While flying home on Air Force One from his extended Christmas holiday in Hawaii, President Obama told the press corps on board that there will be "plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012" and hopes Boehner and McConnell will work with him to move the country forward. He said he expects the new Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader to play to their base.
That is quite a lot of chutzpah from President Obama, a man in a perpetual campaign mode as he tries to govern the entire country. He states his low expectations of the political atmosphere and then cluck clucks about early campaigning.
Speaking on Air Force One, Obama acknowledged that a chilly reception awaited him from the Republicans, as they pledged tougher oversight of his administration.
"They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time, but I'm pretty confident that they're going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we're creating a competitive economy for the 21st century -- not just for this generation but the next one," Obama said.
The President's newly found enthusiasm toward job creation is refreshing. Now it is up to him to convince the business community of his sincerity. This is the same President who stifled job creation and growth along the Gulf coast as his overzealous Interior Secretary issued an unnecessary drilling moratorium on offshore oil and natural gas drilling. This is the same President who came into office making speech after speech about Wall Street greed and the villains in the financial world. This is the same President who demanded the ramming through of an unnecessary monstrosity of a health care bill which includes unrealistic demands on small business and the medical practitioners. This is the same President who time and time again uses class warfare - middle class versus top earners - to push through his agenda.
This is a President who has never worked in the private sector. This is a President who has never owned or worked within a small business. This President only knows taxpayer funded jobs.
Let's hope he has completed his on the job training and is ready to be serious about turning job creation into a reality.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
RNC Chairman Candidates Debate
The debate among those running for the chairmanship of the RNC was moderated by Tucker Carlson of the Daily Caller and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Also participating was Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List. She was the self-proclaimed 'social conservative' representative. The mission of the Susan B. Anthony List is to promote pro-life candidates in politics.
The debate was live streamed via the Internet and broadcast on C-SPAN. The election is set for January 14.
An interesting nod to the virtual participant occurred when Tucker Carlson reminded those participants that the hash tag for the debate was #RNCDebate.
It wasn't much of a debate, per se, but more of a standard question and answer session.
The first shot was fired with the first candidate's opening statement. There is a need for some "tough love" according to Ann Wagner. Former co-chair of the RNC, and former chair of the Missouri GOP, as well as former Ambassador, candidate Ann Wagner has the broadest range of political experience of those hoping to oust current Chairman Michael Steele. And, just for the record, she wins the who-owns-guns contest, too. She and her family own 16, thank you. Plus the bonus of a son who is attending West Point and owner of an assault weapon.
Got all that? The woman is poised and articulate. She stays on message. As a former Ambassador, one would have to think she won't be the source of verbal gaffes. Right?
Next up was Saul Anuzis, former Michigan GOP Chair, and current National Committee member. His most memorable line was that the RNC Chair should "make the trains run on time." He used that line more than once. Anuzis ran for the position against Steele in 2008 and has been running ever since. He is very active on Twitter and Facebook. He spoke to the need for inclusion of all conservatives into the Republican party, as did Michael Steele.
Maria Cino was the third candidate to speak. She is a former Deputy RNC Chair and was Political Director for the 2000 Bush Presidential Campaign. She receives credit for the implementation of the 50 state victory program and also that she, as she said, "ran the national convention" of 2008. She is very strong in fundraising fundamentals and implementation.
Current Chairman Michael Steele was next. He described himself as a "glass is half full kind of guy" and took credit for the "we fired Pelosi" campaign success. He reminded the audience that there was not a state that didn't have GOP victories as he defended himself against the charges that the get out the vote program was not fully funded or as successful as it might have been.
Reince Priebus was the last to speak. Wisconsin GOP Chair and proud of the last election results in his state, he stressed that Republicans are not in competition with conservatives such as those in the Tea Party. "We are part of the conservative movement." A former supporter of Steele, now Priebus is quick to draw a line on inclusion into the party. He was clear that if you are not towing the party line then you are not a Republican. That is unfortunate at this point in time. The GOP needs to expand with all willing conservatives instead of encouraging small minded labels and in-fighting.
Other candidates were vocal in calling for RNC leadership that acknowledged the three pillars of conservatism - fiscal, social and strong national security. National security was basically ignored during this debate, however. The candidates were most interested in speaking to fiscal conservatism and yet the questions were centered around social conservatism at every opportunity.
All candidates agreed that Planned Parenthood should be de-funded of any tax dollars or government support. All proclaimed to be pro-life. All support the traditional definition of marriage. None claimed The Bible as their favorite book, which was refreshing. Michael Steele did incorrectly quote "War and Peace", is favorite book pick by using a quote from "A Tale of Two Cities" - "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." English lit majors noticed.
Kudos to the moderators who insisted that when candidates answered the "who is your favorite President" question, Ronald Reagan's name was not allowed. I like that Maria Cino answered Margaret Thatcher!
All said yes to the question of the possibility of Sarah Palin winning the general election in 2012. All quickly mentioned that it is the Chairman's job to promote and support a candidate, not choose the candidate. This was another waste of time question.
The RNC Chairman has no role in making GOP policy. This fact makes the insistence on purity on social issues a waste of time. There is no question that all of these candidates are good people who want to work to make the GOP successful. As a couple of them rightfully said, it is the job of the RNC Chairman to insure victories. And, raise money. All the other fussing is white noise.
Now more than in years past, the RNC Chairman must be a person who brings people together and into the party to pave the way for victory in 2012.
The debate was live streamed via the Internet and broadcast on C-SPAN. The election is set for January 14.
An interesting nod to the virtual participant occurred when Tucker Carlson reminded those participants that the hash tag for the debate was #RNCDebate.
It wasn't much of a debate, per se, but more of a standard question and answer session.
The first shot was fired with the first candidate's opening statement. There is a need for some "tough love" according to Ann Wagner. Former co-chair of the RNC, and former chair of the Missouri GOP, as well as former Ambassador, candidate Ann Wagner has the broadest range of political experience of those hoping to oust current Chairman Michael Steele. And, just for the record, she wins the who-owns-guns contest, too. She and her family own 16, thank you. Plus the bonus of a son who is attending West Point and owner of an assault weapon.
Got all that? The woman is poised and articulate. She stays on message. As a former Ambassador, one would have to think she won't be the source of verbal gaffes. Right?
Next up was Saul Anuzis, former Michigan GOP Chair, and current National Committee member. His most memorable line was that the RNC Chair should "make the trains run on time." He used that line more than once. Anuzis ran for the position against Steele in 2008 and has been running ever since. He is very active on Twitter and Facebook. He spoke to the need for inclusion of all conservatives into the Republican party, as did Michael Steele.
Maria Cino was the third candidate to speak. She is a former Deputy RNC Chair and was Political Director for the 2000 Bush Presidential Campaign. She receives credit for the implementation of the 50 state victory program and also that she, as she said, "ran the national convention" of 2008. She is very strong in fundraising fundamentals and implementation.
Current Chairman Michael Steele was next. He described himself as a "glass is half full kind of guy" and took credit for the "we fired Pelosi" campaign success. He reminded the audience that there was not a state that didn't have GOP victories as he defended himself against the charges that the get out the vote program was not fully funded or as successful as it might have been.
Reince Priebus was the last to speak. Wisconsin GOP Chair and proud of the last election results in his state, he stressed that Republicans are not in competition with conservatives such as those in the Tea Party. "We are part of the conservative movement." A former supporter of Steele, now Priebus is quick to draw a line on inclusion into the party. He was clear that if you are not towing the party line then you are not a Republican. That is unfortunate at this point in time. The GOP needs to expand with all willing conservatives instead of encouraging small minded labels and in-fighting.
Other candidates were vocal in calling for RNC leadership that acknowledged the three pillars of conservatism - fiscal, social and strong national security. National security was basically ignored during this debate, however. The candidates were most interested in speaking to fiscal conservatism and yet the questions were centered around social conservatism at every opportunity.
All candidates agreed that Planned Parenthood should be de-funded of any tax dollars or government support. All proclaimed to be pro-life. All support the traditional definition of marriage. None claimed The Bible as their favorite book, which was refreshing. Michael Steele did incorrectly quote "War and Peace", is favorite book pick by using a quote from "A Tale of Two Cities" - "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." English lit majors noticed.
Kudos to the moderators who insisted that when candidates answered the "who is your favorite President" question, Ronald Reagan's name was not allowed. I like that Maria Cino answered Margaret Thatcher!
All said yes to the question of the possibility of Sarah Palin winning the general election in 2012. All quickly mentioned that it is the Chairman's job to promote and support a candidate, not choose the candidate. This was another waste of time question.
The RNC Chairman has no role in making GOP policy. This fact makes the insistence on purity on social issues a waste of time. There is no question that all of these candidates are good people who want to work to make the GOP successful. As a couple of them rightfully said, it is the job of the RNC Chairman to insure victories. And, raise money. All the other fussing is white noise.
Now more than in years past, the RNC Chairman must be a person who brings people together and into the party to pave the way for victory in 2012.
Oil Prices Rise As Team Obama Sabotages Drilling Industry
The price of a barrel of crude oil is over $90. The price of a gallon of gas is predicted to be over $4.00 this year.
Normally, when the price of oil rises, folks in the oil and natural gas drilling industry are smiling. That's good news. Drilling speculation increases and it's full speed ahead with hiring. Service companies expand and those employers hire workers.
These are not normal times. Not only will increasing prices harm the economic recovery of the country and stifle consumer spending, our dependence on foreign oil producers increases. There is no winning in this situation.
This is not a game. The Obama administration and especially Interior Secretary Salazar are determined to shut down offshore oil and natural gas drilling. An exaggerated response to the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill in 2010 - both the loss of human life and environmental damage - does not honor those lost or support those left behind. Holding hearings and allowing those with no experience in the industry to make and enforce new layers of red tape and governmental regulations does not produce good energy policy.
Issuance of drilling permits remains non-existent.
More than two months after the Obama administration lifted its ban on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well there. Experts now expect the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps into 2012.
And this: The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13% this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6% in 2011. The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.
With growing instability in Venezuela and in Russia, why would this administration allow shortages in oil drilling to continue? All methods of obtaining energy are needed, not just alternative energy ideas at the expense of oil and natural gas exploration. Obama approved millions to be sent to Brazil for their oil drilling efforts. Our oil and gas industry is the most regulated and taxed of any U.S. industry.
The lengthy delays in reviewing new permits have caught the industry off guard. When the Obama administration lifted its ban on deep-water drilling on Oct. 12, many experts had expected a few permits to be issued before the end of 2010, followed by a gradual ramp-up of activity this year.
Blind ideology - illogical prejudice - against any national industry with international repercussions is no way to make energy policy. Drilling for oil and natural gas has successfully and safely been done for decades in our country.
It is time to drill here and drill now.
Normally, when the price of oil rises, folks in the oil and natural gas drilling industry are smiling. That's good news. Drilling speculation increases and it's full speed ahead with hiring. Service companies expand and those employers hire workers.
These are not normal times. Not only will increasing prices harm the economic recovery of the country and stifle consumer spending, our dependence on foreign oil producers increases. There is no winning in this situation.
This is not a game. The Obama administration and especially Interior Secretary Salazar are determined to shut down offshore oil and natural gas drilling. An exaggerated response to the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill in 2010 - both the loss of human life and environmental damage - does not honor those lost or support those left behind. Holding hearings and allowing those with no experience in the industry to make and enforce new layers of red tape and governmental regulations does not produce good energy policy.
Issuance of drilling permits remains non-existent.
More than two months after the Obama administration lifted its ban on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well there. Experts now expect the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps into 2012.
And this: The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13% this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6% in 2011. The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.
With growing instability in Venezuela and in Russia, why would this administration allow shortages in oil drilling to continue? All methods of obtaining energy are needed, not just alternative energy ideas at the expense of oil and natural gas exploration. Obama approved millions to be sent to Brazil for their oil drilling efforts. Our oil and gas industry is the most regulated and taxed of any U.S. industry.
The lengthy delays in reviewing new permits have caught the industry off guard. When the Obama administration lifted its ban on deep-water drilling on Oct. 12, many experts had expected a few permits to be issued before the end of 2010, followed by a gradual ramp-up of activity this year.
Blind ideology - illogical prejudice - against any national industry with international repercussions is no way to make energy policy. Drilling for oil and natural gas has successfully and safely been done for decades in our country.
It is time to drill here and drill now.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Reid to Change Senate Rule on Filibusters
As the politicians head back to Washington for the opening of the new Congress, one top priority on the agenda of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to change the rule in the Senate as it pertains to filibusters.
Currently, under Senate Rule 22 it takes a three-fifths vote, or 60 senators, for cloture to shut off the potentially endless debate known as a filibuster. But it takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 Senators, to change a Senate rule.
Now that the Democratic majority has dramatically shrunk in the Senate, Reid wants to change the rules. He was against it before he was for it, this rule change.
When Harry Reid was hawking his book "The Good Fight" on C-Span's "Book Notes" in 2008, he described how he had vehemently opposed GOP plans for the "nuclear option," changing the rules to break a Democratic filibuster on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
See, it is a "good fight" if it is Democrats fighting a Republican agenda. Not so much if it is Republicans fighting a Democratic agenda. Back in the days of the Bush administration, the party of no was the Democrats. From the time the Democrats won the majority in the House and Senate in 2007 until President Bush left office, the Democrats were the masters of blocking nominations and legislation. When it was apparent a crucial number of federal judicial openings would not be filled, a group of fourteen senators met to try and work a compromise. This group was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans and led by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham and referred to as the Gang of Fourteen.
Ideologically blinded members of both parties cried foul. No compromises, ever. Sounds good but in the real world it is a losing policy. Had the Republican majority succumbed and changed the rules, that short sighted victory would have allowed the now majority Democratic party the same leeway. Graham, at the time branded with the usual RINO label, wisely counseled fellow Republicans to avoid the easy way out. He understood that majority control ebbs and flows.
Reid, at the time, was quite vocal at the perceived power grab by the Republican majority. Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. Now he has a plan to go ahead and change the number of votes required to break a filibuster. He is using a freshman as his willing rube,Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico.
The National Journal reports that all Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Reid that a simple majority of the Senate can change the rule governing filibusters that has been in existence since 1975.
They are pushing the idea that like the House, the Senate is not a "continuing body" and is therefore free to adopt new rules each time it meets.
Emily Miller, writing in Human Events, reports that Reid held a closed-door meeting last week in which he said he may by a simple majority change the rules, including Rule 22, on the first day of the 112th Congress.
Got that? All of the Democrats in the Senate signed on to Reid's plan behind closed doors. Another failure towards the pledge of the strongest measure of transparency from the Democrats. Reid wants to turn the Senate into the House. He intends to use that logic to make it up as he goes, using whatever rules benefit him.
Currently, under Senate Rule 22 it takes a three-fifths vote, or 60 senators, for cloture to shut off the potentially endless debate known as a filibuster. But it takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 Senators, to change a Senate rule.
Now that the Democratic majority has dramatically shrunk in the Senate, Reid wants to change the rules. He was against it before he was for it, this rule change.
When Harry Reid was hawking his book "The Good Fight" on C-Span's "Book Notes" in 2008, he described how he had vehemently opposed GOP plans for the "nuclear option," changing the rules to break a Democratic filibuster on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
See, it is a "good fight" if it is Democrats fighting a Republican agenda. Not so much if it is Republicans fighting a Democratic agenda. Back in the days of the Bush administration, the party of no was the Democrats. From the time the Democrats won the majority in the House and Senate in 2007 until President Bush left office, the Democrats were the masters of blocking nominations and legislation. When it was apparent a crucial number of federal judicial openings would not be filled, a group of fourteen senators met to try and work a compromise. This group was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans and led by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham and referred to as the Gang of Fourteen.
Ideologically blinded members of both parties cried foul. No compromises, ever. Sounds good but in the real world it is a losing policy. Had the Republican majority succumbed and changed the rules, that short sighted victory would have allowed the now majority Democratic party the same leeway. Graham, at the time branded with the usual RINO label, wisely counseled fellow Republicans to avoid the easy way out. He understood that majority control ebbs and flows.
Reid, at the time, was quite vocal at the perceived power grab by the Republican majority. Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. Now he has a plan to go ahead and change the number of votes required to break a filibuster. He is using a freshman as his willing rube,Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico.
The National Journal reports that all Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Reid that a simple majority of the Senate can change the rule governing filibusters that has been in existence since 1975.
They are pushing the idea that like the House, the Senate is not a "continuing body" and is therefore free to adopt new rules each time it meets.
Emily Miller, writing in Human Events, reports that Reid held a closed-door meeting last week in which he said he may by a simple majority change the rules, including Rule 22, on the first day of the 112th Congress.
Got that? All of the Democrats in the Senate signed on to Reid's plan behind closed doors. Another failure towards the pledge of the strongest measure of transparency from the Democrats. Reid wants to turn the Senate into the House. He intends to use that logic to make it up as he goes, using whatever rules benefit him.
Obama Pledges to Create Jobs in 2011
In the President's weekly address he promised to "do everything I can" to boost the economy; to create jobs. "In the year that lies ahead" Obama claims he is committed to job creation and growing jobs with an eye towards the future.
With a different president, this might be a reasonable address to the American business person. Coming from Barack Obama, however, the irony is ripe for comment. It is hard to imagine a more anti-business president from recent times. Unless Obama is speaking about government and union jobs, both of which he has focused on like a laser beam and grown out of proportion to private sector jobs, he appears to have little knowledge of how to grow jobs. This is in no small way attributable to the fact that the man has never worked in the private sector or created jobs in any business.
Obama pledges to work with both sides of the political aisle.
"In a few days, a new Congress will form, with one house controlled by Democrats, and one house controlled by Republicans - who now have a shared responsibility to move this country forward," he said. "And here's what I want you to know: I'm willing to work with anyone of either party who's got a good idea and the commitment to see it through. And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver."
Thanks to the 'shellacking' which occurred on November 2, the President finds himself without a majority in the House and a limited one in the Senate. He no longer has the luxury of shutting out Republican and the GOP ideas on his policies. He no longer has the luxury of the lie told and re-told that the GOP doesn't offer solutions or different approaches, only criticizes his ideas. Now the Democrats - his party - can be the "party of no" in the House. That's politics.
The term 'witch hunt' has emerged as of recent weeks in the press. Now that Rep Issa is the incoming chairman of the House Government and Oversight Committee, and he promises to do the job, suddenly it is a GOP witch hunt. Some oversight would be refreshing in the House as we didn't get much of that under the guidance of Speaker Pelosi, though she promised the highest level of transparency and to drain the swamp of corruption. Pelosi chose to use her power in pushing through legislation instead of honoring those commitments. So much for all that change the voters expected with Pelosi's history making as the first female Speaker of the House.
President has Senate Majority Leader McConnell to thank for the amount of success he experienced during the lame duck session. McConnell drew a line and said no business will be conducted until the tax policy is handled. All of the Republican senators signed on to that decision as it was presented to Harry Reid. Obama had no choice but to move forward by bringing Republicans to the table.
With the public pledge to work with 'both sides' the time is now to live up to the words. The key is to watch what this president does, not what he says.
With a different president, this might be a reasonable address to the American business person. Coming from Barack Obama, however, the irony is ripe for comment. It is hard to imagine a more anti-business president from recent times. Unless Obama is speaking about government and union jobs, both of which he has focused on like a laser beam and grown out of proportion to private sector jobs, he appears to have little knowledge of how to grow jobs. This is in no small way attributable to the fact that the man has never worked in the private sector or created jobs in any business.
Obama pledges to work with both sides of the political aisle.
"In a few days, a new Congress will form, with one house controlled by Democrats, and one house controlled by Republicans - who now have a shared responsibility to move this country forward," he said. "And here's what I want you to know: I'm willing to work with anyone of either party who's got a good idea and the commitment to see it through. And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver."
Thanks to the 'shellacking' which occurred on November 2, the President finds himself without a majority in the House and a limited one in the Senate. He no longer has the luxury of shutting out Republican and the GOP ideas on his policies. He no longer has the luxury of the lie told and re-told that the GOP doesn't offer solutions or different approaches, only criticizes his ideas. Now the Democrats - his party - can be the "party of no" in the House. That's politics.
The term 'witch hunt' has emerged as of recent weeks in the press. Now that Rep Issa is the incoming chairman of the House Government and Oversight Committee, and he promises to do the job, suddenly it is a GOP witch hunt. Some oversight would be refreshing in the House as we didn't get much of that under the guidance of Speaker Pelosi, though she promised the highest level of transparency and to drain the swamp of corruption. Pelosi chose to use her power in pushing through legislation instead of honoring those commitments. So much for all that change the voters expected with Pelosi's history making as the first female Speaker of the House.
President has Senate Majority Leader McConnell to thank for the amount of success he experienced during the lame duck session. McConnell drew a line and said no business will be conducted until the tax policy is handled. All of the Republican senators signed on to that decision as it was presented to Harry Reid. Obama had no choice but to move forward by bringing Republicans to the table.
With the public pledge to work with 'both sides' the time is now to live up to the words. The key is to watch what this president does, not what he says.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
The Obama Presidency as Grand Social Experiment
It is a false claim, the one that compares Obama favorably as a reincarnation of JFK. The two men share little in common and certainly not the same personalities.
Now and then Mr. Obama's devotees nodded to American history with evocations of FDR's New Deal and superficial parallels to JFK—the good looks, the glamour, the young children. But Kennedy had seen combat, was a Cold Warrior, and believed in the burdens of American power. Yes, he charmed Parisians and Berliners—but as the standard-bearer of an American empire of liberty. He never journeyed abroad to apologize on behalf of his country.
The voters that placed Barack Obama into the highest office in the land have now mostly soured on his abilities to govern. The country, it turns out, is not willing to continue on this path of Obama's grand social experiment. We are not a socialist leaning nation. We accept the need of big government programs, such as social security and unemployment insurance, but not for socialized medicine at the expense of 1/6 of our national economy.
Now the hard stuff begins for President Obama.
The era of charisma, which began when Barack Obama was swept into office by delirium and enthusiasm, has drawn to a close. With the resounding repudiation of the midterm elections, the tax legislation, the ratification of a strategic arms pact with Russia and the end of "don't ask, don't tell" thanks to the support of Republican senators, the Obama presidency has just begun.
Which way will this president go? Will he heed the cries of the general public and moderate? Will he continue to whine and blame when his agenda meets opposition? I predict a resounding 'yes' to both questions. The man really, really want to be re-elected in 2012 and yet his own stunted personality will not allow him to be gracious in either victory ("I won") or defeat. He was able to push through his health care boondoogle on Christmas Eve 2009 with a completely Democratic dominated Congress. Come January, the game changes.
Now President Obama no longer has super fan Nancy Pelosi as head cheerleader and agenda setting leader in the House of Representatives. Now President Obama will have to work with incoming Speaker of the House Boehner, of whom he previously ridiculed and trash-talked for political points during policy debates. Some of the change this White House has provided comes in the lowered political rhetoric - that of personal attacks of those with a different political philosophy. This White House has provided the change of dialogue more fitting of middle school students than of the highest levels of political leadership.
The man ushered into power on the basis of skin color - a hard reality often not spoken about out of fear of criticism if we were honest - as a 'historical' presidency, the first bi-racial president had little experience to qualify him for the office. The man delivered a speech in 2004 at the Democratic convention that impressed many people, including myself at the time, and his path was set. He would be a future presidential candidate. Then he decided it was his time in 2008. With only a very brief Senatorial career in Washington,after time in the state legislature in Illinois where his claim to fame was voting 'present' an unprecedented amount of times, his fan club grew. He was able to parlay his teleprompter reading skills into capturing the imagination of the voters. John McCain ran a lackluster campaign and then relied on Sarah Palin to draw the crowds and woo conservative voters. The slobbering press never bothered to investigate some very troubling aspects of Obama's past - decisions that clearly showed character faults that would bleed into future presidential decisions. The press was hell-bent on the first bi-racial presidential bid. The American public was scared and nervous about the financial climate and rising unemployment. A majority of voters latched onto candidate Obama as a hope for a new path to recovery.
We have a slobbering press to thank for much of the Obama popularity leading into his electoral victory in 2008. Reporters - a term used loosely here - tasked with the campaign trail coverage of Obama turned their collective heads and then used the experience to write tell-all books which included the stories that should have been reported during the campaign. "Journalists" cashing in on a professional assignment instead of actually doing the job for the American reader and voter was a new low for them. It appeared to be the last nail in the coffin of the death of journalism in this country. The slobbering press is at it again - the very ones who profited before are looking for greener rewards now. The move to Chicago for the re-election headquarters, for example, is being 'reported' as 'daring' and other nonsensical descriptions.
The man in the Oval Office is a master of deception. He bends with whatever will be best for his legacy. It is hard to believe this selfish man has anyone but himself at the forefront of his thoughts.
How did Barack Obama invent himself into a bi-partisan, working across the aisle, no more red state/blue state unifying figure? Mellifluous rhetoric and a partisan myth helped to promulgate that myth, I grant. But still, how did the U.S senator with the most partisan voting record in the Senate (to the left of the socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont) and a devout attendee of one of the most divisive and racist preachers imaginable refashion himself so successfully? Was it the simple declarations — as in something like “I say I am bipartisan, therefore I am bipartisan”? Did all forget that our pre-mid-term election president evoked phrases such as “enemies,” “sit in the back of the car,” and “hand to hand”?
No matter — as soon as Obama was “shellacked” with a 63 seat loss in the House, and his polls hit 42 percent approval, he dropped all the prior rhetoric about “I won and you lost” or “elections matter”—and now announced to his “enemies” that he could “work together” to get things done. Had Obama increased the House Democratic majority by 30 more seats in November, would he now be praising the virtues of bipartisanship? Had the vanity of Rev Wright not convinced the huckster preacher to hawk his Trinity racist rants on incriminating DVDs, would he now be a frequent “healing” presence at the White House?
America deserves better.
Now and then Mr. Obama's devotees nodded to American history with evocations of FDR's New Deal and superficial parallels to JFK—the good looks, the glamour, the young children. But Kennedy had seen combat, was a Cold Warrior, and believed in the burdens of American power. Yes, he charmed Parisians and Berliners—but as the standard-bearer of an American empire of liberty. He never journeyed abroad to apologize on behalf of his country.
The voters that placed Barack Obama into the highest office in the land have now mostly soured on his abilities to govern. The country, it turns out, is not willing to continue on this path of Obama's grand social experiment. We are not a socialist leaning nation. We accept the need of big government programs, such as social security and unemployment insurance, but not for socialized medicine at the expense of 1/6 of our national economy.
Now the hard stuff begins for President Obama.
The era of charisma, which began when Barack Obama was swept into office by delirium and enthusiasm, has drawn to a close. With the resounding repudiation of the midterm elections, the tax legislation, the ratification of a strategic arms pact with Russia and the end of "don't ask, don't tell" thanks to the support of Republican senators, the Obama presidency has just begun.
Which way will this president go? Will he heed the cries of the general public and moderate? Will he continue to whine and blame when his agenda meets opposition? I predict a resounding 'yes' to both questions. The man really, really want to be re-elected in 2012 and yet his own stunted personality will not allow him to be gracious in either victory ("I won") or defeat. He was able to push through his health care boondoogle on Christmas Eve 2009 with a completely Democratic dominated Congress. Come January, the game changes.
Now President Obama no longer has super fan Nancy Pelosi as head cheerleader and agenda setting leader in the House of Representatives. Now President Obama will have to work with incoming Speaker of the House Boehner, of whom he previously ridiculed and trash-talked for political points during policy debates. Some of the change this White House has provided comes in the lowered political rhetoric - that of personal attacks of those with a different political philosophy. This White House has provided the change of dialogue more fitting of middle school students than of the highest levels of political leadership.
The man ushered into power on the basis of skin color - a hard reality often not spoken about out of fear of criticism if we were honest - as a 'historical' presidency, the first bi-racial president had little experience to qualify him for the office. The man delivered a speech in 2004 at the Democratic convention that impressed many people, including myself at the time, and his path was set. He would be a future presidential candidate. Then he decided it was his time in 2008. With only a very brief Senatorial career in Washington,after time in the state legislature in Illinois where his claim to fame was voting 'present' an unprecedented amount of times, his fan club grew. He was able to parlay his teleprompter reading skills into capturing the imagination of the voters. John McCain ran a lackluster campaign and then relied on Sarah Palin to draw the crowds and woo conservative voters. The slobbering press never bothered to investigate some very troubling aspects of Obama's past - decisions that clearly showed character faults that would bleed into future presidential decisions. The press was hell-bent on the first bi-racial presidential bid. The American public was scared and nervous about the financial climate and rising unemployment. A majority of voters latched onto candidate Obama as a hope for a new path to recovery.
We have a slobbering press to thank for much of the Obama popularity leading into his electoral victory in 2008. Reporters - a term used loosely here - tasked with the campaign trail coverage of Obama turned their collective heads and then used the experience to write tell-all books which included the stories that should have been reported during the campaign. "Journalists" cashing in on a professional assignment instead of actually doing the job for the American reader and voter was a new low for them. It appeared to be the last nail in the coffin of the death of journalism in this country. The slobbering press is at it again - the very ones who profited before are looking for greener rewards now. The move to Chicago for the re-election headquarters, for example, is being 'reported' as 'daring' and other nonsensical descriptions.
The man in the Oval Office is a master of deception. He bends with whatever will be best for his legacy. It is hard to believe this selfish man has anyone but himself at the forefront of his thoughts.
How did Barack Obama invent himself into a bi-partisan, working across the aisle, no more red state/blue state unifying figure? Mellifluous rhetoric and a partisan myth helped to promulgate that myth, I grant. But still, how did the U.S senator with the most partisan voting record in the Senate (to the left of the socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont) and a devout attendee of one of the most divisive and racist preachers imaginable refashion himself so successfully? Was it the simple declarations — as in something like “I say I am bipartisan, therefore I am bipartisan”? Did all forget that our pre-mid-term election president evoked phrases such as “enemies,” “sit in the back of the car,” and “hand to hand”?
No matter — as soon as Obama was “shellacked” with a 63 seat loss in the House, and his polls hit 42 percent approval, he dropped all the prior rhetoric about “I won and you lost” or “elections matter”—and now announced to his “enemies” that he could “work together” to get things done. Had Obama increased the House Democratic majority by 30 more seats in November, would he now be praising the virtues of bipartisanship? Had the vanity of Rev Wright not convinced the huckster preacher to hawk his Trinity racist rants on incriminating DVDs, would he now be a frequent “healing” presence at the White House?
America deserves better.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Bill Richardson Denies Pardon to Billy the Kid
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is at the end of his term. What is the burning issue Richardson has brought to the forefront of the end of his time in office? Should he or shouldn't he issue a pardon to the very dead Billy the Kid?
Why is Richardson pursuing this? Who knows what the long time politician is thinking here but it mostly appears to be a grab at headlines as he leaves office. It looks desperate. Isn't it enough for Richardson that the rumors are growing loud that he will replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?
That was the buzz at the end of the year, the slow news days at the end of 2010.
A little background to refresh our memories on the Old West legend:
Billy the Kid, who also went by the name William H. Bonney, was convicted of murdering Lincoln County Sheriff William Brady in 1878. Lew Wallace, the governor of territorial New Mexico in the late 1870s, purportedly offered the Kid a pardon if he testified against other members of Billy Campbell's posse in a separate murder case. The Kid testified, but no pardon was granted.
In April 1881, shortly before the Kid was to be hanged, he escaped from jail and killed two deputies. Sheriff Pat Garrett tracked him down and killed him on July 14, 1881.
And, then for added drama, Richardson made his decision public at the last minute.
Richardson said he decided against a pardon "because of a lack of conclusiveness and the historical ambiguity as to why Gov. Wallace reneged on his promise."
Maybe he did it because of all the publicity outgoing Florida Governor Crist has garnered over the pardon of singer Morrison of the Doors. I would argue that a rock and roller's drug conviction does not fall in the same light as a potential pardon of a murdering thief.
Maybe that is just me, though.
Sheriff Pat Garrett's grandson J.P. Garrett and Wallace's great-grandson William Wallace expressed outrage over a pardon after Richardson set up a website in mid-December to hear from the public.
The website was established after Albuquerque attorney Randi McGinn submitted a formal petition for a pardon.
Richardson's office received 809 e-mails and letters in the survey that ended Sunday, with 430 favoring a pardon and 379 opposed. Comments came from all over the world.
McGinn argued that Lew Wallace promised to pardon the Kid, also known as William Bonney or Henry McCarty.
State resources were used in this exercise, it appears. The attorney requesting the pardon also appears to have been a factor, considering her husband was appointed to the state's Supreme Court by Richardson.
Doesn't New Mexico have greater issues to be handled? Incoming Republican Governor Susana Martinez thinks so. Richardson fancies himself an Old West history buff. He said in an interview that considering this pardon was "fun".
Pardons are serious decisions. It's just as well that Richardson's time is up.
Why is Richardson pursuing this? Who knows what the long time politician is thinking here but it mostly appears to be a grab at headlines as he leaves office. It looks desperate. Isn't it enough for Richardson that the rumors are growing loud that he will replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?
That was the buzz at the end of the year, the slow news days at the end of 2010.
A little background to refresh our memories on the Old West legend:
Billy the Kid, who also went by the name William H. Bonney, was convicted of murdering Lincoln County Sheriff William Brady in 1878. Lew Wallace, the governor of territorial New Mexico in the late 1870s, purportedly offered the Kid a pardon if he testified against other members of Billy Campbell's posse in a separate murder case. The Kid testified, but no pardon was granted.
In April 1881, shortly before the Kid was to be hanged, he escaped from jail and killed two deputies. Sheriff Pat Garrett tracked him down and killed him on July 14, 1881.
And, then for added drama, Richardson made his decision public at the last minute.
Richardson said he decided against a pardon "because of a lack of conclusiveness and the historical ambiguity as to why Gov. Wallace reneged on his promise."
Maybe he did it because of all the publicity outgoing Florida Governor Crist has garnered over the pardon of singer Morrison of the Doors. I would argue that a rock and roller's drug conviction does not fall in the same light as a potential pardon of a murdering thief.
Maybe that is just me, though.
Sheriff Pat Garrett's grandson J.P. Garrett and Wallace's great-grandson William Wallace expressed outrage over a pardon after Richardson set up a website in mid-December to hear from the public.
The website was established after Albuquerque attorney Randi McGinn submitted a formal petition for a pardon.
Richardson's office received 809 e-mails and letters in the survey that ended Sunday, with 430 favoring a pardon and 379 opposed. Comments came from all over the world.
McGinn argued that Lew Wallace promised to pardon the Kid, also known as William Bonney or Henry McCarty.
State resources were used in this exercise, it appears. The attorney requesting the pardon also appears to have been a factor, considering her husband was appointed to the state's Supreme Court by Richardson.
Doesn't New Mexico have greater issues to be handled? Incoming Republican Governor Susana Martinez thinks so. Richardson fancies himself an Old West history buff. He said in an interview that considering this pardon was "fun".
Pardons are serious decisions. It's just as well that Richardson's time is up.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Some Book Suggestions for New Year's Reading
Some end of the year book recommendations are presented. These are books I read in recent weeks so they are fresh on my mind.
I don't read much fiction but there is one recommendation I will make with enthusiasm:
"Eighteen Acres" by Nicolle Wallace
This book is fun to read, a quick read because you won't want to put it down until the end, and it is full of snark. Good snarky tidbits that are obviously taken from Wallace's time in the Bush administration run rampant throughout the book. Some characters are easy to decipher as to whom they were patterned.
My favorite genre is memoirs:
"Spoken from the Heart" by Laura Bush
A true class act, Laura Bush speaks directly and firmly gentle in describing her incredibly unique life story. She includes wonderfully descriptive recollections of growing up in west Texas, of pursuing her educational and personal life as a young adult, and of her married life to George W. Bush. Her White House years are featured prominantly and include details of her work as First Lady. She brings a whammy or two to a journalist or two who stood out in not a good way while covering her time in Washington. She speaks to misperceptions taken as gospel truth to the Washington crowd.
"A Memoir Of My Exraordinary, Ordinary Family and Me" by Condoleezza Rice
This is Rice's story from birth to the year 2000, when she joined the incoming Bush administration. Her follow up book to this first one will be her years in the Bush administration.
From the business world:
"The Devil's Casino" by Vicky Ward
The story of the players in the Lehman Brothers saga. The author, a contributor to Vanity Fair magazine, writes with an insider's point of view about life in the investment company.
I don't read much fiction but there is one recommendation I will make with enthusiasm:
"Eighteen Acres" by Nicolle Wallace
This book is fun to read, a quick read because you won't want to put it down until the end, and it is full of snark. Good snarky tidbits that are obviously taken from Wallace's time in the Bush administration run rampant throughout the book. Some characters are easy to decipher as to whom they were patterned.
My favorite genre is memoirs:
"Spoken from the Heart" by Laura Bush
A true class act, Laura Bush speaks directly and firmly gentle in describing her incredibly unique life story. She includes wonderfully descriptive recollections of growing up in west Texas, of pursuing her educational and personal life as a young adult, and of her married life to George W. Bush. Her White House years are featured prominantly and include details of her work as First Lady. She brings a whammy or two to a journalist or two who stood out in not a good way while covering her time in Washington. She speaks to misperceptions taken as gospel truth to the Washington crowd.
"A Memoir Of My Exraordinary, Ordinary Family and Me" by Condoleezza Rice
This is Rice's story from birth to the year 2000, when she joined the incoming Bush administration. Her follow up book to this first one will be her years in the Bush administration.
From the business world:
"The Devil's Casino" by Vicky Ward
The story of the players in the Lehman Brothers saga. The author, a contributor to Vanity Fair magazine, writes with an insider's point of view about life in the investment company.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Holding Obama Accountable on Energy Policy
When will Americans and especially those in the profession of journalism begin to ask some serious questions about our country's energy policies? When do we receive explanations of policies put into place wily-nily without rhyme or reason? When will American consumers insist on consistent common sense solutions to far-reaching decisions?
Oil and natural gas drilling policy making is more than just pie in the sky waxing on by activists concerned about the environment. It is small minded and short sighted to assume that those in the energy business do not think of anything but the actual acquisition of crude oil or natural gas.
It is hypocritical of the liberal environmental crowd to turn a blind eye to rising energy costs when in the past, President Bush and VP Cheney were under constant scrutiny of any rise at all at the gas pump.
As summarized by The Heritage Foundation:
President Obama knows energy prices are skyrocketing. The liberal mantra has long been to disincentive Americans from purchasing cheap fossil fuels, by driving costs up. Because the only way consumers will choose the vastly-more-expensive wind and solar alternatives is if all prices are high, rather than wait for the market to bring alternative prices down. This is a reckless and devastating way to make a point about global warming at the expense of American families.
Nearly no questions have been asked of President Obama by the media regarding: 1) his bungled response to the oil spill; 2) his unilateral policies that are creating higher home energy prices; 3) rising gas and oil prices; or 4) the de facto moratorium on domestic oil exploration. It’s time to start asking the White House some tough questions. A two year moratorium on accountability is long enough.
Why the slowdown on issuing permits? This administration's agenda is to push alternatives to fossil fuel energy at the expense of oil and natural gas drilling. Alternatives to oil and gas drilling are decades away from practical implementation. A constant energy policy is needed to maintain the supply of oil and gas as other methods are brought into use. So far this administration is simply immaturely denying an efficient process for permits.
No one wants sound safety practices more than those on the oil drilling rigs and their families. No company wants to be responsible for unsafe practices. To think otherwise is succumbing to blind ideology. Unfortunately, President Obama is a far left ideologue unable to move past that to common sense appraisal of the business.
Safety concerns for delaying permit issuance is difficult for industry leaders to understand with no major incident in shallow-water drilling since 1949 and only 15 barrels of oil spilled in blowouts during the last 15 years.
BOEMRE, the agency that issues offshore drilling permits, is enforcing new requirements for obtaining permits, but those requirements — such as the Interim Drilling Safety Rule — lack clarity for the industry as no one knows if those regulations will change. Also these new requirements lack an accompanying increase in BOEMRE staff to administer them, increasing the time needed to complete the permit review process.
Recently an open letter to President Obama was published in the Houston Chronicle. Written by ATP Oil and Gas Corporation Chairman and CEO T. Paul Bulmahn, it was a plea for President Obama to issue a permit pending since originally filed in July, 2009. According to the history of this permit request, the supplements, revisions and amendments have all been submitted as requested by the federal regulators. A revised Oil Spill Response Plan, now required, has also been submitted. The well is drilled and cased. This well location was approved in June, 2008.
The open letter to President Obama references the fact that ATP has been a member of the drilling community that has safely drilled 58,35 wells over 60 years in the Gulf of Mexico prior to the tragedy of the Macondo explosion and oil spill.
An interview with Bulmahn about the letter to Obama and the decisions he has been forced to make in light of the non-issuance of permits by Secretary Salazar's Department of the Interior can be found here.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
CPAC Without Social Conservative Hypocrites
This type of bigotry does not speak for me or my conservative friends. This is stomach turning, hateful, myopic and unChristian behavior.
Two of the nation's premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited
FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.
I find myself in some kind of bizarro world with my political party. Normally speaking, the CPAC crowd is a bit on the too conservative side of my philosophy, but I understand the wing of the party that is socially conservative first and foremost. I am a Baby Boomer with a range of life experiences that allow me a broader perspective in thought. Too bad the social conservatives do not show the same respect to others.
So, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) supported Senator David Vitter in his re-election bid after Vitter was caught sleeping with prostitutes but can't support conservative homosexuals? The hypocrisy of the social conservatives is what causes the trouble within our party. Often it is those who are bellowing loudest about 'family values' that are leading lives of their own differently. Who are any of them to judge another?
None of us are without homosexual people in our lives, whether we know it or not. It is sad that some would place prejudice over common sense. If it is on religious basis, what church do they believe supports exclusion rather than inclusion? Is this their idea of Christian love? What would Jesus do? I grew up in the Presbyterian church - in a Deep South state - and do not believe this is what the Scriptures teach. Christians come from a place of love and encouragement not bitter exclusion.
It does not diminish a person to support others of different lifestyles. The traditional family is still strong in America. GOProud is to be welcomed within the Republican party as they support conservative political philosophy. With our nation in such dire straits, we need every conservative voice to fight the Obama agenda.
I will proudly support the CPAC gathering this year.
Two of the nation's premier moral issues organizations, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America, are refusing to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference in February because a homosexual activist group, GOProud, has been invited
FRC and CWA join the American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, the Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage in withdrawing from CPAC. In November, APP organized a boycott of CPAC over the participation of GOProud.
I find myself in some kind of bizarro world with my political party. Normally speaking, the CPAC crowd is a bit on the too conservative side of my philosophy, but I understand the wing of the party that is socially conservative first and foremost. I am a Baby Boomer with a range of life experiences that allow me a broader perspective in thought. Too bad the social conservatives do not show the same respect to others.
So, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (FRC) supported Senator David Vitter in his re-election bid after Vitter was caught sleeping with prostitutes but can't support conservative homosexuals? The hypocrisy of the social conservatives is what causes the trouble within our party. Often it is those who are bellowing loudest about 'family values' that are leading lives of their own differently. Who are any of them to judge another?
None of us are without homosexual people in our lives, whether we know it or not. It is sad that some would place prejudice over common sense. If it is on religious basis, what church do they believe supports exclusion rather than inclusion? Is this their idea of Christian love? What would Jesus do? I grew up in the Presbyterian church - in a Deep South state - and do not believe this is what the Scriptures teach. Christians come from a place of love and encouragement not bitter exclusion.
It does not diminish a person to support others of different lifestyles. The traditional family is still strong in America. GOProud is to be welcomed within the Republican party as they support conservative political philosophy. With our nation in such dire straits, we need every conservative voice to fight the Obama agenda.
I will proudly support the CPAC gathering this year.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Obama Re-Election Headquarters Move to Chicago
Team Obama is in the midst of planning and putting into operation a shift back to Chicago. The plan is to run the re-election campaign from that toddlin' town, Chicago. No formal announcement has been made, as an aide stated that Obama hasn't announced his intention to run for re-election yet. As though there is any doubt in that announcement coming in the near future.
Conjuring up shades of Al Gore and his noted campaign headquarters shift to Nashville, Team Obama is convinced that getting outside of the Washington, D.C. bubble will be a good thing. It will breath fresh air and ideas into the people tasked with messaging the President's ideas and there is the bonus of hanging with the common folk.
Democratic consultant Karen Finney said that's exactly the message Obama will be sending.
“Chicago is where the president is from. That’s his home, and I think it’s important to stay grounded in that," she said. "It’s a good way to remind people that’s where he comes from and that his roots are from the middle of the country.”
Interesting. This is the week that the Obama family is in Hawaii for the Christmas holiday. We are told every year as they make the trek that this is his home, this is where he was raised. Now, we are to believe Barack Obama is just another guy from the midwest. His 'roots' are "from the middle of the country". OK. Then.
Paging Rev. Wright. And Jesse Jackson, Sr and Jr. And Richard Daley. Let the fun begin.
There is no doubt, of course, that Obama plans to run for re-election. There is little doubt, if we were all honest about it, that Obama will be re-elected for a second term. It is hard to imagine at this time any potential Republican challenger running a strong enough and smart enough campaign to beat Obama in 2012. Obama is expected to raise one billion dollars as he runs again. Who is going to top that on the GOP side?
Even Bill Clinton won re-election after he lost the Democratic control of Congress, big time, in 1994. He won in 1996 and even remained in office after the House of Representatives impeached him. An incumbent President is a powerful person and not often beat.
Trying to run as an outsider will be Obama's challenge. With the rising numbers of populist voters, the task will be to make him appear as a moderate and regular guy. He is neither, by any stretch of the imagination, and that is his re-election team's challenge. With headquarters in Chicago, Obama will have an excuse to travel around the country as he is fond of doing. He really has never stopped campaigning anyway. Now he can do it up right.
So, no matter what the groundhog prediction is in February, we will be in perpetual groundhog day with a campaigning Obama for the next two years.
Conjuring up shades of Al Gore and his noted campaign headquarters shift to Nashville, Team Obama is convinced that getting outside of the Washington, D.C. bubble will be a good thing. It will breath fresh air and ideas into the people tasked with messaging the President's ideas and there is the bonus of hanging with the common folk.
Democratic consultant Karen Finney said that's exactly the message Obama will be sending.
“Chicago is where the president is from. That’s his home, and I think it’s important to stay grounded in that," she said. "It’s a good way to remind people that’s where he comes from and that his roots are from the middle of the country.”
Interesting. This is the week that the Obama family is in Hawaii for the Christmas holiday. We are told every year as they make the trek that this is his home, this is where he was raised. Now, we are to believe Barack Obama is just another guy from the midwest. His 'roots' are "from the middle of the country". OK. Then.
Paging Rev. Wright. And Jesse Jackson, Sr and Jr. And Richard Daley. Let the fun begin.
There is no doubt, of course, that Obama plans to run for re-election. There is little doubt, if we were all honest about it, that Obama will be re-elected for a second term. It is hard to imagine at this time any potential Republican challenger running a strong enough and smart enough campaign to beat Obama in 2012. Obama is expected to raise one billion dollars as he runs again. Who is going to top that on the GOP side?
Even Bill Clinton won re-election after he lost the Democratic control of Congress, big time, in 1994. He won in 1996 and even remained in office after the House of Representatives impeached him. An incumbent President is a powerful person and not often beat.
Trying to run as an outsider will be Obama's challenge. With the rising numbers of populist voters, the task will be to make him appear as a moderate and regular guy. He is neither, by any stretch of the imagination, and that is his re-election team's challenge. With headquarters in Chicago, Obama will have an excuse to travel around the country as he is fond of doing. He really has never stopped campaigning anyway. Now he can do it up right.
So, no matter what the groundhog prediction is in February, we will be in perpetual groundhog day with a campaigning Obama for the next two years.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Obamacare's Death Panels Are Back
The White House is not pleased with the Sunday article on the re-emergence of the perhaps mislabeled 'death panels' hidden in Obamacare. The White House is pushing back. Opponents of Obamacare were concerned that this very thing would happen. Just as this provision was taken out of the bill in order to secure enough votes for passage, it is now quietly back in the final version of his health care reform bill.
When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
The general public wasn't aware of this maneuver because most of the goodies in this monster bill are yet to be uncovered. It's intentional. Even the Democrats admit it. Shhh. Don't celebrate to loudly on the clever takeover of 1/6 of the national economy by a huge government entitlement program - that was the advice offered by Rep Earl Blumenauer from the State of Oregon.
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”
Blumenauer must be having quite the chuckle, what with being filled with joy at having pulled this on off, despite the opposition - mostly from Republicans. If it was all a 'myth', then why was it pulled out for the vote, only to be quietly placed right back in during final signing? Why the hush-hush, Rep Blumenauer?
Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”
The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”
Unbelievable.
More deceit from this administration. Less transparency. Forget about honesty, how about some basic human decency from this administration and their willing cohorts in Congress? What else is being hidden from us? Remember the famous Pelosi line that the bill had to be passed so we could see what is in it?
Not so amusing, is it?
Is the White House's "rapid, targeted response" of denouncing the Times article as 'wrong' the beginning of what is to come?
When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
The general public wasn't aware of this maneuver because most of the goodies in this monster bill are yet to be uncovered. It's intentional. Even the Democrats admit it. Shhh. Don't celebrate to loudly on the clever takeover of 1/6 of the national economy by a huge government entitlement program - that was the advice offered by Rep Earl Blumenauer from the State of Oregon.
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”
Blumenauer must be having quite the chuckle, what with being filled with joy at having pulled this on off, despite the opposition - mostly from Republicans. If it was all a 'myth', then why was it pulled out for the vote, only to be quietly placed right back in during final signing? Why the hush-hush, Rep Blumenauer?
Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”
The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”
Unbelievable.
More deceit from this administration. Less transparency. Forget about honesty, how about some basic human decency from this administration and their willing cohorts in Congress? What else is being hidden from us? Remember the famous Pelosi line that the bill had to be passed so we could see what is in it?
Not so amusing, is it?
Is the White House's "rapid, targeted response" of denouncing the Times article as 'wrong' the beginning of what is to come?
Sunday, December 26, 2010
George W. Bush's Memoir Sets Record Sales
President George W. Bush's memoir is setting records, creating heartburn among those who continue to wish him ill, no doubt.
Former U.S. President George W Bush's memoir has sold an astonishing two million copies since it was released in early November - and it's not even in paperback yet.
'Decision Points', published both in hardcover and e-book form, is flying off the shelves, the Crown Publishing Group says.
By contrast, former president Bill Clinton's memoir, 'My Life', has logged sales of 2.2million copies since it was first published in 2004.
A spokesman for Crown called the performance remarkable.
He claimed he could not think of any other hardcover nonfiction books in 2010 that had sold even one million copies, much less two.
The sales numbers must be of some comfort to the man. After eight years of constant vilification from Democrats and then fellow Republicans, in hindsight, the public opinion tide is turning. Certainly Barack Obama and his presidency draws a stark contrast of a humble and steady leadership versus the current narcissist in office, who seems only concerned with his own legacy and now re-election for a second term in the White House.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
NORAD Tracks Santa
NORAD performed as we have come to expect from them, magnificantly, and took quite seriously the task of tracking Santa's trek around the world, delivering presents to all the children of the world.
"We guard what you value most, your family. And your toys."
Here's a bit of history of NORAD:
NORAD is the bi-national U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for the aerospace and maritime defense of the United States and Canada. NORAD, created by a 1958 agreement between Canada and the United States, provides advanced warning of impending missile and air attacks against its member nations, safeguards the air sovereignty of North America, and maintains airborne forces for defense against attack.
NORAD’s mission has evolved over the years. The most recent "evolution" in our mission came as a result of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. NORAD now coordinates closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NAV CANADA, Canada’s equivalent to America’s FAA, to monitor the airspace within Canada and the United States. In addition, the command also conducts maritime monitoring.
Merry Christmas.
"We guard what you value most, your family. And your toys."
Here's a bit of history of NORAD:
NORAD is the bi-national U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for the aerospace and maritime defense of the United States and Canada. NORAD, created by a 1958 agreement between Canada and the United States, provides advanced warning of impending missile and air attacks against its member nations, safeguards the air sovereignty of North America, and maintains airborne forces for defense against attack.
NORAD’s mission has evolved over the years. The most recent "evolution" in our mission came as a result of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. NORAD now coordinates closely with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NAV CANADA, Canada’s equivalent to America’s FAA, to monitor the airspace within Canada and the United States. In addition, the command also conducts maritime monitoring.
Merry Christmas.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Obama Hails Legislative Victories in Lame Duck Session
As I have previously written, those of us who watch the President Obama's personality driven presidency would bet that he took a victory lap before winging off to Hawaii for the holiday.
He did.
During a press conference on Wednesday, the President was all too eager to speak of the 'historic' lame duck session concluding on Capitol Hill. According to Obama and his team, everything is 'historic' about this administration's victories. It's pathetic tunnel vision and a show of a sad lack of historic awareness of our country's history, but this is the administration we have now. Not a single legislative victory would have been accomplished without the cooperation of the GOP. At any time, Senate Majority Leader McConnell could have brought it to a screeching halt. Instead, the GOP demanded a place at the bargaining table as the bills were hammered out. Common sense was brought into the insanely out of control spending demanded by Democrats and common ground was found.
The message was definitely not one of a desire for both parties to work together, Mr. President.
The Democrats are in deep denial as a coping mechanism over the November election results. The Democrats lost big - that was the true 'historic' lead into the lame duck session. The 'historic' gains were not legislative victories for Democrats but of the loss of Democratic seats in Congress. The talking points are that the American voter wants everyone to work together - which is a way of Team Obama claiming that Americans want the GOP to roll over for the Obama agenda. Not true by any measure.
"Nov. 2 wasn't about working with the president," Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, new chairman of the influential and deeply conservative Republican Study Committee, told POLITICO Wednesday. "It's about stopping him."
It's the singular, not-on-my-watch determination of Jordan's wing of the GOP — bolstered by the coming influx of tea party Republicans in both chambers — that has many lawmakers convinced the deal-making lame-duck session will give way to a blood-feuding 112th Congress. Liberals are gearing up, too, ready to defend Obama when he takes up their causes and to treat him as a traitor when he embraces Republicans.
The slobbering press is working overtime to convince readers that the Obama lame duck session is the greatest ever in legislative victories. They do not, however, report that the Democrats are still in large majorities in both chambers of Congress and the lame duck session is the last opportunity to pass the far left's agenda. After the November 2'shellacking' it became apparent that the country is fed up and compromise is the new name of the game. Not the traditional compromise of GOP caving into Democrat demands, quite the contrary. It's a new day in Washington, D.C. for Team Obama.
Obama was eager to get to business long delayed for less important, less urgent matters. He chose to invest his energy in health care reform - not a crisis - over other issues. This has backfired.
Here is a definition:
The "lame duck" amendment is the popular name for the 20th amendment to the Constitution, ratified on February 6, 1933. It is designed to limit the time that elected officials can serve after the general election in November.
Some of the support Obama received in the lame duck session came from Republican lawmakers ousted from office. Is this any way to pass legislation - especially a nuclear treaty with Russia? If voters thought the performances of these lawmakers was good, they would not have lost their re-election bids.
He did.
During a press conference on Wednesday, the President was all too eager to speak of the 'historic' lame duck session concluding on Capitol Hill. According to Obama and his team, everything is 'historic' about this administration's victories. It's pathetic tunnel vision and a show of a sad lack of historic awareness of our country's history, but this is the administration we have now. Not a single legislative victory would have been accomplished without the cooperation of the GOP. At any time, Senate Majority Leader McConnell could have brought it to a screeching halt. Instead, the GOP demanded a place at the bargaining table as the bills were hammered out. Common sense was brought into the insanely out of control spending demanded by Democrats and common ground was found.
The message was definitely not one of a desire for both parties to work together, Mr. President.
The Democrats are in deep denial as a coping mechanism over the November election results. The Democrats lost big - that was the true 'historic' lead into the lame duck session. The 'historic' gains were not legislative victories for Democrats but of the loss of Democratic seats in Congress. The talking points are that the American voter wants everyone to work together - which is a way of Team Obama claiming that Americans want the GOP to roll over for the Obama agenda. Not true by any measure.
"Nov. 2 wasn't about working with the president," Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, new chairman of the influential and deeply conservative Republican Study Committee, told POLITICO Wednesday. "It's about stopping him."
It's the singular, not-on-my-watch determination of Jordan's wing of the GOP — bolstered by the coming influx of tea party Republicans in both chambers — that has many lawmakers convinced the deal-making lame-duck session will give way to a blood-feuding 112th Congress. Liberals are gearing up, too, ready to defend Obama when he takes up their causes and to treat him as a traitor when he embraces Republicans.
The slobbering press is working overtime to convince readers that the Obama lame duck session is the greatest ever in legislative victories. They do not, however, report that the Democrats are still in large majorities in both chambers of Congress and the lame duck session is the last opportunity to pass the far left's agenda. After the November 2'shellacking' it became apparent that the country is fed up and compromise is the new name of the game. Not the traditional compromise of GOP caving into Democrat demands, quite the contrary. It's a new day in Washington, D.C. for Team Obama.
Obama was eager to get to business long delayed for less important, less urgent matters. He chose to invest his energy in health care reform - not a crisis - over other issues. This has backfired.
Here is a definition:
The "lame duck" amendment is the popular name for the 20th amendment to the Constitution, ratified on February 6, 1933. It is designed to limit the time that elected officials can serve after the general election in November.
Some of the support Obama received in the lame duck session came from Republican lawmakers ousted from office. Is this any way to pass legislation - especially a nuclear treaty with Russia? If voters thought the performances of these lawmakers was good, they would not have lost their re-election bids.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
9/11 Health Bill Passes in Senate
Here is what working together looks like: the 9/11 Health Bill passed in the Senate as the lame duck session concluded. $4.2 billion in aid for the 9/11 health bill recipients was approved for those heroic men and women who served as first responders and then the search and rescue crews and last, as the clean up workers who are now sick and dying for the effects of the toxins present at the scene.
The package provides $1.5 billion to monitor the health of rescue and cleanup workers and to treat illnesses related to ground zero. It also reopens a victims' compensation fund with $2.7 billion.
Hyper-partisan Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was a true and honest partner in the effort. Coburn insisted that the billions of dollars be accounted for and paid for in a realistic way. Instead of the normal vilification of an opponent, as is his history, Schumer remained calm and forged on in a continuing dialogue with Coburn and Senator Enzi on the GOP side of the aisle.
The junior Senator from New York is the big winner here. Senator Kristin Gillibrand has come into her own during this lame duck session. First with her impassioned pleas for passing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and then the 9/11 Health Bill.
Once derided as an accidental senator, lampooned for her verbosity and threatened with many challengers who openly doubted her abilities, a succinct, passionate and effective Senator Gillibrand has made her presence felt in the final days of this Congress.
Her efforts have won grudging admiration from critics, adulation from national liberals and gay rights groups, and accolades from New York politicians across the political spectrum, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who once shopped for potential candidates to oust her.
Even her relentlessness, which once drew mockery, is now earning the highest compliment of all: professional jealousy from her more senior colleagues.
Gillibrand has proven herself a serious member of the Senate and a hard worker, to boot. She was right to be passionate in her quest to assure those suffering from illnesses related to the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11/01 are taken care of by a set aside fund. And, Senator Coburn was correct in his pursuit of the truth of where the money was to come from and how it would be spent.
This is what it looks like for the grown-ups to be front and center in a political debate and solution. Take away the name calling and the stubborn insistence of the tunnel visioned ideologues from both sides of the aisle and work together to do the business of the American people. Some issues are bigger than pure politics.
The package provides $1.5 billion to monitor the health of rescue and cleanup workers and to treat illnesses related to ground zero. It also reopens a victims' compensation fund with $2.7 billion.
Hyper-partisan Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) was a true and honest partner in the effort. Coburn insisted that the billions of dollars be accounted for and paid for in a realistic way. Instead of the normal vilification of an opponent, as is his history, Schumer remained calm and forged on in a continuing dialogue with Coburn and Senator Enzi on the GOP side of the aisle.
The junior Senator from New York is the big winner here. Senator Kristin Gillibrand has come into her own during this lame duck session. First with her impassioned pleas for passing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and then the 9/11 Health Bill.
Once derided as an accidental senator, lampooned for her verbosity and threatened with many challengers who openly doubted her abilities, a succinct, passionate and effective Senator Gillibrand has made her presence felt in the final days of this Congress.
Her efforts have won grudging admiration from critics, adulation from national liberals and gay rights groups, and accolades from New York politicians across the political spectrum, including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who once shopped for potential candidates to oust her.
Even her relentlessness, which once drew mockery, is now earning the highest compliment of all: professional jealousy from her more senior colleagues.
Gillibrand has proven herself a serious member of the Senate and a hard worker, to boot. She was right to be passionate in her quest to assure those suffering from illnesses related to the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11/01 are taken care of by a set aside fund. And, Senator Coburn was correct in his pursuit of the truth of where the money was to come from and how it would be spent.
This is what it looks like for the grown-ups to be front and center in a political debate and solution. Take away the name calling and the stubborn insistence of the tunnel visioned ideologues from both sides of the aisle and work together to do the business of the American people. Some issues are bigger than pure politics.
Clapper Not Briefed on London Terror Arrests
The cat leaped out of the bag as a journalist interviewed James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. His staff has failed him big time.
US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was asked about the attacks, with ABC News interviewer Diane Sawyer posing the questions: "First of all, London. How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here?"
After a long pause, Clapper replied, "London?" . . .
The 12 men were arrested Monday in a sweep in the Welsh capital Cardiff, the central English town of Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham and in London.
Sawyer brought up Clapper's apparent ignorance of the developments later in the interview.
"I was a little surprised you didn't know about London," she said.
"Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't," Clapper replied.
Why wouldn't his staff brief the man on this arrest? It was kinda a big f****** deal within the international intelligence community. Not only did they embarrass the boss in a national interview but they do the country a disservice by failing to keep the man current on world events. It all does eventually work back to us here in the United States, as events have unfolded previously.
Clapper is the guy charged with the President's daily briefing. President Obama is on record as having spoken to Prime Minister Cameron about the arrests.
First the administration blamed the interviewer's question. Then the truth came out:
After initially suggesting that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s inability to answer a question from ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer about the arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London was because her question was too “ambiguous,” the Obama administration acknowledged Wednesday morning that retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clapper had not been briefed about the arrests at the time of the interview.
“Director Clapper had not yet been briefed on the arrests in the United Kingdom at the time of this interview taping,” said ODNI spokeswoman Jamie Smith in a statement.
This was an interview with the three top people - Brennan, Napolitano, and Clapper. Brennan is a preening narcissist. He blamed the interviewer for referencing "London" without adding the word "arrest" with it. This is the team who gave us Napolitano saying how system worked during Christmas bomber attempt one year ago. This team who was put together to sift through the intelligence gathered and get a handle on everything terror related has failed again in ignorance.
What if it had been Bush's intelligence team? This would have been glaring headlines everywhere here and internationally. Great Britain is our greatest allie in this battle. How is the average American expected to remain alert and current on information while the top of the heap isn't properly briefed?
US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was asked about the attacks, with ABC News interviewer Diane Sawyer posing the questions: "First of all, London. How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here?"
After a long pause, Clapper replied, "London?" . . .
The 12 men were arrested Monday in a sweep in the Welsh capital Cardiff, the central English town of Stoke-on-Trent, Birmingham and in London.
Sawyer brought up Clapper's apparent ignorance of the developments later in the interview.
"I was a little surprised you didn't know about London," she said.
"Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't," Clapper replied.
Why wouldn't his staff brief the man on this arrest? It was kinda a big f****** deal within the international intelligence community. Not only did they embarrass the boss in a national interview but they do the country a disservice by failing to keep the man current on world events. It all does eventually work back to us here in the United States, as events have unfolded previously.
Clapper is the guy charged with the President's daily briefing. President Obama is on record as having spoken to Prime Minister Cameron about the arrests.
First the administration blamed the interviewer's question. Then the truth came out:
After initially suggesting that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s inability to answer a question from ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer about the arrests of 12 suspected terrorists in London was because her question was too “ambiguous,” the Obama administration acknowledged Wednesday morning that retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Clapper had not been briefed about the arrests at the time of the interview.
“Director Clapper had not yet been briefed on the arrests in the United Kingdom at the time of this interview taping,” said ODNI spokeswoman Jamie Smith in a statement.
This was an interview with the three top people - Brennan, Napolitano, and Clapper. Brennan is a preening narcissist. He blamed the interviewer for referencing "London" without adding the word "arrest" with it. This is the team who gave us Napolitano saying how system worked during Christmas bomber attempt one year ago. This team who was put together to sift through the intelligence gathered and get a handle on everything terror related has failed again in ignorance.
What if it had been Bush's intelligence team? This would have been glaring headlines everywhere here and internationally. Great Britain is our greatest allie in this battle. How is the average American expected to remain alert and current on information while the top of the heap isn't properly briefed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)