to meet with us like this." said Federation President Rebecca Bradford. "He certainly had an impact on our group today."
President Bradford was careful to note that the Federation does not endorse candidates in Primary Elections. Individual members of the Federation are encouraged to endorse and work for the Republican candidate of their choosing.
Founded in 1955, the Texas Federation of Republican Women's long-standing goals of education, training, participation in government, electing Republicans and encouraging Republican women to run for office has helped create a powerful organization that touted 11,000 members with 162 clubs in 2010. For more information on TFRW or to locate a local club, please visit www.tfrw.org.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am President of Memorial West Republican Women in Houston, a member of Texas Federation of Republican Women. In compliance with the by-laws of the Federation, I am not allowed to endorse anyone running in a primary. This is not to be taken as an endorsement.
From the press release:
HERMAN CAIN MAKES SURPRISE VISIT TO TEXAS REPUBLICAN WOMEN
Austin- Members of the Texas Federation of Republican Women were just finishing lunch when 2012 Presidential hopeful Herman Cain paid them an unexpected visit on Friday afternoon. In town for a speaking engagement with the Austin Economic Club, Mr. Cain rearranged his flight schedule when he learned the group was meeting nearby.
Mr. Cain spoke to the women about his potential candidacy and outlined some of his proposals for solving America's current financial difficulties. While he has not officially announced his candidacy for president, Cain said he would be speaking at a large "news-worthy" event in his home state later this month; implying that an official announcement would come then.
Cain's statements were well received by the group; when he urged President Obama to "get our oil out of the ground," the 100 women in attendance eagerly joined him in reciting the 'American Oil Independence' slogan, 'Drill here, drill now!"
Among Cain's proposals to stimulate and strengthen the economy were calls to reduce the capital gains tax to "zero," lower corporate taxes, suspend taxes on repatriated profits, and provide a payroll tax holiday for both employers and employees. He emphasized that many federal programs need restructuring.
"We need to move from an entitlement society to an empowerment society."
Mr. Cain also paid tribute to the Republican women's organizations, saying he knew how important they were in his home state of Georgia. He encouraged the women to "stay informed, stay involved, and stay inspired." He mentioned his grandchildren and future American generations saying, "It ain't about us."
During his remarks, made in the Embassy Suites Atrium, other hotel guests lined the balconies to listen. Afterwards, Cain took time to visit with the TFRW women and hotel guests.
"We are absolutely delighted that Herman Cain took time out of his busy schedule to meet with us like this." said Federation President Rebecca Bradford. "He certainly had an impact on our group today."
President Bradford was careful to note that the Federation does not endorse candidates in Primary Elections. Individual members of the Federation are encouraged to endorse and work for the Republican candidate of their choosing.
Founded in 1955, the Texas Federation of Republican Women's long-standing goals of education, training, participation in government, electing Republicans and encouraging Republican women to run for office has helped create a powerful organization that touted 11,000 members with 162 clubs in 2010. For more information on TFRW or to locate a local club, please visit www.tfrw.org.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am President of Memorial West Republican Women in Houston, a member of Texas Federation of Republican Women. In compliance with the by-laws of the Federation, I am not allowed to endorse anyone running in a primary. This is not to be taken as an endorsement.
Senate Finance Committee Puts on Dog & Pony Show
If you didn't have the opportunity to watch the Senate hearing with the oil executives on C-SPAN this week, you missed some real entertainment. Assuming you are a person interested in political process, the Senate hearing that brought together the CEOs of the five largest oil and gas companies was real theatre.
Hello. My name is Karen and I am a C-SPAN junkie.
There were visual aids! No standard pie charts offered, not from Republicans who came to play. Finally, the GOP and the oil executives manned up and handed the Democrats their butts back on a platter. The absolute absurdity of the exercise of this hearing was evident from the start. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a Democrat, called the hearing "laughable".
Senator Orrin Hatch, the committee's ranking member, won the day. He started off by having an aide hold up a giant poster depicting a dog riding on the back of a pony. It was to vividly show what a dog and pony show the hearing was. It was also a laugh out loud moment for those of us watching at home. Then, as Senator Hatch went about making his opening statement, Senator Rockefeller, (D-Big Coal) interrupted him by asking him if he was about finished. Not only is Rockefeller not the chair of the committee, he set himself up to be bitch slapped by the soft spoken Utah senator. Hatch responded in no uncertain terms that he was not, in fact, about finished and would be taking as long as he wanted to finish.
Priceless.
For once, the CEOs of oil and gas companies were not kowtowing to the politicians. They are guilty of no crimes, unless you are a Democrat and believe business success is a crime. During the opening statements, for example, Rex Tillerson, the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil, read from his remarks which included this:
"...it is important to make clear that tax provisions such as the Section 199 Domestic production Activities deduction are not special incentives, preferences or subsidies for oil and gas, but rather standard deductions applied across all businesses in the United States."
Tillerson pointed out that punishing the top five companies would be "misinformed and discriminatory". "By undermining U.S. competitiveness, they would discourage future investment in energy projects in the United States and therefore undercut job creation and economic growth. And, because they would hinder investment in new energy supplies, they do nothing to help reduce prices."
No doubt the Democrats were feeling a bit of pressure since two energy states Democrat Senators have come out strongly against the Senate hearing agenda.
Alaska's newest Senator Mark Begich is a Democrat. Unlike most of them in the Senate, he actually has some common sense with a backbone to boot. He shocked fellow Democrats this week with his position on punishing five of the top oil and gas companies for their success.
"I don't have a problem saying what's on my mind," he added. "If (the bill) hurts Alaska, they're going to hear from me."
Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that they say would eliminate more than $21 billion in subsidies and tax credits over the next 10 years for the five largest, most profitable oil companies in the world. The bill is known as the "Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act."
It puts an end to a number of loopholes that allow oil and gas companies to claim tax credits. It also ends royalty relief for deepwater offshore drilling.
The proceeds from repealing the loopholes would go toward reducing the deficit.
The legislation has the backing of President Barack Obama, who called for an end to the tax breaks in his State of the Union address. It has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled House, which on Wednesday passed a number of energy bills that expand drilling.
Did you catch that? Even this newspaper article follows the liberal's meme that the tax subsidies afforded to oil and gas producers are "loopholes". No, they are not loopholes. They are subsidies and tax incentives given to every big business in the country. Movie studios, manufacturing plants, foreign energy refineries doing business here, etc. They all receive subsidies.
And, his opinion was not just expressing what is best for his state, but also for the entire country. The article mentions that he is thinking of his constituents instead of playing normal partisan politics. Imagine that. A Senator actually doing his job.
So, good for Senator Begich. And, good for Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. She found her voice, too.
And, Senator Hatch won the day.
Hello. My name is Karen and I am a C-SPAN junkie.
There were visual aids! No standard pie charts offered, not from Republicans who came to play. Finally, the GOP and the oil executives manned up and handed the Democrats their butts back on a platter. The absolute absurdity of the exercise of this hearing was evident from the start. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a Democrat, called the hearing "laughable".
Senator Orrin Hatch, the committee's ranking member, won the day. He started off by having an aide hold up a giant poster depicting a dog riding on the back of a pony. It was to vividly show what a dog and pony show the hearing was. It was also a laugh out loud moment for those of us watching at home. Then, as Senator Hatch went about making his opening statement, Senator Rockefeller, (D-Big Coal) interrupted him by asking him if he was about finished. Not only is Rockefeller not the chair of the committee, he set himself up to be bitch slapped by the soft spoken Utah senator. Hatch responded in no uncertain terms that he was not, in fact, about finished and would be taking as long as he wanted to finish.
Priceless.
For once, the CEOs of oil and gas companies were not kowtowing to the politicians. They are guilty of no crimes, unless you are a Democrat and believe business success is a crime. During the opening statements, for example, Rex Tillerson, the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil, read from his remarks which included this:
"...it is important to make clear that tax provisions such as the Section 199 Domestic production Activities deduction are not special incentives, preferences or subsidies for oil and gas, but rather standard deductions applied across all businesses in the United States."
Tillerson pointed out that punishing the top five companies would be "misinformed and discriminatory". "By undermining U.S. competitiveness, they would discourage future investment in energy projects in the United States and therefore undercut job creation and economic growth. And, because they would hinder investment in new energy supplies, they do nothing to help reduce prices."
No doubt the Democrats were feeling a bit of pressure since two energy states Democrat Senators have come out strongly against the Senate hearing agenda.
Alaska's newest Senator Mark Begich is a Democrat. Unlike most of them in the Senate, he actually has some common sense with a backbone to boot. He shocked fellow Democrats this week with his position on punishing five of the top oil and gas companies for their success.
"I don't have a problem saying what's on my mind," he added. "If (the bill) hurts Alaska, they're going to hear from me."
Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that they say would eliminate more than $21 billion in subsidies and tax credits over the next 10 years for the five largest, most profitable oil companies in the world. The bill is known as the "Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act."
It puts an end to a number of loopholes that allow oil and gas companies to claim tax credits. It also ends royalty relief for deepwater offshore drilling.
The proceeds from repealing the loopholes would go toward reducing the deficit.
The legislation has the backing of President Barack Obama, who called for an end to the tax breaks in his State of the Union address. It has virtually no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled House, which on Wednesday passed a number of energy bills that expand drilling.
Did you catch that? Even this newspaper article follows the liberal's meme that the tax subsidies afforded to oil and gas producers are "loopholes". No, they are not loopholes. They are subsidies and tax incentives given to every big business in the country. Movie studios, manufacturing plants, foreign energy refineries doing business here, etc. They all receive subsidies.
And, his opinion was not just expressing what is best for his state, but also for the entire country. The article mentions that he is thinking of his constituents instead of playing normal partisan politics. Imagine that. A Senator actually doing his job.
So, good for Senator Begich. And, good for Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. She found her voice, too.
And, Senator Hatch won the day.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
American Energy Initiative Bills Passed in House
By a vote of 243 to 179, the final bill of a three bill initiative to create jobs, promote energy independence and lower energy prices was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives Thursday.
This is the statement issued by the House Natural Resources Committee on the success of passing the three bills that comprise the American Energy Initiative:
“The House Republican majority has responded to the American people’s call for lower gasoline prices, more jobs and reduced dependence on unstable foreign energy. Increased supply in American made energy, not higher taxes, will bring prices down. These three bills are the first steps in Republicans' efforts to foster low-cost, reliable American made energy that will help families across the country who are struggling to keep up with rising costs,” said Chairman Hastings. “All three bills earned bipartisan support and it’s now the Senate’s turn to take action and send them to President Obama as soon as possible. However, our work is just beginning. The Natural Resources Committee will act on an array of all-of-the-above energy bills that will focus on expanding all types of American energy.”
Additional American Energy Initiative bills from the Natural Resources Committee will focus on wind, solar, hydropower, critical minerals, coal, and onshore oil and natural gas development in the coming months.
The work in the House received strong bi-partisan support. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Energy production and independence is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue.
By passing H.R. 1229, H.R. 1330 and H.R. 1231, Chairman Hastings and the House Natural Resources Committee have provided a path to success.
This is the statement issued by the House Natural Resources Committee on the success of passing the three bills that comprise the American Energy Initiative:
“The House Republican majority has responded to the American people’s call for lower gasoline prices, more jobs and reduced dependence on unstable foreign energy. Increased supply in American made energy, not higher taxes, will bring prices down. These three bills are the first steps in Republicans' efforts to foster low-cost, reliable American made energy that will help families across the country who are struggling to keep up with rising costs,” said Chairman Hastings. “All three bills earned bipartisan support and it’s now the Senate’s turn to take action and send them to President Obama as soon as possible. However, our work is just beginning. The Natural Resources Committee will act on an array of all-of-the-above energy bills that will focus on expanding all types of American energy.”
Additional American Energy Initiative bills from the Natural Resources Committee will focus on wind, solar, hydropower, critical minerals, coal, and onshore oil and natural gas development in the coming months.
The work in the House received strong bi-partisan support. Now it is time for the Senate to do the same. Energy production and independence is not a partisan issue. It is an American issue.
By passing H.R. 1229, H.R. 1330 and H.R. 1231, Chairman Hastings and the House Natural Resources Committee have provided a path to success.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Tx House Passes Sanctuary City Law Reform
The office of Rep Linda Harper-Brown released a statement on the passage of the Sanctuary City bill in the Texas House of Representatives:
Today the House passed HB 12, co-authored by Representative Linda Harper Brown, which ensures that law enforcement officers are not prohibited from upholding the immigration laws of our state and nation.
"As an elected officeholder, it is my responsibility to abide by the oath of office to, 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.' Prohibiting law enforcement officials to ask the immigration status of individuals has hindered the ability of officers to defend the laws of this state. I am honored to be a co-author of this responsible legislation that gives local authorities the tools needed to keep Texas families and communities safer," Representative Linda Harper Brown said.
Specifically, House Bill 12 includes language that an entity, "may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration, including the federal Immigration and Nationality Act." This means entities must allow officers to inquire into the immigration status of a person arrested or detained for the investigation of a criminal offense and allow information to be exchanged with another federal, state, or local governmental entity, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill will now be sent to the Texas Senate for approval.
While President Obama enjoys mocking the GOP for insisting on border security and real immigration reform, states such as Texas are stepping up and doing the work of protecting their residents. We are a nation of laws and it is not funny, the violence on our border and in our cities by those with no legal right to be living here. It is an economic drain and it does not honor those who came here legally.
Today the House passed HB 12, co-authored by Representative Linda Harper Brown, which ensures that law enforcement officers are not prohibited from upholding the immigration laws of our state and nation.
"As an elected officeholder, it is my responsibility to abide by the oath of office to, 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.' Prohibiting law enforcement officials to ask the immigration status of individuals has hindered the ability of officers to defend the laws of this state. I am honored to be a co-author of this responsible legislation that gives local authorities the tools needed to keep Texas families and communities safer," Representative Linda Harper Brown said.
Specifically, House Bill 12 includes language that an entity, "may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity prohibits the enforcement of the laws of this state or federal law relating to immigrants or immigration, including the federal Immigration and Nationality Act." This means entities must allow officers to inquire into the immigration status of a person arrested or detained for the investigation of a criminal offense and allow information to be exchanged with another federal, state, or local governmental entity, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The bill will now be sent to the Texas Senate for approval.
While President Obama enjoys mocking the GOP for insisting on border security and real immigration reform, states such as Texas are stepping up and doing the work of protecting their residents. We are a nation of laws and it is not funny, the violence on our border and in our cities by those with no legal right to be living here. It is an economic drain and it does not honor those who came here legally.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
H.R. 1229 Ends Obama Drilling Moratorium
Another step forward for domestic energy production was brought about with the passage of H.R. 1229 in the House of Representatives Wednesday. H.R. 1229 Ends Obama Administration’s De Facto Offshore Drilling Moratorium in Gulf of Mexico
The bill passed on a bi-partisan vote tally of 263 to 163. So, 163 elected representatives are in favor of American job losses and foreign energy dependence? Interesting. Wasn't it the Democrats who were so against jobs going overseas when President Bush was in office? Well, the oil drilling rigs not in use in our own Gulf of Mexico are going overseas to work. That means foreign crews will be hired and few Americans will be offered jobs to follow the rigs in foreign waters.
“This bill will provide relief to the people of the Gulf of Mexico by allowing them to finally return to work following the Obama Administration’s intentional slow-walking of drilling permits,” said Chairman Hastings. “With passage of this bill, House Republicans are sending a strong signal that we will not sit idly by while the Obama Administration sidelines American workers, sends American jobs overseas and continues to lock-up our American energy resources at a time of rising gasoline prices. I applaud the House for passing the Putting the Gulf back to Work Act and hope the Senate follows our lead to ease the economic pain in the Gulf of Mexico and help reduce gasoline prices across the country.”
This week, the House will also vote on Chairman Hastings’ third offshore drilling bill, H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act.
H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act:
•Improves safety by reforming current law to 1) require lease holders to receive an approved permit to drill before drilling an offshore well and 2) require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review.
•Sets a firm 30 day timeline (with two 15 day extensions) for the Secretary to act on a permit to drill. This simply requires the Secretary to act within the set period of time – it is not a requirement that permits be approved. This firm timeline will make certain that the Obama Administration cannot impose a moratorium through deliberate inaction.
•Provides 30 days, with no extension, for the Secretary to restart Gulf permits that were approved before the Administration’s moratorium was imposed on May 27, 2010. If the Secretary fails to act, the leases will be put into suspension (the clock stops ticking on the time-limited lease) until a decision is made.
•Establishes an expedited judicial review process for resolving lawsuits relating to Gulf permits. This reform ensures that ending the de facto moratorium imposed by the Obama Administration isn’t replaced by paralyzing, frivolous lawsuits that could take years to resolve.
It is common sense legislation to remedy an unacceptable demise in domestic oil and gas drilling.
The bill passed on a bi-partisan vote tally of 263 to 163. So, 163 elected representatives are in favor of American job losses and foreign energy dependence? Interesting. Wasn't it the Democrats who were so against jobs going overseas when President Bush was in office? Well, the oil drilling rigs not in use in our own Gulf of Mexico are going overseas to work. That means foreign crews will be hired and few Americans will be offered jobs to follow the rigs in foreign waters.
“This bill will provide relief to the people of the Gulf of Mexico by allowing them to finally return to work following the Obama Administration’s intentional slow-walking of drilling permits,” said Chairman Hastings. “With passage of this bill, House Republicans are sending a strong signal that we will not sit idly by while the Obama Administration sidelines American workers, sends American jobs overseas and continues to lock-up our American energy resources at a time of rising gasoline prices. I applaud the House for passing the Putting the Gulf back to Work Act and hope the Senate follows our lead to ease the economic pain in the Gulf of Mexico and help reduce gasoline prices across the country.”
This week, the House will also vote on Chairman Hastings’ third offshore drilling bill, H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act.
H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act:
•Improves safety by reforming current law to 1) require lease holders to receive an approved permit to drill before drilling an offshore well and 2) require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review.
•Sets a firm 30 day timeline (with two 15 day extensions) for the Secretary to act on a permit to drill. This simply requires the Secretary to act within the set period of time – it is not a requirement that permits be approved. This firm timeline will make certain that the Obama Administration cannot impose a moratorium through deliberate inaction.
•Provides 30 days, with no extension, for the Secretary to restart Gulf permits that were approved before the Administration’s moratorium was imposed on May 27, 2010. If the Secretary fails to act, the leases will be put into suspension (the clock stops ticking on the time-limited lease) until a decision is made.
•Establishes an expedited judicial review process for resolving lawsuits relating to Gulf permits. This reform ensures that ending the de facto moratorium imposed by the Obama Administration isn’t replaced by paralyzing, frivolous lawsuits that could take years to resolve.
It is common sense legislation to remedy an unacceptable demise in domestic oil and gas drilling.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Does Newt Enter Presidential Race as Leader?
It's official. Newt Gingrich is running for President. I have to admit, it's a bit of a surprise to me that he went ahead and jumped in. Up until a few days ago I thought his presidential exploration exercise was looking a lot like a way to raise money for his pet projects. Then he announced Monday that he would make an announcement Wednesday and, apart from the absurdity of announcing an announcement, he caught my attention.
There was a time I would be jumping for joy at Newt's announcement to run for President. I still think he is usually the smartest guy in the room. I cannot, however, shake the feeling that he missed his time and now he has too much to overcome. The country yearns for fresh faces and fresh ideas. The infatuation with Barack Obama continues to fade and so far most pollsters, when allowed to be perfectly honest, will tell you that this will be a tough and competitive race in 2012 if only the GOP will run a strong candidate against Obama.
Don't get me wrong - I am forever grateful to Newt Gingrich for the victory in 1994 that brought my party into dominance for the first time in my then 30 something years. I was over the moon with the possibilities that a Republican led House and Senate could bring, even with a Democrat in the White House. The day after election night I clearly remember to this day talking to my sister on the telephone and both of us saying what a great day it was to be a Republican.
Newt Gingrich and Republicans were successful for the first time in 40 years in securing a majority in Congress because they offered a real plan for governing. Broken down into 10 clear and precise pledges, Gingrich carried it around in a pocket sized laminated copy and whipped it out at every press conference until all ten points were moved on.
It was glorious.
Because of those ten points and because Gingrich made good on his campaign promises, President Clinton was forced to sign welfare reform into law. Kicking and screaming against it until he could no longer, those welfare reforms were the necessary ones to make in the big entitlement reform agenda. Welfare programs destroyed at least one generation, probably two generations of minority and poor families in our country. The time had come for true and responsible reform.
A balanced budget was demanded by the new Republican majorities and again President Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into signing that into law. Recent re-writes not withstanding, it was thanks to stubbornly committed Republicans that made that happen. It was never President Clinton's intention to govern within a balanced budget scenario.
Gingrich has been out of elected office for some thirteen years now. Though not a hindrance in the minds of many, it does mean he is now accustomed to being his own boss. He will have to prove that this run for President is more than a ego driven adventure.
I've met Gingrich and he is as impressive in person as he is on television. He has lots of ideas he articulates clearly to his audience. He has an ability to tell the story of our nation's history like no other. Is that enough? Are today's voters younger than me even interested in the history of Republican politics or of the 1994 Republican Revolution? Do today's voters older than me think Newt is not worthy because of excess personal baggage?
I don't know. Getting to that answer will be interesting.
Here is Newt's big announce on youtube:
There was a time I would be jumping for joy at Newt's announcement to run for President. I still think he is usually the smartest guy in the room. I cannot, however, shake the feeling that he missed his time and now he has too much to overcome. The country yearns for fresh faces and fresh ideas. The infatuation with Barack Obama continues to fade and so far most pollsters, when allowed to be perfectly honest, will tell you that this will be a tough and competitive race in 2012 if only the GOP will run a strong candidate against Obama.
Don't get me wrong - I am forever grateful to Newt Gingrich for the victory in 1994 that brought my party into dominance for the first time in my then 30 something years. I was over the moon with the possibilities that a Republican led House and Senate could bring, even with a Democrat in the White House. The day after election night I clearly remember to this day talking to my sister on the telephone and both of us saying what a great day it was to be a Republican.
Newt Gingrich and Republicans were successful for the first time in 40 years in securing a majority in Congress because they offered a real plan for governing. Broken down into 10 clear and precise pledges, Gingrich carried it around in a pocket sized laminated copy and whipped it out at every press conference until all ten points were moved on.
It was glorious.
Because of those ten points and because Gingrich made good on his campaign promises, President Clinton was forced to sign welfare reform into law. Kicking and screaming against it until he could no longer, those welfare reforms were the necessary ones to make in the big entitlement reform agenda. Welfare programs destroyed at least one generation, probably two generations of minority and poor families in our country. The time had come for true and responsible reform.
A balanced budget was demanded by the new Republican majorities and again President Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into signing that into law. Recent re-writes not withstanding, it was thanks to stubbornly committed Republicans that made that happen. It was never President Clinton's intention to govern within a balanced budget scenario.
Gingrich has been out of elected office for some thirteen years now. Though not a hindrance in the minds of many, it does mean he is now accustomed to being his own boss. He will have to prove that this run for President is more than a ego driven adventure.
I've met Gingrich and he is as impressive in person as he is on television. He has lots of ideas he articulates clearly to his audience. He has an ability to tell the story of our nation's history like no other. Is that enough? Are today's voters younger than me even interested in the history of Republican politics or of the 1994 Republican Revolution? Do today's voters older than me think Newt is not worthy because of excess personal baggage?
I don't know. Getting to that answer will be interesting.
Here is Newt's big announce on youtube:
Passing H.R.1231 Reverses Obama's Offshore Drilling Moratorium
Another step forward for domestic energy production was brought about with the passage of H.R. 1229 in the House of Representatives Wednesday. H.R. 1229 Ends Obama Administration’s De Facto Offshore Drilling Moratorium in Gulf of Mexico
The bill passed on a bi-partisan vote tally of 263 to 163. So, 163 elected representatives are in favor of American job losses and foreign energy dependence? Interesting. Wasn't it the Democrats who were so against jobs going overseas when President Bush was in office? Well, the oil drilling rigs not in use in our own Gulf of Mexico are going overseas to work. That means foreign crews will be hired and few Americans will be offered jobs to follow the rigs in foreign waters.
“This bill will provide relief to the people of the Gulf of Mexico by allowing them to finally return to work following the Obama Administration’s intentional slow-walking of drilling permits,” said Chairman Hastings. “With passage of this bill, House Republicans are sending a strong signal that we will not sit idly by while the Obama Administration sidelines American workers, sends American jobs overseas and continues to lock-up our American energy resources at a time of rising gasoline prices. I applaud the House for passing the Putting the Gulf back to Work Act and hope the Senate follows our lead to ease the economic pain in the Gulf of Mexico and help reduce gasoline prices across the country.”
This week, the House will also vote on Chairman Hastings’ third offshore drilling bill, H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act.
H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act:
•Improves safety by reforming current law to 1) require lease holders to receive an approved permit to drill before drilling an offshore well and 2) require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review.
•Sets a firm 30 day timeline (with two 15 day extensions) for the Secretary to act on a permit to drill. This simply requires the Secretary to act within the set period of time – it is not a requirement that permits be approved. This firm timeline will make certain that the Obama Administration cannot impose a moratorium through deliberate inaction.
•Provides 30 days, with no extension, for the Secretary to restart Gulf permits that were approved before the Administration’s moratorium was imposed on May 27, 2010. If the Secretary fails to act, the leases will be put into suspension (the clock stops ticking on the time-limited lease) until a decision is made.
•Establishes an expedited judicial review process for resolving lawsuits relating to Gulf permits. This reform ensures that ending the de facto moratorium imposed by the Obama Administration isn’t replaced by paralyzing, frivolous lawsuits that could take years to resolve.
It is common sense legislation to remedy an unacceptable demise in domestic oil and gas drilling. It is wrong for politicians - including President Obama - to continue to make oil and gas production the bad guys of business. It is cheap political point scoring and it is against what our country stands for - free enterprise and national independence.
Former Rep Harold Ford has a piece in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. In it he makes note that even former President Clinton calls the drilling moratorium "ridiculous". He writes,"...let's stop demonizing Big Oil to score political points. It does nothing to encourage the new talent, new ideas, and new entrepreneurs who are most likely to make breakthroughs in new sources of energy.
The kickoff of the presidential campaign season and the spike in fuel prices offer an opportunity to constructively debate a comprehensive national energy strategy. Effective policies will ensure sufficient domestic production and the healthy operation of U.S. companies abroad, which together will provide the secure, affordable energy supply that Americans need."
The next step is passage of H.R. 1231.
The bill passed on a bi-partisan vote tally of 263 to 163. So, 163 elected representatives are in favor of American job losses and foreign energy dependence? Interesting. Wasn't it the Democrats who were so against jobs going overseas when President Bush was in office? Well, the oil drilling rigs not in use in our own Gulf of Mexico are going overseas to work. That means foreign crews will be hired and few Americans will be offered jobs to follow the rigs in foreign waters.
“This bill will provide relief to the people of the Gulf of Mexico by allowing them to finally return to work following the Obama Administration’s intentional slow-walking of drilling permits,” said Chairman Hastings. “With passage of this bill, House Republicans are sending a strong signal that we will not sit idly by while the Obama Administration sidelines American workers, sends American jobs overseas and continues to lock-up our American energy resources at a time of rising gasoline prices. I applaud the House for passing the Putting the Gulf back to Work Act and hope the Senate follows our lead to ease the economic pain in the Gulf of Mexico and help reduce gasoline prices across the country.”
This week, the House will also vote on Chairman Hastings’ third offshore drilling bill, H.R. 1231, the Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act.
H.R. 1229, the Putting the Gulf Back to Work Act:
•Improves safety by reforming current law to 1) require lease holders to receive an approved permit to drill before drilling an offshore well and 2) require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a safety review.
•Sets a firm 30 day timeline (with two 15 day extensions) for the Secretary to act on a permit to drill. This simply requires the Secretary to act within the set period of time – it is not a requirement that permits be approved. This firm timeline will make certain that the Obama Administration cannot impose a moratorium through deliberate inaction.
•Provides 30 days, with no extension, for the Secretary to restart Gulf permits that were approved before the Administration’s moratorium was imposed on May 27, 2010. If the Secretary fails to act, the leases will be put into suspension (the clock stops ticking on the time-limited lease) until a decision is made.
•Establishes an expedited judicial review process for resolving lawsuits relating to Gulf permits. This reform ensures that ending the de facto moratorium imposed by the Obama Administration isn’t replaced by paralyzing, frivolous lawsuits that could take years to resolve.
It is common sense legislation to remedy an unacceptable demise in domestic oil and gas drilling. It is wrong for politicians - including President Obama - to continue to make oil and gas production the bad guys of business. It is cheap political point scoring and it is against what our country stands for - free enterprise and national independence.
Former Rep Harold Ford has a piece in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. In it he makes note that even former President Clinton calls the drilling moratorium "ridiculous". He writes,"...let's stop demonizing Big Oil to score political points. It does nothing to encourage the new talent, new ideas, and new entrepreneurs who are most likely to make breakthroughs in new sources of energy.
The kickoff of the presidential campaign season and the spike in fuel prices offer an opportunity to constructively debate a comprehensive national energy strategy. Effective policies will ensure sufficient domestic production and the healthy operation of U.S. companies abroad, which together will provide the secure, affordable energy supply that Americans need."
The next step is passage of H.R. 1231.
Obama Mocks GOP in El Paso on Immigration Reform
While the President of the United States was in El Paso on a campaign re-election appearance giving a speech boasting a view of the border with Mexico,and making jokes that the Republicans want serious measures taken on border security, the Texas House of Representatives was passing HB 12 - the Sanctuary Cities Bill.
Who is laughing now, President Obama?
From the press release issued by the Republican Party of Texas:
Today the Texas House passed HB 12, the Sanctuary Cities bill, by a vote of 100-47 on third reading. This bill allows cities and law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws by preventing local policies in conflict with U.S. immigration laws and by establishing uniform, consistent standards for all Texas law enforcement. The sanctuary cities bill has been one of the RPT's priority legislation items this session, and we applaud our Republican legislators for this vote.
Hispanic Republican Caucus member Representative Jose Aliseda (R-Beeville) voted in favor of HB 12 today, and afterwards spoke about the importance of the legislation. "Today the Texas House passed HB 12 which would prohibit local governmental entities from enacting policies that prohibit them from enforcing federal law. The penalty for those that enact such policies is possible loss of state funding. As a legal Mexican immigrant who understands that the American Dream must be protected, I was proud to support and vote for this legislation. The reality is that this bill simply puts Texas teeth on federal law which was signed by President Clinton in 1996. Texas voters in 2010 spoke loud and clear and the Texas House Republicans listened. Despite all the rhetoric, HB 12 is good policy and good for Texas."
Said RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri, "The United States and Texas is a land of immigrants from a variety of backgrounds. This diversity is a strength of our country. However, it is important that immigration be legal so as to accomplish two major objectives. The first is fairness, so that people who play by the rules are not penalized and the second is a matter of national security. The RPT has as one of its major priorities, to pass legislation that helped address the illegal immigration and open border problem. We are grateful to the House leadership and our Republican representatives who passed this landmark piece of legislation as the first of what we hope to be many steps to provide a reasonable solution to this issue. I would like to thank Rep. Burt Solomons for his leadership on HB 12 and for steadily guiding this bill through debate. I also thank Governor Rick Perry for his strong stance on this legislation, after naming it one of his emergency legislative items for the session."
House Bill 12 now moves to the Texas Senate for consideration.
The speech was boilerplate at best. At worst, it was intentionally politicizing an issue of national security. Texans don't think the issue of border security is a particularly funny one. The President has a nifty way of spinning the numbers to promote the illusion that his administration is having all kinds of big success on the border.
Senator Cornyn raises a question on border security monitoring from a recent GAO report:
Hope someone asks POTUS about this: "1,120 miles of SW border are not under "operational control" as defined by CBP Nearly 2/3 of those miles are at the "monitored" level; the rest are "low-level monitored"; CBP admits these two levels are "not acceptable" for border security."
Nope. No one asked. This wasn't are real opportunity to delve into the issue with regular people in El Paso or a press conference for the media to ask the difficult questions they never really bother to ask. This was a friendly, campaign selected audience who did the predictable. Someone began chanting "yes, we can" when the speech got a bit snooze worthy and President Obama enjoyed jokes at the expense of Republicans when he wasn't outright declaring that were it not for the mean Republicans in office, we would have immigration reform by now.
President Obama promised on the campaign trail in 2008 that he would make immigration reform happen from "Day One", as he did other items he figured would garner him some votes from minority populations. He failed to make that promise come true, as he did others, since he was consumed with Obamacare legislation. So, now that the ever growing Hispanic voter population is miffed at him, he has decided to look all serious about it. And, to come to El Paso and make it a faux policy appearance allowed him to bill the American taxpayer for the jaunt. Then it was off to Austin, home of the liberals in Texas, and two fundraisers.
From a transcript of his speech:
So, here’s the point. I want everybody to listen carefully to this. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: They’re racist!
THE PRESIDENT: You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.
But the truth is the measures we’ve put in place are getting results. Over the past two and a half years, we’ve seized 31 percent more drugs, 75 percent more currency, 64 percent more weapons than ever before. (Applause.) And even as we have stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40 percent from two years ago. That means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally.
Got that? Not only are the slaps at the GOP written out for him to say - the moat and the alligators - but audience plants are there to shout out "racist". I say audience plants because that was the proven case in his last election campaign. There is no doubt in my mind that these audience members were many of his union supporters.
And, the numbers he touts? Yes, it is mostly results shown from the Bush years, thank you very much. And, the reason there are fewer people attempting to cross the border? Our economy is still bad enough that new jobs are not materializing to encourage those seeking jobs to take the risks involved. It's fairly simple logic.
The result was a deliberately politicized speech as he claimed to need bi-partisan support and spoke of his desire to keep politics out of the discussion.
Yeah, right.
Who is laughing now, President Obama?
From the press release issued by the Republican Party of Texas:
Today the Texas House passed HB 12, the Sanctuary Cities bill, by a vote of 100-47 on third reading. This bill allows cities and law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws by preventing local policies in conflict with U.S. immigration laws and by establishing uniform, consistent standards for all Texas law enforcement. The sanctuary cities bill has been one of the RPT's priority legislation items this session, and we applaud our Republican legislators for this vote.
Hispanic Republican Caucus member Representative Jose Aliseda (R-Beeville) voted in favor of HB 12 today, and afterwards spoke about the importance of the legislation. "Today the Texas House passed HB 12 which would prohibit local governmental entities from enacting policies that prohibit them from enforcing federal law. The penalty for those that enact such policies is possible loss of state funding. As a legal Mexican immigrant who understands that the American Dream must be protected, I was proud to support and vote for this legislation. The reality is that this bill simply puts Texas teeth on federal law which was signed by President Clinton in 1996. Texas voters in 2010 spoke loud and clear and the Texas House Republicans listened. Despite all the rhetoric, HB 12 is good policy and good for Texas."
Said RPT Chairman Steve Munisteri, "The United States and Texas is a land of immigrants from a variety of backgrounds. This diversity is a strength of our country. However, it is important that immigration be legal so as to accomplish two major objectives. The first is fairness, so that people who play by the rules are not penalized and the second is a matter of national security. The RPT has as one of its major priorities, to pass legislation that helped address the illegal immigration and open border problem. We are grateful to the House leadership and our Republican representatives who passed this landmark piece of legislation as the first of what we hope to be many steps to provide a reasonable solution to this issue. I would like to thank Rep. Burt Solomons for his leadership on HB 12 and for steadily guiding this bill through debate. I also thank Governor Rick Perry for his strong stance on this legislation, after naming it one of his emergency legislative items for the session."
House Bill 12 now moves to the Texas Senate for consideration.
The speech was boilerplate at best. At worst, it was intentionally politicizing an issue of national security. Texans don't think the issue of border security is a particularly funny one. The President has a nifty way of spinning the numbers to promote the illusion that his administration is having all kinds of big success on the border.
Senator Cornyn raises a question on border security monitoring from a recent GAO report:
Hope someone asks POTUS about this: "1,120 miles of SW border are not under "operational control" as defined by CBP Nearly 2/3 of those miles are at the "monitored" level; the rest are "low-level monitored"; CBP admits these two levels are "not acceptable" for border security."
Nope. No one asked. This wasn't are real opportunity to delve into the issue with regular people in El Paso or a press conference for the media to ask the difficult questions they never really bother to ask. This was a friendly, campaign selected audience who did the predictable. Someone began chanting "yes, we can" when the speech got a bit snooze worthy and President Obama enjoyed jokes at the expense of Republicans when he wasn't outright declaring that were it not for the mean Republicans in office, we would have immigration reform by now.
President Obama promised on the campaign trail in 2008 that he would make immigration reform happen from "Day One", as he did other items he figured would garner him some votes from minority populations. He failed to make that promise come true, as he did others, since he was consumed with Obamacare legislation. So, now that the ever growing Hispanic voter population is miffed at him, he has decided to look all serious about it. And, to come to El Paso and make it a faux policy appearance allowed him to bill the American taxpayer for the jaunt. Then it was off to Austin, home of the liberals in Texas, and two fundraisers.
From a transcript of his speech:
So, here’s the point. I want everybody to listen carefully to this. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: They’re racist!
THE PRESIDENT: You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.
But the truth is the measures we’ve put in place are getting results. Over the past two and a half years, we’ve seized 31 percent more drugs, 75 percent more currency, 64 percent more weapons than ever before. (Applause.) And even as we have stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40 percent from two years ago. That means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally.
Got that? Not only are the slaps at the GOP written out for him to say - the moat and the alligators - but audience plants are there to shout out "racist". I say audience plants because that was the proven case in his last election campaign. There is no doubt in my mind that these audience members were many of his union supporters.
And, the numbers he touts? Yes, it is mostly results shown from the Bush years, thank you very much. And, the reason there are fewer people attempting to cross the border? Our economy is still bad enough that new jobs are not materializing to encourage those seeking jobs to take the risks involved. It's fairly simple logic.
The result was a deliberately politicized speech as he claimed to need bi-partisan support and spoke of his desire to keep politics out of the discussion.
Yeah, right.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Obama Re-Election Campaign Comes to Texas
President Obama comes to Texas to raise money for his re-election and it's paid for by Texans. What a sweet deal, for him, considering there is no way he will carry this state on election night. He will, no doubt, raise a healthy sum of cash for his time in Austin.
Last Thursday, six days before Air Force One was scheduled to land in Texas, the White House added an “unspecified” official event in El Paso.
If the White House adds an “official” event to a “campaign” event, the campaign can split the significant cost of Air Force One with the taxpayer, increasing the financial profit for the campaign. All presidents do this, but only the Obama White House does it with such bravura — shamelessly adding an “unspecified” official event six days before the trip occurs.
Last Friday the White House announced that President Obama would give an immigration reform speech in El Paso.
Clever, aren't they? Team Obama arranges a last minute trek to the border to pander to the Texan Hispanic voter when he needs a photo op for financing his trip. Never mind that Obama has ignored the horrid conditions just across the border from El Paso and the rising murder numbers on the border between Mexico and Texas. Mexican drug cartels and murdering Americans on the border? No, not on Obama's radar.
The Obama administration - led by President Obama - has taken great delight in punishing Texas for being a very successful red state. Texas leads the nation in creating jobs and a comfortable cost of living. For this success, the class warfare wielding President has ignored Governor Perry's request for a declaration of emergency to aide with historic wildfire damage to our state, allowed a retiring space shuttle to go to NYC instead of retire in Houston - home of the national space program, ignored Governor Perry's ideas on border security and illegal immigration reform - though he even hand delivered a letter to Obama as he landed in the state on another fundraising jaunt last August, allowed the moratorium on oil and gas drilling to continue via suspension of issuing permits and lease purchases, and continued bogus hassling in federal court over EPA rulings.
No one enjoys hating Texas more than Team Obama. Success breeds contempt.
Democrats were in control as Obama was elected and remained in control until January 2011. Nothing was attempted on immigration reform during that time, so it is difficult to believe it is a big issue for President Obama. He certainly was not supportive of former President Bush's immigration reform work when he was the junior senator from Illinois.
The El Paso speech, slated for Tuesday, “will reflect the President’s continued commitment to find a bipartisan way to create… comprehensive immigration reform,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday. “The fact that we were not able to achieve that in the first two years only means that we need to refocus our efforts,” said Carney.
On Saturday, the White House announced that the president’s Tuesday speech will be about “fixing the broken immigration system so that it meets America’s 21st century economic and security needs.”
Nothing like election year converts, huh?
And, no tarmac greeting from Governor Perry for Obama in El Paso:
Rick Perry has declined the White House’s request that he greet President Obama when Air Force One lands in Texas on Tuesday, the Republican governor’s office says.
“We did try to arrange something with the White House,” Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry, told POLITICO. “They asked us if we wanted to meet him out on the tarmac in El Paso, but we weren’t able to work anything out, based on the fact that it’s probably going to be a 10-minute greeting.”
God bless Texas.
Last Thursday, six days before Air Force One was scheduled to land in Texas, the White House added an “unspecified” official event in El Paso.
If the White House adds an “official” event to a “campaign” event, the campaign can split the significant cost of Air Force One with the taxpayer, increasing the financial profit for the campaign. All presidents do this, but only the Obama White House does it with such bravura — shamelessly adding an “unspecified” official event six days before the trip occurs.
Last Friday the White House announced that President Obama would give an immigration reform speech in El Paso.
Clever, aren't they? Team Obama arranges a last minute trek to the border to pander to the Texan Hispanic voter when he needs a photo op for financing his trip. Never mind that Obama has ignored the horrid conditions just across the border from El Paso and the rising murder numbers on the border between Mexico and Texas. Mexican drug cartels and murdering Americans on the border? No, not on Obama's radar.
The Obama administration - led by President Obama - has taken great delight in punishing Texas for being a very successful red state. Texas leads the nation in creating jobs and a comfortable cost of living. For this success, the class warfare wielding President has ignored Governor Perry's request for a declaration of emergency to aide with historic wildfire damage to our state, allowed a retiring space shuttle to go to NYC instead of retire in Houston - home of the national space program, ignored Governor Perry's ideas on border security and illegal immigration reform - though he even hand delivered a letter to Obama as he landed in the state on another fundraising jaunt last August, allowed the moratorium on oil and gas drilling to continue via suspension of issuing permits and lease purchases, and continued bogus hassling in federal court over EPA rulings.
No one enjoys hating Texas more than Team Obama. Success breeds contempt.
Democrats were in control as Obama was elected and remained in control until January 2011. Nothing was attempted on immigration reform during that time, so it is difficult to believe it is a big issue for President Obama. He certainly was not supportive of former President Bush's immigration reform work when he was the junior senator from Illinois.
The El Paso speech, slated for Tuesday, “will reflect the President’s continued commitment to find a bipartisan way to create… comprehensive immigration reform,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday. “The fact that we were not able to achieve that in the first two years only means that we need to refocus our efforts,” said Carney.
On Saturday, the White House announced that the president’s Tuesday speech will be about “fixing the broken immigration system so that it meets America’s 21st century economic and security needs.”
Nothing like election year converts, huh?
And, no tarmac greeting from Governor Perry for Obama in El Paso:
Rick Perry has declined the White House’s request that he greet President Obama when Air Force One lands in Texas on Tuesday, the Republican governor’s office says.
“We did try to arrange something with the White House,” Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Perry, told POLITICO. “They asked us if we wanted to meet him out on the tarmac in El Paso, but we weren’t able to work anything out, based on the fact that it’s probably going to be a 10-minute greeting.”
God bless Texas.
Tackling Higher Ed Reform in Texas
If someone asked you to spearhead the reform efforts for the State of Texas in higher education, what would be your starting place? For conservatives, the answer likely would be with the money expenditures and results of the expenditures.
Just show me the money. Then show me the results.
Much has been written of late about the hiring of an assistant to the Regents of UT and his inquiries into the money and results equation, as it relates to higher education reform in Texas.
Since 1999, then Lt Governor Perry began working on the issue. Yes, twelve years ago Perry appointed the first reform committee. Since 2008, when the game changed with the economic conditions of the country and the big tuition hikes proposed, Governor Perry has reached the point of being tired of the same old excuses given by those beholden to the status quo. Why is reform so controversial now?
Big time universities promote and hire on research records. Quality is defined by what others think of your last research paper, if you are a professor. By others, I mean peers. It's called peer review. Quality universities are defined by how prestigious the journals are in which you have published papers. This mindset shuts out meaningful accountability.
Students and their success are almost incidental.
Tenure at an institution of higher learning is a sweet deal. For most tenured facility this means a six figure salary for teaching two classes per semester. The rest of a professor's time can be spent on research. This is common for all top universities, not just for the University of Texas. High premium is placed on journals that no one reads.
Ratings, for example like that of some national publications that do an annual university ratings survey, are meaningless. There is little to do with customer service because it is a journal culture. The customer, obviously, is the student.
In the 1960's, 70's and 80's, when Democrats from rural Texas ran politics in Austin, a sort leash was put on UT and on Texas A&M, too. If UT wanted to get control of the purse strings, the institution was quickly shut down in that quest. Then came tuition deregulation in 2003 with GOP blessings. This gave UT a blank check and the predictable happened - Regents at UT began setting tuition and hikes went through the roof. The result is that now college students are knee deep in debt.
The 2003 experiment resulted in a large middle class tax increase and it has failed. Today's student graduate of UT is $22,000 in debt for pursuing a degree. Despite this, today Governor Perry says that the jury is still out on the question of tuition deregulation.
What?
Governor Perry has appointed new Regents and tasked them with tuition and cost reform. This is a result of him trying to work within the system from 2003 to 2007 without success. In 2008, when a big hike in tuition was proposed, he balked. One Perry appointee, UT Chairman of the Regents, Gene Powell, is under attack for pressing for reform by the Texas Exes organization, who are campaigning against him now.
Lt Governor Dewhurst has appointed an oversight committee in the state senate but its composition is puzzling. No senator was appointed to this committee that has come out against tuition deregulation. None of the appointees are considered strongly conservative Republicans and certainly not the Democrats appointed.
Speaker Joe Straus and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst have created a new Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence, and Transparency. It will be chaired by Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, and House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas.
The members from the Senate will include Dallas Republican John Carona, Lubbock Republican Robert Duncan, Amarillo Republican Kel Seliger, Houston Democrat Rodney Ellis and Austin Democrat Kirk Watson.
The House members will be Angleton Republican Dennis Bonnen, San Antonio Democrat Joaquin Castro, Dallas Democrat Eric Johnson, Brenham Republican Lois Kolkhorst and Waxahachie Republican Jim Pitts.
It is odd, this appearance that Lt Gov Dewhurst is working against Gov Perry.
A study published by Texas Public Policy Foundation shows the need for a broader rating of quality in higher education. More concentration is needed in the classroom and on student learning. There is a need to find a way to reward good teachers who do not do research.
As the parent of a son pursuing a college degree, I would like to see some common sense prevail. Stop with the unnecessary special oversight committees and kid glove treatment of tenured professors. Reward good professors, yes, even those who do not concentrate on research. Service the students - teach them.
Show me the money and then show me the results.
Just show me the money. Then show me the results.
Much has been written of late about the hiring of an assistant to the Regents of UT and his inquiries into the money and results equation, as it relates to higher education reform in Texas.
Since 1999, then Lt Governor Perry began working on the issue. Yes, twelve years ago Perry appointed the first reform committee. Since 2008, when the game changed with the economic conditions of the country and the big tuition hikes proposed, Governor Perry has reached the point of being tired of the same old excuses given by those beholden to the status quo. Why is reform so controversial now?
Big time universities promote and hire on research records. Quality is defined by what others think of your last research paper, if you are a professor. By others, I mean peers. It's called peer review. Quality universities are defined by how prestigious the journals are in which you have published papers. This mindset shuts out meaningful accountability.
Students and their success are almost incidental.
Tenure at an institution of higher learning is a sweet deal. For most tenured facility this means a six figure salary for teaching two classes per semester. The rest of a professor's time can be spent on research. This is common for all top universities, not just for the University of Texas. High premium is placed on journals that no one reads.
Ratings, for example like that of some national publications that do an annual university ratings survey, are meaningless. There is little to do with customer service because it is a journal culture. The customer, obviously, is the student.
In the 1960's, 70's and 80's, when Democrats from rural Texas ran politics in Austin, a sort leash was put on UT and on Texas A&M, too. If UT wanted to get control of the purse strings, the institution was quickly shut down in that quest. Then came tuition deregulation in 2003 with GOP blessings. This gave UT a blank check and the predictable happened - Regents at UT began setting tuition and hikes went through the roof. The result is that now college students are knee deep in debt.
The 2003 experiment resulted in a large middle class tax increase and it has failed. Today's student graduate of UT is $22,000 in debt for pursuing a degree. Despite this, today Governor Perry says that the jury is still out on the question of tuition deregulation.
What?
Governor Perry has appointed new Regents and tasked them with tuition and cost reform. This is a result of him trying to work within the system from 2003 to 2007 without success. In 2008, when a big hike in tuition was proposed, he balked. One Perry appointee, UT Chairman of the Regents, Gene Powell, is under attack for pressing for reform by the Texas Exes organization, who are campaigning against him now.
Lt Governor Dewhurst has appointed an oversight committee in the state senate but its composition is puzzling. No senator was appointed to this committee that has come out against tuition deregulation. None of the appointees are considered strongly conservative Republicans and certainly not the Democrats appointed.
Speaker Joe Straus and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst have created a new Joint Oversight Committee on Higher Education Governance, Excellence, and Transparency. It will be chaired by Senate Higher Education Chairwoman Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, and House Higher Education Chairman Dan Branch, R-Dallas.
The members from the Senate will include Dallas Republican John Carona, Lubbock Republican Robert Duncan, Amarillo Republican Kel Seliger, Houston Democrat Rodney Ellis and Austin Democrat Kirk Watson.
The House members will be Angleton Republican Dennis Bonnen, San Antonio Democrat Joaquin Castro, Dallas Democrat Eric Johnson, Brenham Republican Lois Kolkhorst and Waxahachie Republican Jim Pitts.
It is odd, this appearance that Lt Gov Dewhurst is working against Gov Perry.
A study published by Texas Public Policy Foundation shows the need for a broader rating of quality in higher education. More concentration is needed in the classroom and on student learning. There is a need to find a way to reward good teachers who do not do research.
As the parent of a son pursuing a college degree, I would like to see some common sense prevail. Stop with the unnecessary special oversight committees and kid glove treatment of tenured professors. Reward good professors, yes, even those who do not concentrate on research. Service the students - teach them.
Show me the money and then show me the results.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Texas State Senate Passes Budget Bill
The Texas State Senators held together and forced a vote on the state budget. The result of the maneuver - that of bringing the vote on a bill day when a majority of 2/3 is not required - brought the desired result.
From the Republican Party of Texas Chairman's press release:
This afternoon, all 19 Republican State Senators stood together in a united front to defeat obstructionist tactics of the Democratic Party and successfully moved forward House Bill 1, pertaining to the 2012-2013 state budget. It was apparent over the last couple of days that Democratic senators were attempting to hold the budget process hostage through the two-thirds rule in order to extort higher spending levels. Senate Republicans out-maneuvered their Democratic counterparts by bringing the bill up today on House Bill Day, when a two-thirds majority is not required, to pass a budget that every Republican senator could sign off on.
The budget passed by the Senate reduces state spending by $11 billion over last biennium. The budget as passed does not dip any further into the Rainy Day fund and does not raise taxes. The budget now goes over to the Texas House of Representatives where a conference committee will hash out the differences between the House version and Senate version.
Republican Party of Texas Chairman Munisteri concluded, "It is important for our conservative base to know that the Senate budget actually results in a reduction in the size of Texas government, as opposed just to a decrease on the increase. I look forward to our House leadership and Senate leadership hammering out a final bill that protects taxpayers' rights. I am very confident they will do so."
Some decry the use of allowing such a big vote without the obligation of acquiring a 2/3 vote. The real fact to notice is that this could have been suspended any time. The majority in the Texas House is a super majority of Republicans and it is more notable - and commendable - that this perfectly legal maneuver is not used more. The restraint of Texas Republicans is noteworthy.
Onward.
From the Republican Party of Texas Chairman's press release:
This afternoon, all 19 Republican State Senators stood together in a united front to defeat obstructionist tactics of the Democratic Party and successfully moved forward House Bill 1, pertaining to the 2012-2013 state budget. It was apparent over the last couple of days that Democratic senators were attempting to hold the budget process hostage through the two-thirds rule in order to extort higher spending levels. Senate Republicans out-maneuvered their Democratic counterparts by bringing the bill up today on House Bill Day, when a two-thirds majority is not required, to pass a budget that every Republican senator could sign off on.
The budget passed by the Senate reduces state spending by $11 billion over last biennium. The budget as passed does not dip any further into the Rainy Day fund and does not raise taxes. The budget now goes over to the Texas House of Representatives where a conference committee will hash out the differences between the House version and Senate version.
Republican Party of Texas Chairman Munisteri concluded, "It is important for our conservative base to know that the Senate budget actually results in a reduction in the size of Texas government, as opposed just to a decrease on the increase. I look forward to our House leadership and Senate leadership hammering out a final bill that protects taxpayers' rights. I am very confident they will do so."
Some decry the use of allowing such a big vote without the obligation of acquiring a 2/3 vote. The real fact to notice is that this could have been suspended any time. The majority in the Texas House is a super majority of Republicans and it is more notable - and commendable - that this perfectly legal maneuver is not used more. The restraint of Texas Republicans is noteworthy.
Onward.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Laura Bush Speaks for Moms Everywhere
"They're not asking for your money. They're asking for your voice." Laura Bush delivers a message from moms everywhere:
Happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there.
Happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Obama Spikes the Ball in NYC
A new term enters the spin from the White House - "the fact pattern". The administration that promised to be the most transparent, evah, sure does enjoy re-labeling terms and re-inventing language. This latest exercise in the silly is a result of the utter bungling of the facts of Osama bin Laden's demise in Pakistan.
The White House converted a picture-perfect military operation into a public-relations disaster that will be cited as what not to do and how not to do it in flackery textbooks for a hundred years. Days after the raid on Osama bin Laden’s “mansion” they still can’t get the “fact pattern,” in the language of the White House, even close to straight.
What a rollercoaster ride: Osama bin Laden engaged the Seals in a firefight. Well, no, actually, it turns out he didn’t. But he did seize a woman, probably one of his wives, to use as a human shield. Uh, well, actually he didn’t do that, either. But he was armed, we know that for sure. Ummm, no, not really. OK, but we’re positive that woman was killed. Uh, not exactly. But we definitely, positively, absolutely know that Osama is dead. We have the photographs to prove it and the public can see them. Er, no, not quite. The president has them but you can’t see them. Everybody will just have to take his word for it.
They may as well have said, "we'll get back to you, fellow Americans, after we get
together and get our story straight". Changing the narrative each and every day on the who, what, when and where Osama bin Laden was killed is confusing and welcomes the conspiracy nuts to run with their own theories.
If President Obama had not been so eager to claim credit for this call to kill Osama bin Laden using the intelligence on the ground, the reporting would have gone much smoother. And, they would not look like a bunch of amateurs. Coming out as he did, with the heavy use of "I", "me" and "my" in the initial announcement of that Sunday night breaking news. Obama was rightly proud of being in command as Osama bit the big one, but it was just another example that humility is in short supply around this White House.
Instead of the feckless White House press secretary, Jay Carney, presenting daily corrections to the story from the previous day, why haven't they simply used the Defense Department as the story teller? It is their expertise, after all, and they can best field questions and advance the timeline.
To add flame to fire, President Obama reasoned that he didn't want to appear to spike the ball so he wasn't approving the release of photos of a dead bin Laden. Immediately came the reporting that one Internet domain name in particular was sending visitors directly to the Obama re-election campaign. Using the talking point that President Obama made a "gutsy call" in the mission to take down bin Laden, the website used that in the name. With stories of its gimmick circulating, it was shut down and now sends the curious into Internet never land.
It is now reported that the photos released of the National Security team watching the raid of bin Laden's compound in real time via video hook-up were staged after the fact for publicity purposes. I'm not kidding.
Andy Card, Chief of Staff for former President George W. Bush said the following of Obama spiking the ball:
I thought his statement was subdued, but I think his schedule is not subdued. Personally, I think it is premature to go to Ground Zero, in New York. I think my role model in this would be George H. W. Bush, when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. It was a day to celebrate, but we did not dance on the Wall.
That is what many of us thought was a bit too much - the victory lap in NYC and the interview granted to "60 Minutes" taped at the firehouse, home of many first responders who were killed that day. Much was made of the meeting, the story was that it was to be private and then we read the interview for national television is included there.
President George W. Bush was invited to go with Obama but he declined. He will join with the current president for the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of 9/11/01 this year. That is what Obama should have waited for - the anniversary, not pursue a campaign boosting appearance.
The White House converted a picture-perfect military operation into a public-relations disaster that will be cited as what not to do and how not to do it in flackery textbooks for a hundred years. Days after the raid on Osama bin Laden’s “mansion” they still can’t get the “fact pattern,” in the language of the White House, even close to straight.
What a rollercoaster ride: Osama bin Laden engaged the Seals in a firefight. Well, no, actually, it turns out he didn’t. But he did seize a woman, probably one of his wives, to use as a human shield. Uh, well, actually he didn’t do that, either. But he was armed, we know that for sure. Ummm, no, not really. OK, but we’re positive that woman was killed. Uh, not exactly. But we definitely, positively, absolutely know that Osama is dead. We have the photographs to prove it and the public can see them. Er, no, not quite. The president has them but you can’t see them. Everybody will just have to take his word for it.
They may as well have said, "we'll get back to you, fellow Americans, after we get
together and get our story straight". Changing the narrative each and every day on the who, what, when and where Osama bin Laden was killed is confusing and welcomes the conspiracy nuts to run with their own theories.
If President Obama had not been so eager to claim credit for this call to kill Osama bin Laden using the intelligence on the ground, the reporting would have gone much smoother. And, they would not look like a bunch of amateurs. Coming out as he did, with the heavy use of "I", "me" and "my" in the initial announcement of that Sunday night breaking news. Obama was rightly proud of being in command as Osama bit the big one, but it was just another example that humility is in short supply around this White House.
Instead of the feckless White House press secretary, Jay Carney, presenting daily corrections to the story from the previous day, why haven't they simply used the Defense Department as the story teller? It is their expertise, after all, and they can best field questions and advance the timeline.
To add flame to fire, President Obama reasoned that he didn't want to appear to spike the ball so he wasn't approving the release of photos of a dead bin Laden. Immediately came the reporting that one Internet domain name in particular was sending visitors directly to the Obama re-election campaign. Using the talking point that President Obama made a "gutsy call" in the mission to take down bin Laden, the website used that in the name. With stories of its gimmick circulating, it was shut down and now sends the curious into Internet never land.
It is now reported that the photos released of the National Security team watching the raid of bin Laden's compound in real time via video hook-up were staged after the fact for publicity purposes. I'm not kidding.
Andy Card, Chief of Staff for former President George W. Bush said the following of Obama spiking the ball:
I thought his statement was subdued, but I think his schedule is not subdued. Personally, I think it is premature to go to Ground Zero, in New York. I think my role model in this would be George H. W. Bush, when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. It was a day to celebrate, but we did not dance on the Wall.
That is what many of us thought was a bit too much - the victory lap in NYC and the interview granted to "60 Minutes" taped at the firehouse, home of many first responders who were killed that day. Much was made of the meeting, the story was that it was to be private and then we read the interview for national television is included there.
President George W. Bush was invited to go with Obama but he declined. He will join with the current president for the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of 9/11/01 this year. That is what Obama should have waited for - the anniversary, not pursue a campaign boosting appearance.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Slobbering Press Feels Wrath of Team Obama
Whatever happened to all that transparency we were promised in the lead up to the 2008 election? Recently stories have been published about the very thin skin worn by this administration, especially as it is now in full blown re-election campaigning mode.
This administration is making it clear - no stories showing the President and the First Lady in a less than flattering light.
Even the very liberal San Francisco newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, is feeling the effects of a true lack of transparency in terms of dealing with the White House press corps - one of their journalists was threatened with denial of credentials for covering future Bay Area events for allegedly violating agreed upon rules of covering a recent Obama campaign event.
The “rule” Marinucci broke was a restriction against print reporters’ use of electronic capture devices. Her punishment (which the White House is now denying—more on which presently) was for this breach and had nothing to do with her having gone viral with a video showing Obama in a less-than-flattering posture.
The irrefutable details of the story, which broke yesterday, include the fact that Chronicle staffer Carla Marinucci captured on videophone a group of supporters breaking into song at an Obama rally. The problem for the president, who loves being serenaded as long as the lyrics include Mmm-mmm-mmm, was the closing couplet of the ditty: “We paid our dues,/where’s our change?”
Got that? The administration made possible due to video and electronic dominance during the 2008 election cycle is now demanding journalists covering local events in the re-election bid of this president do not use electronic recording devices. Priceless.
The newspaper blames it on the communications staff working for Team Obama.
The White House communications operation has a credibility problem. On Thursday, key people in that office told The Chronicle in plain language that reporter Carla Marinucci would be banished as a pool reporter for future presidential visits because she shot video of a protest inside an Obama fund-raising event in San Francisco. The White House further threatened "retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban," said Editor Ward Bushee.On Friday, the White House flat-out denied that such exchanges took place.
And, for equal time, those offering a less than glowing observation of the First Lady in a newspaper piece will also be sanctioned.
A small weekly paper in California claims that a White House official asked it to remove a sentence from a “benign” feature about Marine One because it reflected poorly on first lady Michelle Obama.
In an email to The Daily Caller, Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly in Pleasanton, California, said that her paper “received a call from the White House asking us to take out part of the story because it reflected poorly on the First Lady.”The story in question was a soft feature about Marine One titled, “Inside Marine One, President Obama’s helicopter,” that ran in the paper on April 20. Pleasanton staffer Amory Gutierrez “didn’t get to ride in ‘Marine One,’” she wrote in her story, “but I did get the VIP tour and took photographs of the otherwise unseen aircraft.”
She also wrote a sentence that the White House thought made FLOTUS look snooty.
“Basically the reporter said that the First Lady didn’t speak to the pilots but acknowledged them by making eye contact,” Allen wrote in her email.
Those Chicago politicians play for keeps, don't they? They are desperate for the gauzy, fuzzy, hope and changey stories that produced a solid win in 2008 for Barack Obama. The media willingly and enthusiastically helped in that mission. Now some of the glow has faded and our country is in an economic mess, with little light at the end of the tunnel. The very candidate they refused to fully vet as he came out of nowhere to run for president has now turned on them.
This administration is making it clear - no stories showing the President and the First Lady in a less than flattering light.
Even the very liberal San Francisco newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, is feeling the effects of a true lack of transparency in terms of dealing with the White House press corps - one of their journalists was threatened with denial of credentials for covering future Bay Area events for allegedly violating agreed upon rules of covering a recent Obama campaign event.
The “rule” Marinucci broke was a restriction against print reporters’ use of electronic capture devices. Her punishment (which the White House is now denying—more on which presently) was for this breach and had nothing to do with her having gone viral with a video showing Obama in a less-than-flattering posture.
The irrefutable details of the story, which broke yesterday, include the fact that Chronicle staffer Carla Marinucci captured on videophone a group of supporters breaking into song at an Obama rally. The problem for the president, who loves being serenaded as long as the lyrics include Mmm-mmm-mmm, was the closing couplet of the ditty: “We paid our dues,/where’s our change?”
Got that? The administration made possible due to video and electronic dominance during the 2008 election cycle is now demanding journalists covering local events in the re-election bid of this president do not use electronic recording devices. Priceless.
The newspaper blames it on the communications staff working for Team Obama.
The White House communications operation has a credibility problem. On Thursday, key people in that office told The Chronicle in plain language that reporter Carla Marinucci would be banished as a pool reporter for future presidential visits because she shot video of a protest inside an Obama fund-raising event in San Francisco. The White House further threatened "retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban," said Editor Ward Bushee.On Friday, the White House flat-out denied that such exchanges took place.
And, for equal time, those offering a less than glowing observation of the First Lady in a newspaper piece will also be sanctioned.
A small weekly paper in California claims that a White House official asked it to remove a sentence from a “benign” feature about Marine One because it reflected poorly on first lady Michelle Obama.
In an email to The Daily Caller, Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly in Pleasanton, California, said that her paper “received a call from the White House asking us to take out part of the story because it reflected poorly on the First Lady.”The story in question was a soft feature about Marine One titled, “Inside Marine One, President Obama’s helicopter,” that ran in the paper on April 20. Pleasanton staffer Amory Gutierrez “didn’t get to ride in ‘Marine One,’” she wrote in her story, “but I did get the VIP tour and took photographs of the otherwise unseen aircraft.”
She also wrote a sentence that the White House thought made FLOTUS look snooty.
“Basically the reporter said that the First Lady didn’t speak to the pilots but acknowledged them by making eye contact,” Allen wrote in her email.
Those Chicago politicians play for keeps, don't they? They are desperate for the gauzy, fuzzy, hope and changey stories that produced a solid win in 2008 for Barack Obama. The media willingly and enthusiastically helped in that mission. Now some of the glow has faded and our country is in an economic mess, with little light at the end of the tunnel. The very candidate they refused to fully vet as he came out of nowhere to run for president has now turned on them.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Doc Hastings Presses Forward on Energy Legislation
I write frequently on the subject of energy production. It is the world in which I live, so someone has to speak up and encourage others to get involved. Thankfully, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings is a champ at pursuing necessary legislation to get the Gulf of Mexico's offshore energy sector back to work.
I was able to listen in on a conference call Wednesday with Chairman Hastings and Rep Peter Roskam, Chief Deputy Whip. They explained the three bills moving forward - HB 1229 "Putting the Gulf Back to Work", HB 1230 on lease sales, and HB 1231 on long term plans to drill where known resources are.
Included in HR 1229 is a welcome provision that demands a 30 day time frame for the permit decisions to be made and then two 15 day extensions, if necessary. This will stop the continual languishing of permits in Washington as this administration pursues it's far left ideological agenda of shutting down offshore oil and gas drilling completely. You may remember just before the tragic Deepwater Horizon explosion, President Obama reluctantly agreed to open up Outer Continental Shelf drilling in places like Virginia and along the east coast. This was quickly cancelled in the aftermath of the April, 2010 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.
After a lease is given the ok, in HR 1230, the permit process would move forward and this would eliminate the doubt expressed by oil drilling companies with the current process. If doubts are eliminated and the process is streamlined, people can be re-hired and put back to work in a timely manner. It means companies can plan out activity.
For the first year since 1958 no new lease has been issued.
HR 1231 encourages smart drilling. It outlines long term planning to drill where the resources are known to be - where a large field is discovered.
Chairman Hastings said these three bills, known as American Energy Initiative, would be voted on this week in the House. He expects passage with bi-partisan support. He stated that the bills would lower gas prices, increase revenue through job creation, and promote energy independence.
Realistically speaking, it is doubtful that should the bills move out of the Senate with a green light that President Obama would sign them into law. It is a sharp contrast to his approach to energy production. It is aggressive and speaks truth to power.
It is well past time for action. Thanks now to Speaker Boehner, Republicans lead the way:
Speaker Boehner's press office released the following update on energy legislation moving through the House of Representatives:
By a vote of 266-149, the Republican-led House of Representatives just passed the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230). This is American Energy Initiative legislation that will help address soaring gas prices and create new jobs by increasing offshore energy production.
H.R. 1230 is the most recent bill in the American Energy Initiative, and it requires the Secretary of the Interior to move forward and conduct offshore energy lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Virginia that have been delayed or canceled by the Obama Administration. This is critical with gas prices rapidly reaching $4 throughout much of the country.
The House has also passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, common-sense legislation that prevents the EPA from imposing a “cap and trade” national energy tax that will drive prices up further and destroy American jobs.
Go to the new Facebook page House Energy Action Team and stay informed on the progress.
I was able to listen in on a conference call Wednesday with Chairman Hastings and Rep Peter Roskam, Chief Deputy Whip. They explained the three bills moving forward - HB 1229 "Putting the Gulf Back to Work", HB 1230 on lease sales, and HB 1231 on long term plans to drill where known resources are.
Included in HR 1229 is a welcome provision that demands a 30 day time frame for the permit decisions to be made and then two 15 day extensions, if necessary. This will stop the continual languishing of permits in Washington as this administration pursues it's far left ideological agenda of shutting down offshore oil and gas drilling completely. You may remember just before the tragic Deepwater Horizon explosion, President Obama reluctantly agreed to open up Outer Continental Shelf drilling in places like Virginia and along the east coast. This was quickly cancelled in the aftermath of the April, 2010 explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.
After a lease is given the ok, in HR 1230, the permit process would move forward and this would eliminate the doubt expressed by oil drilling companies with the current process. If doubts are eliminated and the process is streamlined, people can be re-hired and put back to work in a timely manner. It means companies can plan out activity.
For the first year since 1958 no new lease has been issued.
HR 1231 encourages smart drilling. It outlines long term planning to drill where the resources are known to be - where a large field is discovered.
Chairman Hastings said these three bills, known as American Energy Initiative, would be voted on this week in the House. He expects passage with bi-partisan support. He stated that the bills would lower gas prices, increase revenue through job creation, and promote energy independence.
Realistically speaking, it is doubtful that should the bills move out of the Senate with a green light that President Obama would sign them into law. It is a sharp contrast to his approach to energy production. It is aggressive and speaks truth to power.
It is well past time for action. Thanks now to Speaker Boehner, Republicans lead the way:
Speaker Boehner's press office released the following update on energy legislation moving through the House of Representatives:
By a vote of 266-149, the Republican-led House of Representatives just passed the Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act (H.R. 1230). This is American Energy Initiative legislation that will help address soaring gas prices and create new jobs by increasing offshore energy production.
H.R. 1230 is the most recent bill in the American Energy Initiative, and it requires the Secretary of the Interior to move forward and conduct offshore energy lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Virginia that have been delayed or canceled by the Obama Administration. This is critical with gas prices rapidly reaching $4 throughout much of the country.
The House has also passed the Energy Tax Prevention Act, common-sense legislation that prevents the EPA from imposing a “cap and trade” national energy tax that will drive prices up further and destroy American jobs.
Go to the new Facebook page House Energy Action Team and stay informed on the progress.
Rep Wayne Christian Lashes Out On Retaliation Efforts
Texas State Representative Wayne Christian is one irritated conservative Republican. Serving in his seventh session, from the 9th District located in east Texas, Christian is President of the Texas Conservative Coalition. He serves on the Ways and Means Committee and the Criminal Jurispurdence Committee.
Christian strongly feels like a man under attack. The irony is not lost that with a super majority of Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives, this very conservative member is in danger of losing his seat. He said the super majority "threatens my existence" in the House. Due to re-districting maps currently under consideration, some Republicans are pitted against each other, with some of the contests between former Democrats, now Republicans, against long time Republicans. Christian believes both the SBOE and House maps threaten the super majority currently in place. He said in a blogger's conference call that he believes the Texas House will be "not as conservative, not as Republican" in future sessions.
He advocates and encouraged all to tell Governor Perry to veto both re-districting maps.
Christian spoke of the Senate budget bill under consideration with a $5 billion gap from the bill passed in the House. He said it would probably not be fixed until the legislature was in Special Session. He warned of the use of the word "fee" in the bill when it is simply another word for "tax".
His social media guru, Will Franklin, was present for the conference call and spoke about the use of social media today. He is keeping Texans current on the work of the legislature through YouTube.com You can view his broadcast about re-districting here:
Christian, continuing with his thoughts of a man under attack, supports a popular line of thought that those legislators who supported Rep Paxton over the re-election of Rep Straus as Speaker of the House are now feeling the wrath of retaliation. As an example, he said he has eight bills ready to present on the House floor yet only one has moved in the calendar committee.
Responding to a question, Christian said that those interested in illegal immigration reform - the sanctuary city legislation - HB 12 will be voted on next week. He said to look for attachments to come from committees whose bills didn't make to the calendar committee.
Christian strongly feels like a man under attack. The irony is not lost that with a super majority of Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives, this very conservative member is in danger of losing his seat. He said the super majority "threatens my existence" in the House. Due to re-districting maps currently under consideration, some Republicans are pitted against each other, with some of the contests between former Democrats, now Republicans, against long time Republicans. Christian believes both the SBOE and House maps threaten the super majority currently in place. He said in a blogger's conference call that he believes the Texas House will be "not as conservative, not as Republican" in future sessions.
He advocates and encouraged all to tell Governor Perry to veto both re-districting maps.
Christian spoke of the Senate budget bill under consideration with a $5 billion gap from the bill passed in the House. He said it would probably not be fixed until the legislature was in Special Session. He warned of the use of the word "fee" in the bill when it is simply another word for "tax".
His social media guru, Will Franklin, was present for the conference call and spoke about the use of social media today. He is keeping Texans current on the work of the legislature through YouTube.com You can view his broadcast about re-districting here:
Christian, continuing with his thoughts of a man under attack, supports a popular line of thought that those legislators who supported Rep Paxton over the re-election of Rep Straus as Speaker of the House are now feeling the wrath of retaliation. As an example, he said he has eight bills ready to present on the House floor yet only one has moved in the calendar committee.
Responding to a question, Christian said that those interested in illegal immigration reform - the sanctuary city legislation - HB 12 will be voted on next week. He said to look for attachments to come from committees whose bills didn't make to the calendar committee.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
FEMA Denies Texas Wildfire Declaration of Disaster
FEMA has denied the State of Texas a disaster declaration after more than two weeks of letting the decision languish.
Gov. Perry: FEMA Denies Presidential Disaster Declaration for Wildfires
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today criticized the Obama Administration for its denial late Tuesday of the state’s April 16th request for a federal Major Disaster Declaration to assist with the ongoing wildfire season, which has burned more than 2.2 million acres, an area roughly greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Since the wildfire season began in November 2010, Texas has responded to more than 9,000 fires across the state that have destroyed or damaged more than 400 homes.
“I am dismayed that this administration has denied Texans the much needed assistance they deserve. It is not only the obligation of the federal government, but its responsibility under law to help its citizens in times of emergency,” Gov. Perry said. “Our state has become a model for the nation in disaster preparedness and response, but Texas is reaching its capacity to respond to these emergencies. We will immediately look at all of our options, including appealing the denial, so Texans can receive the resources and support they need as wildfires continue to threaten life and property across our state.”
The State of Texas has continued to provide assistance to communities threatened by the raging fires this season, including deploying hundreds of Texas Forest Service personnel and air assets to assist with multiple fires; Texas Military Forces personnel and Blackhawk helicopters to assist fire suppression efforts; Texas Department of Transportation bulldozers and other resources as needed in the affected areas; and deploying Texas Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol and multiple communications trailers to the Texas Forest Service Incident Command Post in Merkel, Texas and other areas across the state.
Additionally, the Texas Intrastate Fire Mutual Aid System (TIFMAS) is currently activated. TIFMAS is a network of Texas fire departments willing to provide emergency resources to neighboring communities during the threat of disasters.
A Major Disaster Declaration would make the state eligible for response and recovery assistance from the federal government. Texas’ original request included:
•Direct Federal Assistance including aviation assets and wildland, structural and wildland/urban interface firefighting resources to state and local agencies in support of firefighting operations, and
•Emergency Protective Measures – measures taken before, during and after a disaster to save lives, protect public health and safety, and protect improved public and private property.
The governor issued an Emergency Disaster Proclamation on Dec. 21, 2010, which was subsequently renewed on Jan. 19, February 17, March 18 and April 15. This proclamation remains in effect as extreme wildfire conditions persist.
The State Operations Center has been partially activated and continues to work closely with the Texas Forest Service, National Weather Service and other state and local entities to monitor this severe wildfire threat.
Burn bans are currently active in 210 counties. To see the list of these counties, please visit http://tfsfrp.tamu.edu/wildfires/decban.png.
For more information on preparing for wildfire threats, please visit http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=8512.
It is difficult to believe this is anything more than politics. President Obama has not visited to survey the millions of acres burned from wildfires in this politically very red state. From past performance of this administration, it is difficult to not be cynical about their decision making process.
Gov. Perry: FEMA Denies Presidential Disaster Declaration for Wildfires
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today criticized the Obama Administration for its denial late Tuesday of the state’s April 16th request for a federal Major Disaster Declaration to assist with the ongoing wildfire season, which has burned more than 2.2 million acres, an area roughly greater than Rhode Island and Delaware combined. Since the wildfire season began in November 2010, Texas has responded to more than 9,000 fires across the state that have destroyed or damaged more than 400 homes.
“I am dismayed that this administration has denied Texans the much needed assistance they deserve. It is not only the obligation of the federal government, but its responsibility under law to help its citizens in times of emergency,” Gov. Perry said. “Our state has become a model for the nation in disaster preparedness and response, but Texas is reaching its capacity to respond to these emergencies. We will immediately look at all of our options, including appealing the denial, so Texans can receive the resources and support they need as wildfires continue to threaten life and property across our state.”
The State of Texas has continued to provide assistance to communities threatened by the raging fires this season, including deploying hundreds of Texas Forest Service personnel and air assets to assist with multiple fires; Texas Military Forces personnel and Blackhawk helicopters to assist fire suppression efforts; Texas Department of Transportation bulldozers and other resources as needed in the affected areas; and deploying Texas Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol and multiple communications trailers to the Texas Forest Service Incident Command Post in Merkel, Texas and other areas across the state.
Additionally, the Texas Intrastate Fire Mutual Aid System (TIFMAS) is currently activated. TIFMAS is a network of Texas fire departments willing to provide emergency resources to neighboring communities during the threat of disasters.
A Major Disaster Declaration would make the state eligible for response and recovery assistance from the federal government. Texas’ original request included:
•Direct Federal Assistance including aviation assets and wildland, structural and wildland/urban interface firefighting resources to state and local agencies in support of firefighting operations, and
•Emergency Protective Measures – measures taken before, during and after a disaster to save lives, protect public health and safety, and protect improved public and private property.
The governor issued an Emergency Disaster Proclamation on Dec. 21, 2010, which was subsequently renewed on Jan. 19, February 17, March 18 and April 15. This proclamation remains in effect as extreme wildfire conditions persist.
The State Operations Center has been partially activated and continues to work closely with the Texas Forest Service, National Weather Service and other state and local entities to monitor this severe wildfire threat.
Burn bans are currently active in 210 counties. To see the list of these counties, please visit http://tfsfrp.tamu.edu/wildfires/decban.png.
For more information on preparing for wildfire threats, please visit http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=8512.
It is difficult to believe this is anything more than politics. President Obama has not visited to survey the millions of acres burned from wildfires in this politically very red state. From past performance of this administration, it is difficult to not be cynical about their decision making process.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Texans for a Conservative Budget Say No to Using Rainy Day Fund
Some in the liberal blogosphere are claiming that a 2009 letter written by those in the Texans for a Conservative Budget coalition show they would be fine with using the Rainy Day Fund to balance the budget. This is not the case at all.
Texans for a Conservative Budget - a group of five conservative organizations - encourage our lawmakers to not use the Rainy Day Fund to balance the 2012-2013 budget. This message from them has been consistent and clear from the beginning of the current session and remains the same today. Governor Perry also continues to state his intention to leave the Rainy Day Fund alone for the 2012-2013 budget.
In order to make clear, again, the position of Texans for a Conservative Budget coalition, a letter was sent to the state senate floor on Tuesday, May 3. This letter clearly states their position.
This is the letter:
----------
Texas Senate
Delivered By Hand
Dear Senator,
In 2009, we signed a letter urging the Texas legislature to not use the Economic Stabilization Fund, better known as the Rainy Day Fund, for state-government activities in the 2010-2011 biennium. In it, we stated, "Retaining the entire balance in the Economic Stabilization Fund is important so that the state does not have to cut essential programs or raise taxes in response to an anticipated budget shortfall in 2011."We want to make two things clear:
• We stand by our 2009 letter.
• We stand by our 2011 declaration that using the Rainy Day Fund now is unnecessary and unwise.
In 2009, we were explicit: Rainy Day Fund use should be contemplated if and only if the alternative is higher taxes or essential-program cuts. Fortunately, Texas and its state budget are not at that impasse. The Texas House of Representatives, in particular, has shown that with political imagination and courage, it is possible to craft a budget for the coming biennium that does not raise taxes, does not cut essential programs — and does not demand a penny of the Rainy Day Fund.
Any person claiming that our 2009 letter validates use of the Rainy Day Fund ignores our clear intent then and now. We have been consistent in our position that the Fund should be preserved in full — not just in the last biennium, but in this one as well.
With respect,
Talmadge Heflin, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Arlene Wohlgemuth, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Michael Quinn Sullivan, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
Peggy Venable, Americans for Prosperity-Texas
Jonathan Saenz, Liberty Institute
The liberal bloggers would like readers to believe that there is some contradiction between then and now, between 2009 and 2011. The facts are there in writing. The coalition does not support use of the Rainy Day Fund and also predicted the shortfalls faced in 2011. The liberal bloggers claim Governor Perry and the coalition state one position in public and one in private.
Who is playing politics now?
Texans for a Conservative Budget - a group of five conservative organizations - encourage our lawmakers to not use the Rainy Day Fund to balance the 2012-2013 budget. This message from them has been consistent and clear from the beginning of the current session and remains the same today. Governor Perry also continues to state his intention to leave the Rainy Day Fund alone for the 2012-2013 budget.
In order to make clear, again, the position of Texans for a Conservative Budget coalition, a letter was sent to the state senate floor on Tuesday, May 3. This letter clearly states their position.
This is the letter:
----------
Texas Senate
Delivered By Hand
Dear Senator,
In 2009, we signed a letter urging the Texas legislature to not use the Economic Stabilization Fund, better known as the Rainy Day Fund, for state-government activities in the 2010-2011 biennium. In it, we stated, "Retaining the entire balance in the Economic Stabilization Fund is important so that the state does not have to cut essential programs or raise taxes in response to an anticipated budget shortfall in 2011."We want to make two things clear:
• We stand by our 2009 letter.
• We stand by our 2011 declaration that using the Rainy Day Fund now is unnecessary and unwise.
In 2009, we were explicit: Rainy Day Fund use should be contemplated if and only if the alternative is higher taxes or essential-program cuts. Fortunately, Texas and its state budget are not at that impasse. The Texas House of Representatives, in particular, has shown that with political imagination and courage, it is possible to craft a budget for the coming biennium that does not raise taxes, does not cut essential programs — and does not demand a penny of the Rainy Day Fund.
Any person claiming that our 2009 letter validates use of the Rainy Day Fund ignores our clear intent then and now. We have been consistent in our position that the Fund should be preserved in full — not just in the last biennium, but in this one as well.
With respect,
Talmadge Heflin, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Arlene Wohlgemuth, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Michael Quinn Sullivan, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility
Peggy Venable, Americans for Prosperity-Texas
Jonathan Saenz, Liberty Institute
The liberal bloggers would like readers to believe that there is some contradiction between then and now, between 2009 and 2011. The facts are there in writing. The coalition does not support use of the Rainy Day Fund and also predicted the shortfalls faced in 2011. The liberal bloggers claim Governor Perry and the coalition state one position in public and one in private.
Who is playing politics now?
No Unity Likely For Obama Agenda
Monday night during a dinner with Congressional leaders, President Obama told them he hopes for unity between the two parties. He said the events like the death of Osama bin Laden bring us together as a national family.
“Last night was one of those moments,” he told the bipartisan group of lawmakers he had invited weeks ago to the White House for dinner. “And so tonight, it is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that prode to confront the many challenges that we still face.”
He wants us to feel the unity we felt as a nation after the attacks of 9/11/01.
He also wants to be re-elected as President of the United States.
Cynical? Maybe. But, who is this guy trying to fool? When has it ever been his nature to work with everyone, to promote a united country? He is a former community organizer and the methods of his presidency are the same as that of a community organizer. He bullys from the Oval Office.
Here's the thing, after 9/11/01, President Bush had support from most Americans during the shock and fear in the aftermath of the attacks. Fully one half of voters were not supportive of the Bush presidency, still bitter about the ruling from the Supreme Court, but Bush trudged on by reaching out to everyone. You may remember that on the morning of 9/11/01, Laura Bush was with Senator Ted Kennedy working on education reform.
There was no reason to doubt the sincerity of President Bush. In their moments of uncertainty and fear, Democrats were willing to come together with Republicans, for the good of the country. President Obama has no such reservoir from which to build.
Even after 9/11/01, Democrats were going to the well of the Senate floor and asking what did Bush know and when did he know it kinds of questions in a matter of days. Hillary Clinton held up a New York newspaper and asked about a bold type headline. Ted Kennedy was bleating out the word quagmire at every opportunity. We haven't forgotten all that unity.
We can all get along, sure. But in Obama world, getting along is going along with his agenda and that is not going to happen. In no time at all, Obama will be back into full campaign mode telling Republicans to sit in the back of the car they drove off a cliff and reminding them "he won". He doesn't know how to encourage unity. He was never in an executive position - such as a Governor - and doesn't know how to work with different views.
Obama will receive praise for the time being. He will be recognized around the world for his actions in taking out bin Laden. Rightly so. But, this is not to be ridden as a campaign booster. We are weary of the continuous campaign that he has pursued since 2007.
If Obama is to rise to the stature of President, now is his time. If successful, he will ride this wave of support for his resolve in eliminating bin Laden and not make us further cynical of his actions.
“Last night was one of those moments,” he told the bipartisan group of lawmakers he had invited weeks ago to the White House for dinner. “And so tonight, it is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that prode to confront the many challenges that we still face.”
He wants us to feel the unity we felt as a nation after the attacks of 9/11/01.
He also wants to be re-elected as President of the United States.
Cynical? Maybe. But, who is this guy trying to fool? When has it ever been his nature to work with everyone, to promote a united country? He is a former community organizer and the methods of his presidency are the same as that of a community organizer. He bullys from the Oval Office.
Here's the thing, after 9/11/01, President Bush had support from most Americans during the shock and fear in the aftermath of the attacks. Fully one half of voters were not supportive of the Bush presidency, still bitter about the ruling from the Supreme Court, but Bush trudged on by reaching out to everyone. You may remember that on the morning of 9/11/01, Laura Bush was with Senator Ted Kennedy working on education reform.
There was no reason to doubt the sincerity of President Bush. In their moments of uncertainty and fear, Democrats were willing to come together with Republicans, for the good of the country. President Obama has no such reservoir from which to build.
Even after 9/11/01, Democrats were going to the well of the Senate floor and asking what did Bush know and when did he know it kinds of questions in a matter of days. Hillary Clinton held up a New York newspaper and asked about a bold type headline. Ted Kennedy was bleating out the word quagmire at every opportunity. We haven't forgotten all that unity.
We can all get along, sure. But in Obama world, getting along is going along with his agenda and that is not going to happen. In no time at all, Obama will be back into full campaign mode telling Republicans to sit in the back of the car they drove off a cliff and reminding them "he won". He doesn't know how to encourage unity. He was never in an executive position - such as a Governor - and doesn't know how to work with different views.
Obama will receive praise for the time being. He will be recognized around the world for his actions in taking out bin Laden. Rightly so. But, this is not to be ridden as a campaign booster. We are weary of the continuous campaign that he has pursued since 2007.
If Obama is to rise to the stature of President, now is his time. If successful, he will ride this wave of support for his resolve in eliminating bin Laden and not make us further cynical of his actions.
bin Laden Death- Victory and Irony
You'll excuse me if I don't go all swoony over the "courage" of Barack Obama to execute the mission in Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. He wants to boast that it was his pledge all along - since 2007 speeches - that if there was actionable intelligence that he would allow execution of a mission to take out bin Laden. And, frankly, as Commander-in-Chief, it is his job.
Courage was shown by George W. Bush after the attacks of 9/11/01. He laid all the groundwork for Obama's bask in the glow of victory today.
There was an almost romanticized notion that Osama bin Laden was living in a cave somewhere in the treacherous terrain along the Pakistan and Afghanistan border. Turns out, bin Laden was living quite comfortably in a million dollar mansion in Pakistani suburbia. He was surrounded by family members and those loyal to protecting him.
Candidate Obama campaigned on changing course in the war on terror. He decried the use of alleged torture on detainees, especially those done through rendition. He pledged to close GITMO and end that alleged abuse of prisoners. As President, signing the Executive Order to close GITMO was the first order of business. And, of course, we know that the far left desperately hoped a far left administration would pursue war crimes against the Bush administration.
It is a good thing that bin Laden is dead, that is true. Families of those who died on that tragic day can feel a bit of justice with his death. There is a little less evil in the world today. America can rejoice in a victory in the war on terror. War on Terror? Oh, yeah. That was changed by Obama, too - it's an 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'
It was information gleaned from interrogation that brought about the ability to launch this mission. The same interrogation methods that Obama belittled and scolded about, in the end, allowed him a national security victory.
Former President Bush posted on Laura's Facebook page. Obama had called former president George W. Bush before making his address, according to a posting attributed to Bush on Laura Bush’s Facebook page.
“Tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done,’’ said the former president, whose presidency was defined by the events of Sept. 11 and America’s response, including the long frustrating hunt for bin Laden.
It is the courage of the Navy Seals and the CIA that won this victory. God bless them all. It is an emotional victory wraught with irony.
Courage was shown by George W. Bush after the attacks of 9/11/01. He laid all the groundwork for Obama's bask in the glow of victory today.
There was an almost romanticized notion that Osama bin Laden was living in a cave somewhere in the treacherous terrain along the Pakistan and Afghanistan border. Turns out, bin Laden was living quite comfortably in a million dollar mansion in Pakistani suburbia. He was surrounded by family members and those loyal to protecting him.
Candidate Obama campaigned on changing course in the war on terror. He decried the use of alleged torture on detainees, especially those done through rendition. He pledged to close GITMO and end that alleged abuse of prisoners. As President, signing the Executive Order to close GITMO was the first order of business. And, of course, we know that the far left desperately hoped a far left administration would pursue war crimes against the Bush administration.
It is a good thing that bin Laden is dead, that is true. Families of those who died on that tragic day can feel a bit of justice with his death. There is a little less evil in the world today. America can rejoice in a victory in the war on terror. War on Terror? Oh, yeah. That was changed by Obama, too - it's an 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'
It was information gleaned from interrogation that brought about the ability to launch this mission. The same interrogation methods that Obama belittled and scolded about, in the end, allowed him a national security victory.
Former President Bush posted on Laura's Facebook page. Obama had called former president George W. Bush before making his address, according to a posting attributed to Bush on Laura Bush’s Facebook page.
“Tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done,’’ said the former president, whose presidency was defined by the events of Sept. 11 and America’s response, including the long frustrating hunt for bin Laden.
It is the courage of the Navy Seals and the CIA that won this victory. God bless them all. It is an emotional victory wraught with irony.
Monday, May 02, 2011
No 72 Virgins For You, Osama bin Laden
No seventy-two virgins for you, Osama bin Laden. And, no acknowledgement of your leadership that brought about the announcement of bin Laden's death Sunday night, President George W. Bush.
President Obama made reference to the national unity felt as the nation came together after the attacks of 9/11/01. Too bad he couldn't muster some of that himself. In usual Obama fashion, there was no acknowledgement of President Bush's groundwork that led to the announcement he was able to make Sunday night. The only tiny bone tossed by Obama during the announcement, the only mention of his name, came when Obama said that both he and President Bush wanted to make it clear we are not at war with Islam.
Sadly predictable.
It was reported that intelligence gathered from a detainee a little more than four years ago that put the action into motion. That means the information was gathered as George W. Bush was still in office and that means Barack Obama was on the campaign trail berating Bush for allowing "torture" to be used in gathering information from detainees in the war on terror.
Barack Obama pledged to close GITMO as his first action as president and he fulfilled that pledge with an Executive Order just after he was sworn in. He has been unable to actually do that and now knows it is easy to criticize and act so pious in the abstract on the campaign trail but difficult to lead. Plus, Obama was a part of those from the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic party that was participating in the nasty "General Betrayus" campaign against General Petraeus.
It was reported that President Obama called former President Bush with the news of bin Laden's death. Why didn't he at least mention that at his announcement? Why couldn't he bring himself to simply say he spoke with the former president and personally gave him the news? This is another example of the pettiness and smallness of Obama's personal character. He is so secure in his ability to relentlessly demonize George W. Bush that he cannot even be honest about good news for the entire country.
Thanks to the steady leadership of George W. Bush in the war on terror, bin Laden is now dead. Some justice has been served. Part of his message released in a statement stated:
This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.
The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.
We are grateful to the heroic efforts of a small group of Navy Seals who carried out this mission in Pakistan. It is fitting that former President Bush was supporting wounded warriors in the Big Bend area of Texas in a multi-day trail bike ride last week. I wish it wasn't so difficult to imagine Barack Obama doing the same when his time in office is up.
President Obama made reference to the national unity felt as the nation came together after the attacks of 9/11/01. Too bad he couldn't muster some of that himself. In usual Obama fashion, there was no acknowledgement of President Bush's groundwork that led to the announcement he was able to make Sunday night. The only tiny bone tossed by Obama during the announcement, the only mention of his name, came when Obama said that both he and President Bush wanted to make it clear we are not at war with Islam.
Sadly predictable.
It was reported that intelligence gathered from a detainee a little more than four years ago that put the action into motion. That means the information was gathered as George W. Bush was still in office and that means Barack Obama was on the campaign trail berating Bush for allowing "torture" to be used in gathering information from detainees in the war on terror.
Barack Obama pledged to close GITMO as his first action as president and he fulfilled that pledge with an Executive Order just after he was sworn in. He has been unable to actually do that and now knows it is easy to criticize and act so pious in the abstract on the campaign trail but difficult to lead. Plus, Obama was a part of those from the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic party that was participating in the nasty "General Betrayus" campaign against General Petraeus.
It was reported that President Obama called former President Bush with the news of bin Laden's death. Why didn't he at least mention that at his announcement? Why couldn't he bring himself to simply say he spoke with the former president and personally gave him the news? This is another example of the pettiness and smallness of Obama's personal character. He is so secure in his ability to relentlessly demonize George W. Bush that he cannot even be honest about good news for the entire country.
Thanks to the steady leadership of George W. Bush in the war on terror, bin Laden is now dead. Some justice has been served. Part of his message released in a statement stated:
This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.
The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.
We are grateful to the heroic efforts of a small group of Navy Seals who carried out this mission in Pakistan. It is fitting that former President Bush was supporting wounded warriors in the Big Bend area of Texas in a multi-day trail bike ride last week. I wish it wasn't so difficult to imagine Barack Obama doing the same when his time in office is up.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Watch Your Mouth, Donald Trump
I don't know if Donald Trump will run for President or not. I do know the man knows marketing. Not only did he elevate his presence in the media on a day to day basis but he also forced the President to produce his long form birth certificate. Then, after claiming victory in that tussle, Trump worked in a plug for his television show's season finale in May. Stellar, I tell you.
Now, fuller of himself than is imaginable, he is going off the rails. He spoke recently in Las Vegas and used very unpresidential language. He dropped on one but three F bombs during his speech. Really, Mr. Trump? This is how you see a President of the U.S. speaking in a public forum?
As my mother used to tell my sisters and me, watch your mouth, Donald.
Yeah, sure, Trump wants to sound like a tough guy. He enjoys pointing out how weak a leader Barack Obama is and that is understandable. He forced the President of the United States to do a quick press conference to announce he is, in fact, a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President. Surreal. So very surreal. Plus, it did beg the question, if his long form birth certificate was available all along, why did he allow it all to be dragged out for 3 years? Was it all just a political tactic to allow his staff to paint those questioning the document as kooks and nuts?
Yeah, probably.
Then he grandly said he was too busy of a guy, had too much important stuff to do to dwell in this situation any longer. Which was ironic.
By "more important things", President Obama meant he was taping Oprah in Chicago and heading off to New York City for three more fundraisers. He is, after all, officially the campaigner-in-chief now.
The more important things Obama has to do included flying to Chicago to tape a final chat with 2008 celebrity campaign pal Oprah, who's wrapping a quarter-century of syndicated touching tales next month. (The Obamas' episode is set for May 2.)
The president then flew -- no, not back to the White House -- to Manhattan for three Democratic fundraisers, where he spoke for a total of 67 minutes.
Sarah Palin made the rounds of political commentary outlets with her answer posed by a journalist - that was would she vote to raise the debt ceiling if she were in Congress? She replied, "Hells, no, I wouldn't." That caused a brouhaha for naughty language use. Not very offensive but it caught the attention of listeners. Certainly, it was nowhere near Trump territory.
And, then Mitt Romney jumped into the what-was-he-thinking territory. He made an unfortunate faux pas about hanging President Obama with his poor record and it went terribly wrong.
Speaking at a dinner hosted by Americans for Prosperity, the former Massachusetts governor said, "Reagan came up with this great thing about the ‘misery index’ and he hung that around Jimmy Carter’s neck and that had a lot to do with Jimmy Carter losing." He added, "Well, we’re going to have to hang the ‘Obama Misery Index’ around his neck."
Romney went on to say, "I'll tell you, the fact that you've got people in this country really squeezed, with gasoline getting so expensive, with commodities getting so expensive, families are having a hard time making ends meet. So, we're going to have to talk about that, and housing foreclosures and bankruptcies and higher taxation. We're going to hang him with that, so to speak, metaphorically."
Metaphorically or not, it was bad form from Mr. Romney. I don't know that his team made it any better for him:
On the heels of the potential presidential candidate raising eyebrows with the remarks, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul addressed the questionable choice of words. She told ABC News, "It is not what the governor meant and that was very clear in what he actually said." According to CNN, Romney's camp called initial reports on his remarks "a ridiculous exaggeration of his actual comments."
And, it's only in the beginning stages. Gonna be a long campaign.
Now, fuller of himself than is imaginable, he is going off the rails. He spoke recently in Las Vegas and used very unpresidential language. He dropped on one but three F bombs during his speech. Really, Mr. Trump? This is how you see a President of the U.S. speaking in a public forum?
As my mother used to tell my sisters and me, watch your mouth, Donald.
Yeah, sure, Trump wants to sound like a tough guy. He enjoys pointing out how weak a leader Barack Obama is and that is understandable. He forced the President of the United States to do a quick press conference to announce he is, in fact, a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President. Surreal. So very surreal. Plus, it did beg the question, if his long form birth certificate was available all along, why did he allow it all to be dragged out for 3 years? Was it all just a political tactic to allow his staff to paint those questioning the document as kooks and nuts?
Yeah, probably.
Then he grandly said he was too busy of a guy, had too much important stuff to do to dwell in this situation any longer. Which was ironic.
By "more important things", President Obama meant he was taping Oprah in Chicago and heading off to New York City for three more fundraisers. He is, after all, officially the campaigner-in-chief now.
The more important things Obama has to do included flying to Chicago to tape a final chat with 2008 celebrity campaign pal Oprah, who's wrapping a quarter-century of syndicated touching tales next month. (The Obamas' episode is set for May 2.)
The president then flew -- no, not back to the White House -- to Manhattan for three Democratic fundraisers, where he spoke for a total of 67 minutes.
Sarah Palin made the rounds of political commentary outlets with her answer posed by a journalist - that was would she vote to raise the debt ceiling if she were in Congress? She replied, "Hells, no, I wouldn't." That caused a brouhaha for naughty language use. Not very offensive but it caught the attention of listeners. Certainly, it was nowhere near Trump territory.
And, then Mitt Romney jumped into the what-was-he-thinking territory. He made an unfortunate faux pas about hanging President Obama with his poor record and it went terribly wrong.
Speaking at a dinner hosted by Americans for Prosperity, the former Massachusetts governor said, "Reagan came up with this great thing about the ‘misery index’ and he hung that around Jimmy Carter’s neck and that had a lot to do with Jimmy Carter losing." He added, "Well, we’re going to have to hang the ‘Obama Misery Index’ around his neck."
Romney went on to say, "I'll tell you, the fact that you've got people in this country really squeezed, with gasoline getting so expensive, with commodities getting so expensive, families are having a hard time making ends meet. So, we're going to have to talk about that, and housing foreclosures and bankruptcies and higher taxation. We're going to hang him with that, so to speak, metaphorically."
Metaphorically or not, it was bad form from Mr. Romney. I don't know that his team made it any better for him:
On the heels of the potential presidential candidate raising eyebrows with the remarks, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul addressed the questionable choice of words. She told ABC News, "It is not what the governor meant and that was very clear in what he actually said." According to CNN, Romney's camp called initial reports on his remarks "a ridiculous exaggeration of his actual comments."
And, it's only in the beginning stages. Gonna be a long campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)