James Bond, eat your heart out - this is how we do it in the Middle East...
Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhuh, admittedly in Dubai to buy weapons for the group to use against Israel, never got a chance to complete his deadly transaction:
On Sunday, The Times of London cited unidentified Middle Eastern sources as saying Mabhuh's body was found by staff at the luxury Al Bustan Rotana hotel.
...Mabhuh was travelling on a false passport and on arrival in Dubai was followed by two men described by local police as "Europeans carrying European passports."
The hit squad injected Mabhuh with a drug that induced a heart attack, photographed all the documents in his briefcase, and left a "do not disturb" sign on the door, The Times said.
It added that the Hamas leader was on a mission to buy arms from Iran, and was tracked from the moment he boarded Emirates flight EK 912 from Damascus on January 18...
What kind of man was our new matyr?
One Israeli security source said on Sunday Mabhouh had been "key" to Hamas efforts to smuggle rockets and other arms into his native Gaza Strip, ruled by the Palestinian Islamist faction and whose borders with Israel and Egypt are under blockade.
"He was a strategic asset for Hamas when it came to its armament by Iran," the source said. Israel accuses Iran of supplying weapons to Hamas by sea and land routes such as Sudan and Egypt. Iran calls its support for Hamas diplomatic only.
Hamas officials have declined to say what Mabhouh, who had long lived in the Syrian capital Damascus, was doing in the Gulf or what his role was. They called him a senior military figure and one Hamas source said he was working right up to his death.
From the top link:
Hamas officials in Damascus said he had long felt he could be targeted in retaliation for his involvement in the 1989 abduction and killing of two Israeli soldiers.
A kidnapper, murderer, and Iran's #1 conduit for getting heavy weapons into the killing fields of Gaza. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Israel, of course, has remained mum about its involvement. Wise. Leave just enough doubt in the terrorist's minds so that they too may be tempted to travel alone abroad, thinking it must all be another clever Israeli lie, and that it could never happen to them...
As the Klingons say, " bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'", which can be loosely translated as "Revenge is a dish best served cold...."
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Liberals Mock New Yorkers as Wimps!
{bunped, with updates below}
Man, these Lefties are tough! Step off the plantation for a moment and they eviscerate you, toss you out of the club and into the gutter, spitting hatred and invective. Just ask the people of Massachusetts, who just two weeks ago were the most enlightened people in America, and have become, with the election of Scott Brown, red-neck right-wing racist misogynist homophobes...
The next blue state to be thrown under the liberal bus is New York. Seems as if the Left is a bit annoyed that residents of the city dare to be a bit upset that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to be tried there - what with months of security zones, tri-state traffic jams, millions in lost revenues for businesses and the city/state, hundreds of millions in expenses for city/state, and of course the ever-present fear of a retaliatory attack that could kill thousands, like George Bush did when he launched the original 9/11 attacks with the help of the Mossad.
Here's Ken Gude,from the liberal Center for American Progress:
“Obama and the Department of Justice need to get out there and push back very clearly with the public…Frankly, I thought New Yorkers were made of sterner stuff than this—traffic is going to be disrupted?”
Gude has written dozens of articles in defense of trying terrorists in civilian courts, and by Allah he's not going to let the lives of innocent men, women and children stand in the way of seeing his ideology come to fruition. It's not his life that's in danger, it's not his business that's going bankrupt, it's not his commute that will expand by thirty-plus minutes, it's not his taxpayer dollars being spent, so how dare these New York City wimps - the same wimps who ran into burning, collapsing buildings to save their fellow man - deprive him of seeing his dream turn into reality?
Note the anger at the Obama administration for rethinking the trial, and feel Gude's hatred towards his fellow liberals in New York, who he mocks, spittle flying from his lips, in an attempt to belittle the concern they feel for their very lives.
This is the American liberal today, folks. Ideology over all, including reality, and common sense, and concern for the well-being of your fellow man (see Obama, Barack). Now that they have achieved power, and yet have failed to win over a nation too "dumb" to appreciate their largess, their bitterness is turned inwards, towards each other. Blue Massachusetts is scorned, Blue York is mocked, and Blue Jersey gets the back of the hand, all by showing the slightest bit of nonconformity with the extreme liberal position.
Republicans will need to do very little to destroy liberalism once and for all. They can just sit back and watch as they eat themselves alive....
Legal Insurrection has more insane liberal reaction to common-sense sanity here...
UPDATE 1/31: And the contempt keeps coming, from the most likely suspects, of course...Gail Collins at the New York Times:
The Bloomberg rebellion fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country...It’s all part of a cult of selfishness that decrees it’s fine to throw your body in front of any initiative, no matter how important, if resistance looks more profitable.
The problem was inconvenience. People were fine with having the trial here until the police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, started describing his plans for permanently cordoning off a goodly chunk of Lower Manhattan. Businesses and residents hadn’t appreciated what a huge, life-disrupting inconvenience standing up to terror could be.
And no one was applauding them for their potential sacrifice. If anything, they were regarded as saps for agreeing to go along with something that Montana found to be unacceptable risk.
She sounds like my congressman, (Rush Holt, D NJ-12)...anyone who refuses to give up what they have - health care, their earnings, their lives - so that Barack Obama and the Democrats can give it to someone else is now a "selfish bastard".
While Collins thinks we're selfish not to want to die for Obama's ideology, her colleague Charles Blow says we're simply stupid:
The president simply couldn’t seem to escape his professorial past, to convey his passion and convictions in the plain words of plain folks, and to breach the chasm between the People’s House and people’s houses.
He’s still stuck on studious.
He seems to believe that if he does a better job of explaining his aggressive agenda, then he’ll win hearts and minds. It’s an honorable ambition, but it’s foolhardy. People want clear goals, clearly defined and clearly (and concisely) conveyed. They’re suspicious of complexity.
H.L. Mencken once famously opined, “No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” I take exception to that. But if you change “intelligence” to “attention span,” I agree wholeheartedly.
The president must communicate within the environment he inhabits, not the one he envisions. The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, “Mr. President, we’re down here.”
So the problem is that President Obama is not talking down to us enough! We're even stupider than he ever imagined! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Oh, those wacky liberals and their contempt for their fellow Americans...it never fails to amuse...
Man, these Lefties are tough! Step off the plantation for a moment and they eviscerate you, toss you out of the club and into the gutter, spitting hatred and invective. Just ask the people of Massachusetts, who just two weeks ago were the most enlightened people in America, and have become, with the election of Scott Brown, red-neck right-wing racist misogynist homophobes...
The next blue state to be thrown under the liberal bus is New York. Seems as if the Left is a bit annoyed that residents of the city dare to be a bit upset that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to be tried there - what with months of security zones, tri-state traffic jams, millions in lost revenues for businesses and the city/state, hundreds of millions in expenses for city/state, and of course the ever-present fear of a retaliatory attack that could kill thousands, like George Bush did when he launched the original 9/11 attacks with the help of the Mossad.
Here's Ken Gude,from the liberal Center for American Progress:
“Obama and the Department of Justice need to get out there and push back very clearly with the public…Frankly, I thought New Yorkers were made of sterner stuff than this—traffic is going to be disrupted?”
Gude has written dozens of articles in defense of trying terrorists in civilian courts, and by Allah he's not going to let the lives of innocent men, women and children stand in the way of seeing his ideology come to fruition. It's not his life that's in danger, it's not his business that's going bankrupt, it's not his commute that will expand by thirty-plus minutes, it's not his taxpayer dollars being spent, so how dare these New York City wimps - the same wimps who ran into burning, collapsing buildings to save their fellow man - deprive him of seeing his dream turn into reality?
Note the anger at the Obama administration for rethinking the trial, and feel Gude's hatred towards his fellow liberals in New York, who he mocks, spittle flying from his lips, in an attempt to belittle the concern they feel for their very lives.
This is the American liberal today, folks. Ideology over all, including reality, and common sense, and concern for the well-being of your fellow man (see Obama, Barack). Now that they have achieved power, and yet have failed to win over a nation too "dumb" to appreciate their largess, their bitterness is turned inwards, towards each other. Blue Massachusetts is scorned, Blue York is mocked, and Blue Jersey gets the back of the hand, all by showing the slightest bit of nonconformity with the extreme liberal position.
Republicans will need to do very little to destroy liberalism once and for all. They can just sit back and watch as they eat themselves alive....
Legal Insurrection has more insane liberal reaction to common-sense sanity here...
UPDATE 1/31: And the contempt keeps coming, from the most likely suspects, of course...Gail Collins at the New York Times:
The Bloomberg rebellion fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country...It’s all part of a cult of selfishness that decrees it’s fine to throw your body in front of any initiative, no matter how important, if resistance looks more profitable.
The problem was inconvenience. People were fine with having the trial here until the police commissioner, Raymond Kelly, started describing his plans for permanently cordoning off a goodly chunk of Lower Manhattan. Businesses and residents hadn’t appreciated what a huge, life-disrupting inconvenience standing up to terror could be.
And no one was applauding them for their potential sacrifice. If anything, they were regarded as saps for agreeing to go along with something that Montana found to be unacceptable risk.
She sounds like my congressman, (Rush Holt, D NJ-12)...anyone who refuses to give up what they have - health care, their earnings, their lives - so that Barack Obama and the Democrats can give it to someone else is now a "selfish bastard".
While Collins thinks we're selfish not to want to die for Obama's ideology, her colleague Charles Blow says we're simply stupid:
The president simply couldn’t seem to escape his professorial past, to convey his passion and convictions in the plain words of plain folks, and to breach the chasm between the People’s House and people’s houses.
He’s still stuck on studious.
He seems to believe that if he does a better job of explaining his aggressive agenda, then he’ll win hearts and minds. It’s an honorable ambition, but it’s foolhardy. People want clear goals, clearly defined and clearly (and concisely) conveyed. They’re suspicious of complexity.
H.L. Mencken once famously opined, “No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” I take exception to that. But if you change “intelligence” to “attention span,” I agree wholeheartedly.
The president must communicate within the environment he inhabits, not the one he envisions. The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, “Mr. President, we’re down here.”
So the problem is that President Obama is not talking down to us enough! We're even stupider than he ever imagined! Yeah, that's the ticket!
Oh, those wacky liberals and their contempt for their fellow Americans...it never fails to amuse...
Friday, January 29, 2010
Yeah, and Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite!
"The notion that this [health-care reform] was a radical package is just not true," Obama said. "I am not an ideologue."
I guess I understand where he's coming from - in the video below, he claims that his health-care reform bill is "centrist". If you believe that, then of course you'll believe that you're not an ideologue - hey, government control of health-care is a centrist position!
So maybe he can explain why all of the true "centrists" - the independents who helped in get into office - are voting against his party by a 2-1 margin....maybe every single one of them watches FOX News...
Check out the video, the "ideologue" comment comes early, his irritation (possibly his most well-known personality trait, at this point) at the Republicans, who he clearly blames for the failure of health care reform, despite his party's huge advantages - comes shortly afterward:
UPDATE: Related: Obama Decries Divisive Rhetoric, Says Healing Can Happen if Opponents Stop Being Such Effing D-bags
I guess I understand where he's coming from - in the video below, he claims that his health-care reform bill is "centrist". If you believe that, then of course you'll believe that you're not an ideologue - hey, government control of health-care is a centrist position!
So maybe he can explain why all of the true "centrists" - the independents who helped in get into office - are voting against his party by a 2-1 margin....maybe every single one of them watches FOX News...
Check out the video, the "ideologue" comment comes early, his irritation (possibly his most well-known personality trait, at this point) at the Republicans, who he clearly blames for the failure of health care reform, despite his party's huge advantages - comes shortly afterward:
UPDATE: Related: Obama Decries Divisive Rhetoric, Says Healing Can Happen if Opponents Stop Being Such Effing D-bags
Is Obama losing the Jews?
If you can't hold on to a bunch of self-hating liberals, willing to sacrifice their own lives, their children's lives, and their ancestral homeland on the alter of the Democratic party, who will be left in 2012?
Barack Obama started his presidency with an astounding 83% approval rating among American Jews. Nine months later, that support had dropped to 64%, and he ended 2009 with a dismal 48% approval rating. The president is clearly no longer on the same page.
My fellow Jews - like most liberals - believe they are smarter than they really are. The thing that might differentiate them is that they appear to be willing to change course after the events of the past 373 days. The same cannot be said of the president, or the Democratic leadership in Congress.
Which leads me to wonder how our politician-in-chief will react. Will he reverse course on some of his anti-Israeli policies and tactics in order to woo back the Jews (and any hope of winning Florida in 2012)? Or will he decide that, now that the Jews are defecting, he can freely pursue the anti-Semitic agenda (giving a Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, [almost] selecting anti-Semite Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, his cancellation of an appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations, his non-stop attempts to humiliate Prime Minister Netanyahu, and this little snub as well) he's been working thru since Inauguration Day?
Why not? Can double as a warning to those who dare think of stepping off the plantation...
Barack Obama started his presidency with an astounding 83% approval rating among American Jews. Nine months later, that support had dropped to 64%, and he ended 2009 with a dismal 48% approval rating. The president is clearly no longer on the same page.
My fellow Jews - like most liberals - believe they are smarter than they really are. The thing that might differentiate them is that they appear to be willing to change course after the events of the past 373 days. The same cannot be said of the president, or the Democratic leadership in Congress.
Which leads me to wonder how our politician-in-chief will react. Will he reverse course on some of his anti-Israeli policies and tactics in order to woo back the Jews (and any hope of winning Florida in 2012)? Or will he decide that, now that the Jews are defecting, he can freely pursue the anti-Semitic agenda (giving a Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, [almost] selecting anti-Semite Charles Freeman to chair the National Intelligence Council, his cancellation of an appearance before the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations, his non-stop attempts to humiliate Prime Minister Netanyahu, and this little snub as well) he's been working thru since Inauguration Day?
Why not? Can double as a warning to those who dare think of stepping off the plantation...
Osama Bin Laden Sounds The "Global Warming" Alarm!
Maybe it's getting a bit hot for him in those Pakistani caves? Or maybe he's just vying for a prime speaking role at Copenhagen II - after all, if you're going to give a keynote spot to Hugo Chavez....
Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.
In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt.
Really, what differentiates bin Laden from your common garden-variety liberal? They both believe fervently in global warming, the agree on the need to destroy the American economy, and both desire to place the world under their personal yoke, be it the slavery of militant liberalism or the slavery of militant Islam.
I'm waiting now for some Democrat appointee in the Obama administration to declare him a "hero" (a la Anita Dunn's Chairman Mao) and say, yes, he killed thousands of Americans, but see how brave his fight is against the true terror of our time....
Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has called for the world to boycott American goods and the U.S. dollar, blaming the United States and other industrialized countries for global warming, according to a new audiotape released Friday.
In the tape, broadcast in part on Al-Jazeera television, bin Laden warned of the dangers of climate change and says that the way to stop it is to bring "the wheels of the American economy" to a halt.
Really, what differentiates bin Laden from your common garden-variety liberal? They both believe fervently in global warming, the agree on the need to destroy the American economy, and both desire to place the world under their personal yoke, be it the slavery of militant liberalism or the slavery of militant Islam.
I'm waiting now for some Democrat appointee in the Obama administration to declare him a "hero" (a la Anita Dunn's Chairman Mao) and say, yes, he killed thousands of Americans, but see how brave his fight is against the true terror of our time....
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Obama loses to Bush, again...
Reminds me of the time I got a 92 on an algebra test in school, only to find out that it curved out to a mere "B"...via CBS News:
A majority of Americans who watched President Obama's State of the Union Address generally approve of the proposals he outlined in his speech, according to a CBS News Poll conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the President's address.
Of the randomly selected 522 speech viewers questioned by CBS, 83 percent said they approved of the proposals the President made. Just 17 percent disapproved — typical of the high support a president generally receives among those who choose to watch the State of the Union.
In January 2002 — when George W. Bush gave the State of the Union Address a year into his presidency — 85% of speech watchers approved.
Even an 83% approval rating - of his speech, at least - was still not enough to catch up to that famed orator George W. Bush. No wonder Obama tries to kick dirt on W. at every available opportunity; sometimes the only way you can make yourself look good is by making the other guy look bad.
Doesn't always work, though. Just ask Jon Corzine....
A majority of Americans who watched President Obama's State of the Union Address generally approve of the proposals he outlined in his speech, according to a CBS News Poll conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the President's address.
Of the randomly selected 522 speech viewers questioned by CBS, 83 percent said they approved of the proposals the President made. Just 17 percent disapproved — typical of the high support a president generally receives among those who choose to watch the State of the Union.
In January 2002 — when George W. Bush gave the State of the Union Address a year into his presidency — 85% of speech watchers approved.
Even an 83% approval rating - of his speech, at least - was still not enough to catch up to that famed orator George W. Bush. No wonder Obama tries to kick dirt on W. at every available opportunity; sometimes the only way you can make yourself look good is by making the other guy look bad.
Doesn't always work, though. Just ask Jon Corzine....
Video: Congressman Rush Holt Scuffles With Constituent at Town Hall
And you thought I was kidding when I posted the other day that Rush Holt was lucky to escape his town hall in one piece, what with his sneering condescending attitude towards the folks he is supposed to represent. Here's some video of Congressman Holt yanking the microphone out of the hand of one of the residents of NJ-12, who dares to challenge his liberal positions:
Roughing up the women..typical Kennedy/Dodd liberal....
Even the Newark Star-Ledger, the kingpin of New Jersey's liberal media, is a bit stunned - Holt takes a beating in the school cafeteria:
....these people aren’t in the mood for that sort of thing. They’re ticked off over the entire Obama agenda, from cap-and-trade to health care. They’re yelling things like “Do you care why we’re here?”
Holt didn’t help his cause when he finally started taking written questions. The first was “Is there any similarity between the tea parties of today and the original tea parties?”
Instead of saying something like “I’m sure you tea-party types are all well-meaning people” – which they are – he replied, “There’s none that I can think of.”
That got a rise out of the crowd, which has a number of tea-party adherents among the several hundred who showed up...
Unlike Rush Holt, even this liberal columnist gets the anger:
Holt is in what is supposedly a safe Democratic district. But I’ll bet he doesn’t feel so safe this year. A lot of the towns in the district, such as Marlboro, are middle-class to upper-middle class. And Obama has managed to make it obvious to such people that the Democrats are engaged in class warfare against that class.
In the past people in affluent towns in Monmouth, Middlesex and Mercer counties tended to vote their passions rather than their pocketbooks. But as the Christie election showed, the middle-class sections of New Jersey are in revolt, a fact that surprised the Christie campaign, by the way.
Holt is nowhere near safe, with two Republicans vying to run against him this November. Mayor Mike Halfacre, this blogger's favorite (disclaimer: we did contribute to his campaign), came after Holt with gusto:
“Rhoda Chodosh is a constituent of Rush Holt’s, who had taken the time to come and speak with the Congressman about issues that concern her. For him to grab the microphone out of her hand while she was speaking the way he did is one of the rudest, most arrogant things I’ve ever seen an elected official do and he should apologize to her, immediately. He should be ashamed of himself, treating a constituent and a woman that way.”
Halfacre said that Chodosh was well known in Monmouth County for her attendance at meetings on every level of government. “Whether it’s a Manalapan Township Committee meeting, Freeholders meeting, or even a legislative committee meeting in Trenton, you’ll find Rhoda there and she’s always well informed and ready to ask the tough questions, regardless of party affiliation. We should have more citizens like her. And here you have her own Congressman treating her the way he did. Just disgraceful.”
I guess Democrats don't want an informed, involved democratic citizenry - they want subjects to rule over instead.
Sorry, Rush - maybe in your next life you'll be re-incarnated as a third-world despot. In the meanwhile, enjoy your sunset days in Congress.....
Roughing up the women..typical Kennedy/Dodd liberal....
Even the Newark Star-Ledger, the kingpin of New Jersey's liberal media, is a bit stunned - Holt takes a beating in the school cafeteria:
....these people aren’t in the mood for that sort of thing. They’re ticked off over the entire Obama agenda, from cap-and-trade to health care. They’re yelling things like “Do you care why we’re here?”
Holt didn’t help his cause when he finally started taking written questions. The first was “Is there any similarity between the tea parties of today and the original tea parties?”
Instead of saying something like “I’m sure you tea-party types are all well-meaning people” – which they are – he replied, “There’s none that I can think of.”
That got a rise out of the crowd, which has a number of tea-party adherents among the several hundred who showed up...
Unlike Rush Holt, even this liberal columnist gets the anger:
Holt is in what is supposedly a safe Democratic district. But I’ll bet he doesn’t feel so safe this year. A lot of the towns in the district, such as Marlboro, are middle-class to upper-middle class. And Obama has managed to make it obvious to such people that the Democrats are engaged in class warfare against that class.
In the past people in affluent towns in Monmouth, Middlesex and Mercer counties tended to vote their passions rather than their pocketbooks. But as the Christie election showed, the middle-class sections of New Jersey are in revolt, a fact that surprised the Christie campaign, by the way.
Holt is nowhere near safe, with two Republicans vying to run against him this November. Mayor Mike Halfacre, this blogger's favorite (disclaimer: we did contribute to his campaign), came after Holt with gusto:
“Rhoda Chodosh is a constituent of Rush Holt’s, who had taken the time to come and speak with the Congressman about issues that concern her. For him to grab the microphone out of her hand while she was speaking the way he did is one of the rudest, most arrogant things I’ve ever seen an elected official do and he should apologize to her, immediately. He should be ashamed of himself, treating a constituent and a woman that way.”
Halfacre said that Chodosh was well known in Monmouth County for her attendance at meetings on every level of government. “Whether it’s a Manalapan Township Committee meeting, Freeholders meeting, or even a legislative committee meeting in Trenton, you’ll find Rhoda there and she’s always well informed and ready to ask the tough questions, regardless of party affiliation. We should have more citizens like her. And here you have her own Congressman treating her the way he did. Just disgraceful.”
I guess Democrats don't want an informed, involved democratic citizenry - they want subjects to rule over instead.
Sorry, Rush - maybe in your next life you'll be re-incarnated as a third-world despot. In the meanwhile, enjoy your sunset days in Congress.....
Barack Obama, Speaking Down To Us - Again...
...and I mean literally. His disdain for the American people, and the nation he leads, is so thick that even while mouthing platitudes about our collective greatness, his body language speaks of a singular elitism. Mark Steyn:
One problem.... is that upturned chin. Just as a matter of angles, it looks wrong on TV. So it would be a problem for Hillary or McCain or Ron Paul or whoever would have won. But it's worse for Obama because it plays into the aloof-and-arrogant meme. I don't know why he does it. Are the prompters notched up a hole too high? What's the deal? Why doesn't one of his supersmart advisers get out the wrench and lower them?
More:
Obama looks arrogant, whether he’s arrogant or not. I don’t think he can help it: It’s the upturned chin. When actors want to preen and so on: They turn that chin upward. Yikes.
And don't worry, we the people get it, loud and freakin' clear:
During tonight’s State of the Union address, I finally realized why Barack Obama’s speeches drive me crazy. It’s not what he says (although I disagree with, well, almost everything he says). It’s the way he says them.
Tonight, he addressed the American people, and he addressed Congress. Go back and look at the speech. He was earnest, and his chin was down, his head relatively level, when speaking to Congress. When he spoke to us, his chin rose, and he talked down to us—literally.
Go ahead. Take a look. Note his posture. You’ll see it, too. You and I, we are not his equals. He is above us.
That’s what sets my teeth on edge every time I listen to him.
It's coming across bad:
Defensive, hectoring, self-righteous, self-referential, and angry. An astonishing performance...
Mark Levin:
I have watched many, many State of the Union speeches. This is the most partisan, least presidential of them all. His rhetoric, his glances at the GOP side, and his almost mocking tone at times — not to mention his over-the-top dissembling about the deficit, among other things — will not, I predict, improve his position with the public...
The whole speech had a "Sigh...I'll try to explain it to you dolts one more time...listen carefully as I speak really slowly" type of quality to it.
Not a style that will win hearts and minds, oh exalted one. Maybe if you stop looking down your nose at us and actually tried talking to us....
One problem.... is that upturned chin. Just as a matter of angles, it looks wrong on TV. So it would be a problem for Hillary or McCain or Ron Paul or whoever would have won. But it's worse for Obama because it plays into the aloof-and-arrogant meme. I don't know why he does it. Are the prompters notched up a hole too high? What's the deal? Why doesn't one of his supersmart advisers get out the wrench and lower them?
More:
Obama looks arrogant, whether he’s arrogant or not. I don’t think he can help it: It’s the upturned chin. When actors want to preen and so on: They turn that chin upward. Yikes.
And don't worry, we the people get it, loud and freakin' clear:
During tonight’s State of the Union address, I finally realized why Barack Obama’s speeches drive me crazy. It’s not what he says (although I disagree with, well, almost everything he says). It’s the way he says them.
Tonight, he addressed the American people, and he addressed Congress. Go back and look at the speech. He was earnest, and his chin was down, his head relatively level, when speaking to Congress. When he spoke to us, his chin rose, and he talked down to us—literally.
Go ahead. Take a look. Note his posture. You’ll see it, too. You and I, we are not his equals. He is above us.
That’s what sets my teeth on edge every time I listen to him.
It's coming across bad:
Defensive, hectoring, self-righteous, self-referential, and angry. An astonishing performance...
Mark Levin:
I have watched many, many State of the Union speeches. This is the most partisan, least presidential of them all. His rhetoric, his glances at the GOP side, and his almost mocking tone at times — not to mention his over-the-top dissembling about the deficit, among other things — will not, I predict, improve his position with the public...
The whole speech had a "Sigh...I'll try to explain it to you dolts one more time...listen carefully as I speak really slowly" type of quality to it.
Not a style that will win hearts and minds, oh exalted one. Maybe if you stop looking down your nose at us and actually tried talking to us....
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama whitewashes Israel out of Haiti
When Barack Obama is delivering some overwrought piece of soaring oratory tonight, full of sound and no substance, sending tingles up the legs of everyone on the left, let it be known here and now that I have one thing that I want to make perfectly clear:
President Barack Obama is an Israel-hating anti-Semite. (go thru these posts for some background).
What's his latest affront against Israel? Trying to whitewash their tremendous good deeds out of history - via Marty Peretz:
I've just read the transcript of the president's remarks about Haiti, the ones he made on January 15. He noted that, in addition to assistance from the United States, significant aid had also come from "Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others." Am I missing another country that truly weighed in with truly consequential assistance? Ah, yes. There it is. Right there "among others." Yes, the country to which I refer is "among others," that one.
The fact is that, next to our country, Israel sent the largest contingent of trained rescue workers, doctors, and other medical personnel. The Israeli field hospital was the only one on the ground that could perform real surgery, which it did literally hundreds of times, while delivering--as of last week--at least 16 babies, including one premature infant and three caesarians. The first 250-odd Israelis were real professionals, and they were supplemented by others, also professionals. And to these can be added the many organized Jews from the Diaspora who, in solidarity with Israel, also went on a work pilgrimage, an aliyah, in solidarity with Haiti.
It's not that Israeli participation in the Haiti horror was being kept secret. I myself saw it reported several times on television—on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.
So didn't Obama notice? For God's sake, everybody noticed the deep Israeli involvement...
Of course he noticed. But Obama does not like Israel, does not like the Jews, and has never said a kind word about either, with the exception of the few occasions when he was pandering for their votes. To praise them proves their moral strength above others; and that embarrasses and frustrates Obama. Which is his reaction every time reality intrudes on his ideology, incidentally.
So like the media over the past eight years glossing over any good George Bush did (and ignoring the wildly cheering throngs on his African visits) in order to maintain the storyline that he was pure evil incarnate, Obama ignores or whitewashes out any good Israel does, in order to maintain the storyline that they are the bad guys in the Middle East.
Maybe he took a cue from the Guardian newspaper in the UK, which published a list of every Nobel prize winner from the last century, conveniently omitting every Jew and/or Israeli that ever won the prize.
When the horror of the Obama presidency is over, and we are left to clean up the moral and fiscal mess, one of the most shameful acts in American history will be hard to scrub away: An anti-Semitic president repeatedly stabbing an erstwhile friend and ally in the back simply because of his personal animosity towards Jews.
We will all have a lot of explaining to do to our children....
President Barack Obama is an Israel-hating anti-Semite. (go thru these posts for some background).
What's his latest affront against Israel? Trying to whitewash their tremendous good deeds out of history - via Marty Peretz:
I've just read the transcript of the president's remarks about Haiti, the ones he made on January 15. He noted that, in addition to assistance from the United States, significant aid had also come from "Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others." Am I missing another country that truly weighed in with truly consequential assistance? Ah, yes. There it is. Right there "among others." Yes, the country to which I refer is "among others," that one.
The fact is that, next to our country, Israel sent the largest contingent of trained rescue workers, doctors, and other medical personnel. The Israeli field hospital was the only one on the ground that could perform real surgery, which it did literally hundreds of times, while delivering--as of last week--at least 16 babies, including one premature infant and three caesarians. The first 250-odd Israelis were real professionals, and they were supplemented by others, also professionals. And to these can be added the many organized Jews from the Diaspora who, in solidarity with Israel, also went on a work pilgrimage, an aliyah, in solidarity with Haiti.
It's not that Israeli participation in the Haiti horror was being kept secret. I myself saw it reported several times on television—on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.
So didn't Obama notice? For God's sake, everybody noticed the deep Israeli involvement...
Of course he noticed. But Obama does not like Israel, does not like the Jews, and has never said a kind word about either, with the exception of the few occasions when he was pandering for their votes. To praise them proves their moral strength above others; and that embarrasses and frustrates Obama. Which is his reaction every time reality intrudes on his ideology, incidentally.
So like the media over the past eight years glossing over any good George Bush did (and ignoring the wildly cheering throngs on his African visits) in order to maintain the storyline that he was pure evil incarnate, Obama ignores or whitewashes out any good Israel does, in order to maintain the storyline that they are the bad guys in the Middle East.
Maybe he took a cue from the Guardian newspaper in the UK, which published a list of every Nobel prize winner from the last century, conveniently omitting every Jew and/or Israeli that ever won the prize.
When the horror of the Obama presidency is over, and we are left to clean up the moral and fiscal mess, one of the most shameful acts in American history will be hard to scrub away: An anti-Semitic president repeatedly stabbing an erstwhile friend and ally in the back simply because of his personal animosity towards Jews.
We will all have a lot of explaining to do to our children....
"ObamaGirl" To Dump Barack?
Any guy with half a brain can read between the lines here...which may disqualify the president, of course, but it doesn't mean his soon-to-be-ex isn't trying to send the signals that all is not well in paradise:
'Obama Girl' now falling out of love
First, Massachusetts turned on the president.
Now, the bikini-clad "Obama Girl" -- who famously cooed about her "crush" throughout the
presidential campaign on YouTube videos -- admits the thrill is gone.
Amber Lee Ettinger -- the buxom sensation who lip-synched about her love for then-candidate Barack Obama -- said she wishes he spent his first year in office more focused on fixing the abysmal economy.
"I think he's doing an OK job," said Ettinger, whose original "Crush on Obama" video, first shown in 2007, has had more than 16.5 million views on YouTube.
"In my opinion, I feel like he should be focusing a lot more on jobs and the economy."
Ettinger, 28, said that even though she doesn't have health care -- "I can't afford it" -- she still thinks Obama should have waited to tackle the thorny legislation that has been blamed for the devastating Democratic loss of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
"He did create some jobs, but most of them were government jobs and that doesn't really help the middle class. But it helps a bit," said Ettinger.
Her grade for Obama: B- minus.
Dude, when a hot chick who was once head-over-heels in love with you now says you're merely
"OK", and grades you as a "B minus", you know the love is long gone. And you know she'll be gone as well, probably in the next 15 minutes, with some other guy doesn't just brag about being a "change-machine", but who can actually...make some change happen. The correct change, so to speak.
At what point does Obama, once the king of the A-List celebrities, just become another tabloid joke, with ex-lovers mocking him and fans abandoning him in droves while he frantically blames everyone around him for his premature demise?
I'll say....by Thursday. Right after his State of the Union address.....
'Obama Girl' now falling out of love
First, Massachusetts turned on the president.
Now, the bikini-clad "Obama Girl" -- who famously cooed about her "crush" throughout the
presidential campaign on YouTube videos -- admits the thrill is gone.Amber Lee Ettinger -- the buxom sensation who lip-synched about her love for then-candidate Barack Obama -- said she wishes he spent his first year in office more focused on fixing the abysmal economy.
"I think he's doing an OK job," said Ettinger, whose original "Crush on Obama" video, first shown in 2007, has had more than 16.5 million views on YouTube.
"In my opinion, I feel like he should be focusing a lot more on jobs and the economy."
Ettinger, 28, said that even though she doesn't have health care -- "I can't afford it" -- she still thinks Obama should have waited to tackle the thorny legislation that has been blamed for the devastating Democratic loss of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
"He did create some jobs, but most of them were government jobs and that doesn't really help the middle class. But it helps a bit," said Ettinger.
Her grade for Obama: B- minus.
Dude, when a hot chick who was once head-over-heels in love with you now says you're merely
"OK", and grades you as a "B minus", you know the love is long gone. And you know she'll be gone as well, probably in the next 15 minutes, with some other guy doesn't just brag about being a "change-machine", but who can actually...make some change happen. The correct change, so to speak.At what point does Obama, once the king of the A-List celebrities, just become another tabloid joke, with ex-lovers mocking him and fans abandoning him in droves while he frantically blames everyone around him for his premature demise?
I'll say....by Thursday. Right after his State of the Union address.....
Hey -can we get the "OG" changed to "BG", in honor of Scott Brown? Hmmm, bet lots of politicans would like to see their initials on Amber Ettinger wasit:
C'mon, conservatives -she's available! And, one would hope, eligible for Rule 5 status!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Congressman Rush Holt: On The Ropes
Earlier this month, I posted about the multiple Republicans that were looking to take on Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) this fall in what has been for the past decade a safe, if gerrymandered, Democratic seat.
Seems like these would-be challengers have their ear to the ground - or are reading this blog. Congressman Holt did a "town hall" last night in upscale Marlboro, New Jersey, and barely escaped with his life:
....the crowd at Holt's "town hall" meeting was small — a little more than 120 attendees — but vocal. Holt, a Democrat from the state's 12th Congressional District, tried to talk education, open space, flight safety and care for seniors. But he was heckled and shouted down by attendees who wanted to talk about health care, job creation and the nation's spending.
At one point, the congressman threatened to take the meeting to another room and leave his haranguers to shout among themselves.
Some video here (the link may be better than the cube below):
And here's some eyewitness testimony from Right in Jersey:
After a short introduction by Marlboro's Democratic Mayor Jon Hornik, Holt began his ultra-boring speech. He kept reading from his folder, and people got irritated, start shouting at him, asking questions, trying to get him to justify his positions, but Holt was totally unphased. No emotion, no reaction, just like a radio show you can ignore. At one point, someone shouted that it's like a "breathing robocall", to which even the Mayor (who was very cool through the evening) couldn't help laughing...
And then, the Q&A started. Meaning, Hornik would pick a question, would "evaluate" it, pass it to Holt, he'd read it, and give a lecture. People were getting angrier and angrier because he was avoiding direct answers, would say lots of lies, and again, would refuse to clarify his answers or stay on point. There was a lot of shouting back and forth. And then it was Rebel Rhoda's turn. She's Canadian-born, so her question was related to Canadian healthcare. Besides saying that "Canadian healthcare is not good", Holt avoided a clear answer. Rhoda got up, went to him, grabbed his microphone, and Holt wrestled it back from her. Holt whined that there's not a civil climate for discussion, and people yelled that HE doesn't want a discussion. Mayhem erupted, Holt's goons came in....
More of the Q&A with our clueless Congressman:
Someone asked how does he feel about Scott Brown's victory. Holt was confused, then smiled and said:"I'm glad I live in New Jersey"
....Of course, people shouted "not for long" at him....
Holt repeatedly said that he's not worried about the way the Administration's spending is increasing deficits. He even said:"Sometimes, it's not bad to borrow." But then, a constituent questioned his votes in 2001-2002 against tax breaks and tax incentives. Holt's response was that it would've increased the deficit.
The Bush 3-400 billions deficit bad. Obama 2 trillion deficit good.
And finally, another memorable Rush Holt gem: "America is such a great and rich country because of Government spending!"
Just a bit out of step with his constituents, you think?
Enjoy your last 11 months, Rush....
Seems like these would-be challengers have their ear to the ground - or are reading this blog. Congressman Holt did a "town hall" last night in upscale Marlboro, New Jersey, and barely escaped with his life:
....the crowd at Holt's "town hall" meeting was small — a little more than 120 attendees — but vocal. Holt, a Democrat from the state's 12th Congressional District, tried to talk education, open space, flight safety and care for seniors. But he was heckled and shouted down by attendees who wanted to talk about health care, job creation and the nation's spending.
At one point, the congressman threatened to take the meeting to another room and leave his haranguers to shout among themselves.
Some video here (the link may be better than the cube below):
And here's some eyewitness testimony from Right in Jersey:
After a short introduction by Marlboro's Democratic Mayor Jon Hornik, Holt began his ultra-boring speech. He kept reading from his folder, and people got irritated, start shouting at him, asking questions, trying to get him to justify his positions, but Holt was totally unphased. No emotion, no reaction, just like a radio show you can ignore. At one point, someone shouted that it's like a "breathing robocall", to which even the Mayor (who was very cool through the evening) couldn't help laughing...
And then, the Q&A started. Meaning, Hornik would pick a question, would "evaluate" it, pass it to Holt, he'd read it, and give a lecture. People were getting angrier and angrier because he was avoiding direct answers, would say lots of lies, and again, would refuse to clarify his answers or stay on point. There was a lot of shouting back and forth. And then it was Rebel Rhoda's turn. She's Canadian-born, so her question was related to Canadian healthcare. Besides saying that "Canadian healthcare is not good", Holt avoided a clear answer. Rhoda got up, went to him, grabbed his microphone, and Holt wrestled it back from her. Holt whined that there's not a civil climate for discussion, and people yelled that HE doesn't want a discussion. Mayhem erupted, Holt's goons came in....
More of the Q&A with our clueless Congressman:
Someone asked how does he feel about Scott Brown's victory. Holt was confused, then smiled and said:"I'm glad I live in New Jersey"
....Of course, people shouted "not for long" at him....
Holt repeatedly said that he's not worried about the way the Administration's spending is increasing deficits. He even said:"Sometimes, it's not bad to borrow." But then, a constituent questioned his votes in 2001-2002 against tax breaks and tax incentives. Holt's response was that it would've increased the deficit.
The Bush 3-400 billions deficit bad. Obama 2 trillion deficit good.
And finally, another memorable Rush Holt gem: "America is such a great and rich country because of Government spending!"
Just a bit out of step with his constituents, you think?
Enjoy your last 11 months, Rush....
Barack Obama: Deficit Chicken Hawk
Another load of crap from the nation's largest manure manufacturer, Barack Hussein Obama...
Obama's "spending freeze", much like himself, is all style and no substance. As you make your way through the Washington Post story, it's obvious how little chill there is in this" freeze", and how easy it will be to circumvent:
The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama's first term..
Sounds good, right? Ah, but here's the rub:
Although the freeze would shave no more than $15 billion off next year's budget -- barely denting a deficit projected to exceed $1 trillion for the third year in a row -- White House officials said it could save significantly more during the next decade.
Isn't that how they tried to sell us on their nationalization of health care? Spending a few trillion would save us a few billion down the road? Yeah, that went over well - see "Brown, Scott" for reference notes....
The budget freeze is a smoke grenade for the president, a "flash-bang" that he hopes will blind us to the fact that nothing will change and that spending will actually increase:
The spending freeze would affect only about one-eighth of the nation's $3.5 trillion budget, the bulk of which is devoted to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are responsible for much of the future increase in spending. It would not restrain funding for the $787 billion economic stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress early last year, nor would it apply to a new bill aimed at creating jobs, which Democrats have identified as their top priority in the run-up to November's congressional elections.
The House has approved a $156 billion package intended to lower the nation's 10 percent unemployment rate, while the Senate is drafting an $80 billion package that includes tax cuts for businesses that hire new employees as well as aid for cash-strapped state governments and the unemployed.
It is also unlikely to affect the approximately $900 billion health-care bill, which has been on life-support since the Massachusetts vote. In an interview with ABC News on Monday, Obama vowed to press ahead with health care and other first-year agenda items, even it means jeopardizing his reelection chances in 2012.
In other words, Obama is trying to paint himself as a deficit hawk while adding another quarter-trillion dollars in a second "jobs" stimulus (isn't than what the first one was supposed to do?) , and another trillion-plus in a health care takeover that he refuses to abandon, even in the face of an increasingly hostile public.
Barack Obama is a Deficit Chicken Hawk, a man who talks tough on spending but is too cowardly to take on the advocacy groups that would freak out on him if he cut social welfare programs and entitlements. So he throws a flash grenade, dives into a foxhole, and declares himself a warrior.
Sorry, Baracky - you can't call yourself a tough guy if you're too chickensh*t to enter the combat zone...
Obama's "spending freeze", much like himself, is all style and no substance. As you make your way through the Washington Post story, it's obvious how little chill there is in this" freeze", and how easy it will be to circumvent:
The freeze would take effect in October and limit the overall budget for agencies other than the military, veterans affairs, homeland security and certain international programs to $447 billion a year for the remainder of Obama's first term..
Sounds good, right? Ah, but here's the rub:
Although the freeze would shave no more than $15 billion off next year's budget -- barely denting a deficit projected to exceed $1 trillion for the third year in a row -- White House officials said it could save significantly more during the next decade.
Isn't that how they tried to sell us on their nationalization of health care? Spending a few trillion would save us a few billion down the road? Yeah, that went over well - see "Brown, Scott" for reference notes....
The budget freeze is a smoke grenade for the president, a "flash-bang" that he hopes will blind us to the fact that nothing will change and that spending will actually increase:
The spending freeze would affect only about one-eighth of the nation's $3.5 trillion budget, the bulk of which is devoted to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which are responsible for much of the future increase in spending. It would not restrain funding for the $787 billion economic stimulus package Obama pushed through Congress early last year, nor would it apply to a new bill aimed at creating jobs, which Democrats have identified as their top priority in the run-up to November's congressional elections.
The House has approved a $156 billion package intended to lower the nation's 10 percent unemployment rate, while the Senate is drafting an $80 billion package that includes tax cuts for businesses that hire new employees as well as aid for cash-strapped state governments and the unemployed.
It is also unlikely to affect the approximately $900 billion health-care bill, which has been on life-support since the Massachusetts vote. In an interview with ABC News on Monday, Obama vowed to press ahead with health care and other first-year agenda items, even it means jeopardizing his reelection chances in 2012.
In other words, Obama is trying to paint himself as a deficit hawk while adding another quarter-trillion dollars in a second "jobs" stimulus (isn't than what the first one was supposed to do?) , and another trillion-plus in a health care takeover that he refuses to abandon, even in the face of an increasingly hostile public.
Barack Obama is a Deficit Chicken Hawk, a man who talks tough on spending but is too cowardly to take on the advocacy groups that would freak out on him if he cut social welfare programs and entitlements. So he throws a flash grenade, dives into a foxhole, and declares himself a warrior.
Sorry, Baracky - you can't call yourself a tough guy if you're too chickensh*t to enter the combat zone...
Monday, January 25, 2010
LaHood Laughingstock of Detroit Auto Show
Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood forgot the golden rule ('tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt) while making a stop at the Detroit Auto Show last week.
Yes, Nancy Pelosi was there as well, shilling for the auto companies she purchased with your money. But it was LaHood's ignorance about the products and prospects of these companies that leads one to believe that maybe - just maybe - being owned and operated by DC politicians is not the panacea we were lead to believe...
The bonfire of the inanities:
The transportation secretary based his remarks, he said, on a visit he made to Detroit last fall when he spent “half a day” at each of the domestic automakers’ headquarters.
So he is an expert in automotives based on spending, you know, a few hours in each division's corporate headquarters. Normally it takes years of top-to-bottom work to have a good understanding of an industry's capabilities and liabilities; thank god we have men as bright as LaHood who can save the nation years of its time....
The smiles broadened when he referred to “new products” from Chrysler. Even people outside the auto industry know that Chrysler’s quiver is empty.
That was just too much for one reporter, who challenged the cabinet member:
In your opening remarks you mentioned new products by Chrysler, could you expand upon that?
LaHood’s reply:
Well, you know what? I’ll let Chrysler do that and I think as you all get around this massive showroom you’ll see what I mean, but they’re on the cutting edge of developing the kind of products that I think people in this country and also in other countries are really gonna feel very favorable towards.
But:
Walk around Chrysler’s display on the show floor upstairs in Cobo Hall, and you will see exactly zero new products.
There was a Lancia rebadged as a Chrysler concept (dubbed “Guido” by the auto blogosphere), and a couple of cute little Fiat 500s to show that Chrysler was now under Fiat’s wing, but nothing at the Chrysler stand could be described as “new.” Chrysler did display a number of new trim and feature packages on its now aging stable of cars.
Maybe the die-cut decals are what LaHood meant by “cutting edge.”
More cluelessness from Lahood and Pelosi on "green vehicles":
In his remarks, Secretary LaHood referred to “the kind of green car that Americans are looking for.” Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer also stressed how government financial aid is helping the domestic automakers move to hybrids and electric vehicles, vehicles Pelosi and Hoyer claimed that consumers want.
The problem is that while hybrid sales in the U.S. indeed went up in 2009 as the overall market was flat or declining, they still represent less than 3% of light vehicles leased and sold in the U.S. Between LaHood’s praise for Chryslers “new” products and Pelosi’s fantasy that 3% of the market represents what consumers want, it appears that the people running our government know nothing about a major industry that employs, ultimately, one in twelve Americans.
Yup, exactly as I feared. Hybrids are great for the city driver; the suburban driver - which is most of them - needs something a bit meatier. That's why the biggest winner of the misguided "cash-for-clunkers" campaign was the Ford F150, and it's why SUVs are making a comeback in a big way. Yet the Obama administration insists on building cars that they want us to drive, and not what we want to drive.
It's part of the Obama administration's war on the suburbs, of course - the administration is filled with "smart planners" who want to yank your SUV and force you to move back into the city, where you will be pushed onto public transportation and your children into public schools, like it or not.
That's bad enough, but fortunately not too likely. What is likely is a second crash of the car companies due to management that believes that every single right-thinking American should want what they want, which is your ass planted in a tiny hybrid. When hybrid sales peak at 5%, and consumers turn to foreign automakers for SUVs, what then?
Laws restricting SUV usage; with special permits allowed as permitted by DC bureaucrats? Another huge taxpayer bailout? Or the collapse and free-market restructuring of the American automotive industry, which perhaps should have been allowed to occur a good $100 billion dollars ago...
Regardless, with Pelosi and Lahood sharing the wheel, you just know this car is heading right off the freakin' cliff....
Yes, Nancy Pelosi was there as well, shilling for the auto companies she purchased with your money. But it was LaHood's ignorance about the products and prospects of these companies that leads one to believe that maybe - just maybe - being owned and operated by DC politicians is not the panacea we were lead to believe...
The bonfire of the inanities:
The transportation secretary based his remarks, he said, on a visit he made to Detroit last fall when he spent “half a day” at each of the domestic automakers’ headquarters.
So he is an expert in automotives based on spending, you know, a few hours in each division's corporate headquarters. Normally it takes years of top-to-bottom work to have a good understanding of an industry's capabilities and liabilities; thank god we have men as bright as LaHood who can save the nation years of its time....
The smiles broadened when he referred to “new products” from Chrysler. Even people outside the auto industry know that Chrysler’s quiver is empty.
That was just too much for one reporter, who challenged the cabinet member:
In your opening remarks you mentioned new products by Chrysler, could you expand upon that?
LaHood’s reply:
Well, you know what? I’ll let Chrysler do that and I think as you all get around this massive showroom you’ll see what I mean, but they’re on the cutting edge of developing the kind of products that I think people in this country and also in other countries are really gonna feel very favorable towards.
But:
Walk around Chrysler’s display on the show floor upstairs in Cobo Hall, and you will see exactly zero new products.
There was a Lancia rebadged as a Chrysler concept (dubbed “Guido” by the auto blogosphere), and a couple of cute little Fiat 500s to show that Chrysler was now under Fiat’s wing, but nothing at the Chrysler stand could be described as “new.” Chrysler did display a number of new trim and feature packages on its now aging stable of cars.
Maybe the die-cut decals are what LaHood meant by “cutting edge.”
More cluelessness from Lahood and Pelosi on "green vehicles":
In his remarks, Secretary LaHood referred to “the kind of green car that Americans are looking for.” Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer also stressed how government financial aid is helping the domestic automakers move to hybrids and electric vehicles, vehicles Pelosi and Hoyer claimed that consumers want.
The problem is that while hybrid sales in the U.S. indeed went up in 2009 as the overall market was flat or declining, they still represent less than 3% of light vehicles leased and sold in the U.S. Between LaHood’s praise for Chryslers “new” products and Pelosi’s fantasy that 3% of the market represents what consumers want, it appears that the people running our government know nothing about a major industry that employs, ultimately, one in twelve Americans.
Yup, exactly as I feared. Hybrids are great for the city driver; the suburban driver - which is most of them - needs something a bit meatier. That's why the biggest winner of the misguided "cash-for-clunkers" campaign was the Ford F150, and it's why SUVs are making a comeback in a big way. Yet the Obama administration insists on building cars that they want us to drive, and not what we want to drive.
It's part of the Obama administration's war on the suburbs, of course - the administration is filled with "smart planners" who want to yank your SUV and force you to move back into the city, where you will be pushed onto public transportation and your children into public schools, like it or not.
That's bad enough, but fortunately not too likely. What is likely is a second crash of the car companies due to management that believes that every single right-thinking American should want what they want, which is your ass planted in a tiny hybrid. When hybrid sales peak at 5%, and consumers turn to foreign automakers for SUVs, what then?
Laws restricting SUV usage; with special permits allowed as permitted by DC bureaucrats? Another huge taxpayer bailout? Or the collapse and free-market restructuring of the American automotive industry, which perhaps should have been allowed to occur a good $100 billion dollars ago...
Regardless, with Pelosi and Lahood sharing the wheel, you just know this car is heading right off the freakin' cliff....
Media Left Slack-Jawed as Americans Embrace Conservatism
If you listen carefully, you can hear the"click" of their collective jaw unhinging and the "clack" of it hitting their laptops:
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's refusal to raise taxes is boosting his stature with a re-energized national GOP, even while his state faces severe budget cuts to education, health care and social service programs.
His approval ratings in Louisiana are still high, but critics and some analysts wonder how long he can please power-brokers outside his state without angering voters in it.
Recent polling has shown that 60-70% of all Americans prefer lower taxes even with the so-called "downside" of reduced services. But like the polls that showed Scott Brown closing and eventually leading Martha Coakley, it appears that anything that may cause cognitive dissonance from the liberal playbook is automatically rejected by its handmaidens in the media.
Thus, in the case of Bobby Jindal, the media ascribes his governing philosophy as an attempt to "play to the national GOP", as opposed to responding to the wishes of his constituents in Louisiana.
The AP still sounds shocked:
Jindal ran against tax increases and big government spending, but he took office in January 2008 when the state had hundreds of millions in surplus cash.
Now the state's budget shortfall is estimated at $1 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1, and the gap is expected to grow even larger a year later when federal stimulus money disappears. The worst budget cuts would fall right in the midst of Jindal's 2011 re-election campaign. But he hasn't changed his mind on taxes, and complaints are growing about big cuts to state programs.
Who is making these complaints? The AP quotes one English teacher. Ah, sorry guys, not a statistically significant sample. And despite their dismay that Jindal won't follow the liberal policy of raising taxes to fund social services in the middle of a crippling recession, the last two paragraphs of the story explain why:
Still, polls in the increasingly red state back Jindal. He has a high approval rating, and Baton Rouge-based pollster Bernie Pinsonat said annual surveys of voters repeatedly show they think Louisiana has a spending problem, not a revenue shortfall.
"I'm not going to sit here and say that Bobby Jindal can cut, cut, cut and there will be no consequences. Certain people are going to be unhappy. But is that the overwhelming majority of Louisiana? I don't think so,"...
The only ones unhappy will be the mainstream media, who will shake their heads sadly and blame ignorance, racism, and FOX News for a nation too "stupid" to understand the moral high ground that is financial ruin...
UPDATE: Freeman Hunt sounds the same theme here...
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's refusal to raise taxes is boosting his stature with a re-energized national GOP, even while his state faces severe budget cuts to education, health care and social service programs.
His approval ratings in Louisiana are still high, but critics and some analysts wonder how long he can please power-brokers outside his state without angering voters in it.
Recent polling has shown that 60-70% of all Americans prefer lower taxes even with the so-called "downside" of reduced services. But like the polls that showed Scott Brown closing and eventually leading Martha Coakley, it appears that anything that may cause cognitive dissonance from the liberal playbook is automatically rejected by its handmaidens in the media.
Thus, in the case of Bobby Jindal, the media ascribes his governing philosophy as an attempt to "play to the national GOP", as opposed to responding to the wishes of his constituents in Louisiana.
The AP still sounds shocked:
Jindal ran against tax increases and big government spending, but he took office in January 2008 when the state had hundreds of millions in surplus cash.
Now the state's budget shortfall is estimated at $1 billion for the fiscal year that begins July 1, and the gap is expected to grow even larger a year later when federal stimulus money disappears. The worst budget cuts would fall right in the midst of Jindal's 2011 re-election campaign. But he hasn't changed his mind on taxes, and complaints are growing about big cuts to state programs.
Who is making these complaints? The AP quotes one English teacher. Ah, sorry guys, not a statistically significant sample. And despite their dismay that Jindal won't follow the liberal policy of raising taxes to fund social services in the middle of a crippling recession, the last two paragraphs of the story explain why:
Still, polls in the increasingly red state back Jindal. He has a high approval rating, and Baton Rouge-based pollster Bernie Pinsonat said annual surveys of voters repeatedly show they think Louisiana has a spending problem, not a revenue shortfall.
"I'm not going to sit here and say that Bobby Jindal can cut, cut, cut and there will be no consequences. Certain people are going to be unhappy. But is that the overwhelming majority of Louisiana? I don't think so,"...
The only ones unhappy will be the mainstream media, who will shake their heads sadly and blame ignorance, racism, and FOX News for a nation too "stupid" to understand the moral high ground that is financial ruin...
UPDATE: Freeman Hunt sounds the same theme here...
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Levi Johnston: Liberal Icon
And it didn't take much for him to earn that status. Reminds me of the reverence bestowed upon a certain politician from Chicago who orated oh-so-well and had just the right skin color...
With Levi it wasn't the color of his skin, it was his family connections, and how he could use them to aid the left continue their assault against their favorite bogey(wo)man:
Watch out, Sarah Palin - it's Levi Johnston's turn.
The father of the failed vice-presidential hopeful's grandson acknowledges he's out for revenge and has dirt to spill about Alaska's former first family.
"If she's gonna say things about me, I'm gonna leak things about her," he boasted during an interview airing Wednesday on the "CBS Early Show." "That's just how it is.'
Declaring, "now it's my turn" .....
And from the Early Show, it was Vanity Fair, US Magazine, CNN, and eventually Playboy (all peas in a pod, in my eyes). The more dirt he could dish on Sarah and Bristol, the more the liberal media fawned all over him.
But like all good liberals - see Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and even Barack "you're perfectly likable, Hillary" Obama, Levi seems to have an issue treating women with fairness and respect. He certainly doesn't seem to have much of either for Sarah and Bristol Palin, two women who by all accounts did nothing to him, except - in poor Bristol's case - falling in love with him.
And - like John Edwards - Levi doesn't really feel responsible for any children he may fathered either ; it might get in the way of all the adulation he's feeling, and besides - why should it be his problem, anyway?
Court documents filed Thursday show that Bristol Palin is looking for $1,750 a month from her former boyfriend and the father of her baby, Levi Johnston.
Bristol and Levi, both 19 years old, had remained together for a little while after having Tripp in December 2008, but eventually broke up. In November 2009, Bristol filed for full custody of Tripp and the most recent documents also ask for $18,350 in back child support.
The court documents also state that Levi made more than $105,000 in 2009 between interviews and modelling jobs, while Bristol has paid almost 100 percent of the costs of raising Tripp....
That should cement his icon status once and for all.
Although I am more apt to agree with the Environmental Republican:
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities. Levi Johnson is that man and that would make him a sh*thead scumbag.
With Levi it wasn't the color of his skin, it was his family connections, and how he could use them to aid the left continue their assault against their favorite bogey(wo)man:
Watch out, Sarah Palin - it's Levi Johnston's turn.
The father of the failed vice-presidential hopeful's grandson acknowledges he's out for revenge and has dirt to spill about Alaska's former first family.
"If she's gonna say things about me, I'm gonna leak things about her," he boasted during an interview airing Wednesday on the "CBS Early Show." "That's just how it is.'
Declaring, "now it's my turn" .....
And from the Early Show, it was Vanity Fair, US Magazine, CNN, and eventually Playboy (all peas in a pod, in my eyes). The more dirt he could dish on Sarah and Bristol, the more the liberal media fawned all over him.
But like all good liberals - see Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and even Barack "you're perfectly likable, Hillary" Obama, Levi seems to have an issue treating women with fairness and respect. He certainly doesn't seem to have much of either for Sarah and Bristol Palin, two women who by all accounts did nothing to him, except - in poor Bristol's case - falling in love with him.
And - like John Edwards - Levi doesn't really feel responsible for any children he may fathered either ; it might get in the way of all the adulation he's feeling, and besides - why should it be his problem, anyway?
Court documents filed Thursday show that Bristol Palin is looking for $1,750 a month from her former boyfriend and the father of her baby, Levi Johnston.
Bristol and Levi, both 19 years old, had remained together for a little while after having Tripp in December 2008, but eventually broke up. In November 2009, Bristol filed for full custody of Tripp and the most recent documents also ask for $18,350 in back child support.
The court documents also state that Levi made more than $105,000 in 2009 between interviews and modelling jobs, while Bristol has paid almost 100 percent of the costs of raising Tripp....
That should cement his icon status once and for all.
Although I am more apt to agree with the Environmental Republican:
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a man who doesn't live up to his responsibilities. Levi Johnson is that man and that would make him a sh*thead scumbag.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
John Kerry: A Perennial Second Banana
...forever doomed to be #2, a sidekick, a foil, an afterthought, the guy who's name shows up in the credits when they get to "also starring"....
Oh yeah - and the guy who came in second in the 2004 presidential election...
Just desserts are always delicious:
Just when he was set to bask in the limelight as the Bay State’s senior senator, Democrat John F. Kerry is being pushed back into the political shadows, forced to play the liberal foil to GOP superstar Scott Brown.
“He’s out of the shadow of Ted Kennedy and he’s finally the senior senator, and he still is being upstaged by this new rising star within the Republican ranks,” said George Serra, a political professor at Bridgewater State College.
Decades spent eclipsed by Kennedy were not easy for Kerry.
“ ‘John Kerry doesn’t get anything done. John Kerry lives in the shadow of Ted Kennedy. John Kerry doesn’t deliver. Blah, blah, blah,’ ” Kerry told the Herald in an October 2008 interview. “I’m sort of tired of that, actually....
On Capitol Hill this week, Kerry’s office was filled with reporters and cameras, but they were following the newly elected Brown....
Brown is the game changer, and Kerry, who thought just days ago that his rise to pre-eminence in his bluest of blue states was inevitable, now finds himself on the wrong side of the electorate in a state that decided they'd rather be red than dead.
John - that's gotta hurt. But then I remember you were the guy that went before Congress some 30+ years ago, and swore that your comrades in Vietnam were spending their days shooting children, and their nights raping women.
Now, Senator - do you understand why it is said that revenge is a dish best served cold?
Enjoy.
Oh yeah - and the guy who came in second in the 2004 presidential election...
Just desserts are always delicious:
Just when he was set to bask in the limelight as the Bay State’s senior senator, Democrat John F. Kerry is being pushed back into the political shadows, forced to play the liberal foil to GOP superstar Scott Brown.
“He’s out of the shadow of Ted Kennedy and he’s finally the senior senator, and he still is being upstaged by this new rising star within the Republican ranks,” said George Serra, a political professor at Bridgewater State College.
Decades spent eclipsed by Kennedy were not easy for Kerry.
“ ‘John Kerry doesn’t get anything done. John Kerry lives in the shadow of Ted Kennedy. John Kerry doesn’t deliver. Blah, blah, blah,’ ” Kerry told the Herald in an October 2008 interview. “I’m sort of tired of that, actually....
On Capitol Hill this week, Kerry’s office was filled with reporters and cameras, but they were following the newly elected Brown....
Brown is the game changer, and Kerry, who thought just days ago that his rise to pre-eminence in his bluest of blue states was inevitable, now finds himself on the wrong side of the electorate in a state that decided they'd rather be red than dead.
John - that's gotta hurt. But then I remember you were the guy that went before Congress some 30+ years ago, and swore that your comrades in Vietnam were spending their days shooting children, and their nights raping women.
Now, Senator - do you understand why it is said that revenge is a dish best served cold?
Enjoy.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Did NPR Kill Air America?
So Air America, home of the frothing liberal crazies, has gone under, and the bubbles have ceased rising to the surface:
The company, which was founded in 2004, never found a substantial audience or sound financial footing. It filed for bankruptcy protection in 2006, but managed to stay on the air at that time. The network churned through several owners and several attempted reinventions, with little to show for it.
“The fact of the matter was, it was always a very challenging business proposition, and it never had the right management,” said Sam Seder, who hosted programs on Air America until last year.
The headwinds were enormous, he said, adding, “Radio is a dying industry.”
Maybe. Although I don't know if Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin would share that sentiment...
But why, in a nation that has more registered Democrats than Republicans, was a network that catered to their ideological sympathies unable to find its "footing ? Three thoughts:
-liberals make terrible businessmen. Espousing a worldview that states corporations are evil and that profits are shameful makes it hard to...run a successful corporation or turn a profit, two minor keys to actually, you know - staying in business
-Air America was angry liberalism. I tuned into it on occasion, and heard angry, vicious rants that would have forced right-wing commentators off the air. And while angry liberals do seem to get a lot of the air/press/blog exposure, they do not make up the majority of the left; instead, many of these Democratic loyalists see themselves as higher-class intellectual elites who have no professed interest in a spitting contest. So where would an liberal elitist turn to hear their own sympathies reflected back upon them...?
-...why, NPR, of course! That home for soft-spoken liberal chat, where everyone is on the same page, where Terry Gross can host a show with the same stale upper-crust liberals repeating the same mantras over and over and entitle it "Fresh Air"! All supplied with interludes of classical music, authentic scratchy blues, and pro-forma Israel-bashing.
So we have the liberal audience split between two radio outlets, Air America and NPR. And yet, NPR remains on the air while Air America has withered and died. What's the key difference in their business models? Why, NPR is supported by taxpayer dollars, while Air America had to scrap for private-sector funding!
Realistically, could NPR survive with its current format without a government subsidy? Unlikely, based on their overall miserable ratings nationwide (not dissimilar to Air America's). And yet, one may say that they knocked a competitor off the air by dint of the fact they received government funds to continue while the alternative liberal voice did not.
In theory, Air America fans (and ownership) should be screaming bloody murder at this point about a government-subsidized radio station running them out of business. But they can't; it would involve them opening their eyes and realizing that everything they support - taxpayer bailouts, stimulus packages, government-run healthcare - will have the same chilling effect on these industries as NPR had on theirs.
This should be a rallying point for liberals and conservatives to join forces and stop spending taxpayer monies on public radio. But the left's hatred of the right is a more powerful force than the reality of their policies, and so they will continue to indulge their cognitive dissonance, and continue to support an agenda that has already destroyed their only independent voice...
The company, which was founded in 2004, never found a substantial audience or sound financial footing. It filed for bankruptcy protection in 2006, but managed to stay on the air at that time. The network churned through several owners and several attempted reinventions, with little to show for it.
“The fact of the matter was, it was always a very challenging business proposition, and it never had the right management,” said Sam Seder, who hosted programs on Air America until last year.
The headwinds were enormous, he said, adding, “Radio is a dying industry.”
Maybe. Although I don't know if Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin would share that sentiment...
But why, in a nation that has more registered Democrats than Republicans, was a network that catered to their ideological sympathies unable to find its "footing ? Three thoughts:
-liberals make terrible businessmen. Espousing a worldview that states corporations are evil and that profits are shameful makes it hard to...run a successful corporation or turn a profit, two minor keys to actually, you know - staying in business
-Air America was angry liberalism. I tuned into it on occasion, and heard angry, vicious rants that would have forced right-wing commentators off the air. And while angry liberals do seem to get a lot of the air/press/blog exposure, they do not make up the majority of the left; instead, many of these Democratic loyalists see themselves as higher-class intellectual elites who have no professed interest in a spitting contest. So where would an liberal elitist turn to hear their own sympathies reflected back upon them...?
-...why, NPR, of course! That home for soft-spoken liberal chat, where everyone is on the same page, where Terry Gross can host a show with the same stale upper-crust liberals repeating the same mantras over and over and entitle it "Fresh Air"! All supplied with interludes of classical music, authentic scratchy blues, and pro-forma Israel-bashing.
So we have the liberal audience split between two radio outlets, Air America and NPR. And yet, NPR remains on the air while Air America has withered and died. What's the key difference in their business models? Why, NPR is supported by taxpayer dollars, while Air America had to scrap for private-sector funding!
Realistically, could NPR survive with its current format without a government subsidy? Unlikely, based on their overall miserable ratings nationwide (not dissimilar to Air America's). And yet, one may say that they knocked a competitor off the air by dint of the fact they received government funds to continue while the alternative liberal voice did not.
In theory, Air America fans (and ownership) should be screaming bloody murder at this point about a government-subsidized radio station running them out of business. But they can't; it would involve them opening their eyes and realizing that everything they support - taxpayer bailouts, stimulus packages, government-run healthcare - will have the same chilling effect on these industries as NPR had on theirs.
This should be a rallying point for liberals and conservatives to join forces and stop spending taxpayer monies on public radio. But the left's hatred of the right is a more powerful force than the reality of their policies, and so they will continue to indulge their cognitive dissonance, and continue to support an agenda that has already destroyed their only independent voice...
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Obama Complains: Not Enough Good Press from the New York Times!
You always hurt those closest to you, especially when you are lashing out in frustration and anger...
And who loves Barack Obama more than the New York Times? They smeared John McCain, killed negative stories about Obama's anti-American cohorts, published a few warped polls, and helped push his radical agenda upon the American people.
But not hard enough, apparently. From last week's New York Times, buried at the end of a puff-piece about Harry Reid and his fight to socialize medicine, we hear from Obama:
“Well, if you’ve got insurance companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars scaring the daylights out of people into thinking that somehow this is a government takeover of health care, that it’s unpaid for, that it means huge new taxes on them, that it’s going to mean higher premiums — if that’s the information you’re getting, shoot, I’d be against it, too,” ...
“Once this thing is passed and signed, then suddenly The New York Times and other newspapers are going to have a big article saying what does this mean for you, and people will take a look at it and say, ‘You know what, this is a lot better deal than I thought.’
OK. Stop right there. Is Obama complaining that the NYT has not carried enough water for him already? Or does he expect nothing but uncritical praise for his initiatives, lest you fall into the "FOX-hole" of "opinion journalism"?
And does he really think that the average American is going to pick up the New York Times, forget about all of their inherent biases and prior poor reporting, and say "Wow! If the Times says this is a good thing, then heck - I'm all for it!"?
And does he really think that anyone outside of the Upper West Side of Manhattan even reads the New York Times anymore? Hey, I commute from Jersey every day, and there might be 10 people on the bus reading the newspaper - and 9 of them are reading the Wall Street Journal. Seriously.
Obviously Obama reads the Times, and he's keeping score. And it seems like the folks on the editorial page know it, as today's piece plays the role of fawning sycophant (" A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people") to Obama's deluded beliefs:
To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year...
Obama nods. "Good girl!", he says to a paws-up Gail Collins. "Now beg for a treat...."
And who loves Barack Obama more than the New York Times? They smeared John McCain, killed negative stories about Obama's anti-American cohorts, published a few warped polls, and helped push his radical agenda upon the American people.
But not hard enough, apparently. From last week's New York Times, buried at the end of a puff-piece about Harry Reid and his fight to socialize medicine, we hear from Obama:
“Well, if you’ve got insurance companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars scaring the daylights out of people into thinking that somehow this is a government takeover of health care, that it’s unpaid for, that it means huge new taxes on them, that it’s going to mean higher premiums — if that’s the information you’re getting, shoot, I’d be against it, too,” ...
“Once this thing is passed and signed, then suddenly The New York Times and other newspapers are going to have a big article saying what does this mean for you, and people will take a look at it and say, ‘You know what, this is a lot better deal than I thought.’
OK. Stop right there. Is Obama complaining that the NYT has not carried enough water for him already? Or does he expect nothing but uncritical praise for his initiatives, lest you fall into the "FOX-hole" of "opinion journalism"?
And does he really think that the average American is going to pick up the New York Times, forget about all of their inherent biases and prior poor reporting, and say "Wow! If the Times says this is a good thing, then heck - I'm all for it!"?
And does he really think that anyone outside of the Upper West Side of Manhattan even reads the New York Times anymore? Hey, I commute from Jersey every day, and there might be 10 people on the bus reading the newspaper - and 9 of them are reading the Wall Street Journal. Seriously.
Obviously Obama reads the Times, and he's keeping score. And it seems like the folks on the editorial page know it, as today's piece plays the role of fawning sycophant (" A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people") to Obama's deluded beliefs:
To our minds, it is not remotely a verdict on Mr. Obama’s presidency, nor does it amount to a national referendum on health care reform — even though it has upended the effort to pass a reform bill, which Mr. Obama made the centerpiece of his first year...
Obama nods. "Good girl!", he says to a paws-up Gail Collins. "Now beg for a treat...."
Obama: Americans Too Stupid To See My Greatness
Sorry, that's the only way I can interpret this statement he made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday:
The president said he made a mistake in assuming that if he focused on policy decisions, the American people would understand the reasoning behind them.
"That I do think is a mistake of mine," Obama said. "I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."
So the problem is not with our overmatched president or an agenda the American people find revolting, the problem is with the American people themselves, who he assumed were at least smart enough to understand that he was their intellectual better!
Sigh...so now he has to waste time explaining things to us troglodytes:
"If there's one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values..."
Like after the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack; when it took you 72 hours to acknowledge that anything had occurred at all, because you were so busy getting stuff done...on the golf course.
CBS News, hardly a right-wing partisan outfit, gives lie to Obama's assertion that he hasn't communicated enough:
But despite that sentiment, Obama didn't seem to be at a loss for communication in his first year in the White House. According to CBS News, he held 42 news conferences, gave 158 interviews and made 411 speeches and remarks. That included 52 addresses or statements on health-care reform efforts alone. And the number of interviews was far more than any of his recent predecessors during the first year of their terms.
Seems like Obama is falling under the spell of those who somehow claim that only a little "more cowbell" would sell the rubes on the snake oil being peddled by the Democrats. Once again, Obama refuses to question any of his policies; his only move in the face of Scott Brown's victory appears to be redesigning his selling strategy.
And thus, in his first "post-Brown" interview, his attempt to appear "humbled" falls short, and only exposes his arrogance and continued contempt for the American people. Men with no capacity for self-reflection never change; therefore expect minimal adjustments in the Obama administration, save for some window dressing.
And at the end of the day, like Hitler raging in his bunker against the Jews, Obama returns to ranting against his own personal bogeyman, and appears as connected to reality in his bunker as the Fuhrer did in his....
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin says it succinctly:
He doesn’t get it. Like an American tourist overseas, he’s just going to say it slower and louder so the local rubes will finally understand...
The president said he made a mistake in assuming that if he focused on policy decisions, the American people would understand the reasoning behind them.
"That I do think is a mistake of mine," Obama said. "I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we're making a good rational decision here, then people will get it."
So the problem is not with our overmatched president or an agenda the American people find revolting, the problem is with the American people themselves, who he assumed were at least smart enough to understand that he was their intellectual better!
Sigh...so now he has to waste time explaining things to us troglodytes:
"If there's one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values..."
Like after the attempted Christmas day terrorist attack; when it took you 72 hours to acknowledge that anything had occurred at all, because you were so busy getting stuff done...on the golf course.
CBS News, hardly a right-wing partisan outfit, gives lie to Obama's assertion that he hasn't communicated enough:
But despite that sentiment, Obama didn't seem to be at a loss for communication in his first year in the White House. According to CBS News, he held 42 news conferences, gave 158 interviews and made 411 speeches and remarks. That included 52 addresses or statements on health-care reform efforts alone. And the number of interviews was far more than any of his recent predecessors during the first year of their terms.
Seems like Obama is falling under the spell of those who somehow claim that only a little "more cowbell" would sell the rubes on the snake oil being peddled by the Democrats. Once again, Obama refuses to question any of his policies; his only move in the face of Scott Brown's victory appears to be redesigning his selling strategy.
And thus, in his first "post-Brown" interview, his attempt to appear "humbled" falls short, and only exposes his arrogance and continued contempt for the American people. Men with no capacity for self-reflection never change; therefore expect minimal adjustments in the Obama administration, save for some window dressing.
And at the end of the day, like Hitler raging in his bunker against the Jews, Obama returns to ranting against his own personal bogeyman, and appears as connected to reality in his bunker as the Fuhrer did in his....
UPDATE: Jennifer Rubin says it succinctly:
He doesn’t get it. Like an American tourist overseas, he’s just going to say it slower and louder so the local rubes will finally understand...
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Barack Obama Blames Bush for the Massachusetts Massacre!
You hear about that special election in Massachusetts yesterday? You know, the one where Republican Scott Brown won a seat in a deep-blue state that had been held by Democrats for the last half-century? The one where the winning candidate ran against the entire Obama program - from health care reform to tax increases?
Yeah, that one. Somebody better tell the president, because it seems as if he slept thru the last three weeks:
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
In other words: Don't blame me that every blue state in the nation is turning red one-by-one...it's George Bush's fault!
If he really believes what he's saying, that's scary, and does not bode well for the future of the Democratic party, the president, or the country. But then again, he's an ideologue, not a politician.
If he doesn't believe what he's saying, then he has a really low opinion of the intelligence of his fellow Americans. But then again, he's a liberal elitist, so this would be par for the course.
Either way...simply unbelievable.
Yeah, that one. Somebody better tell the president, because it seems as if he slept thru the last three weeks:
"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."
In other words: Don't blame me that every blue state in the nation is turning red one-by-one...it's George Bush's fault!
If he really believes what he's saying, that's scary, and does not bode well for the future of the Democratic party, the president, or the country. But then again, he's an ideologue, not a politician.
If he doesn't believe what he's saying, then he has a really low opinion of the intelligence of his fellow Americans. But then again, he's a liberal elitist, so this would be par for the course.
Either way...simply unbelievable.
Conservatism Comes To New Jersey!
While we are all (justifiably) celebrating the victory of Senator-elect Scott Brown in Massachusetts last night, let's not forget that yesterday we saw the swearing in of Republican governor Chris Christie in New Jersey. And Christie is not screwing around; he's slamming the brakes on the madness and corruption while trying to set the state...right:
In his first news conference as governor, Chris Christie signed eight executive orders which ranged from making pay to play rules apply to unions and suspending for 90 days new state rules and regulations. He also disclosed that the Corzine administration had figures showing the state’s anticipated cash flow is $1 million less that what Corzine publicly acknowledged...The governor also said the Corzine crowd moved the $121 million to the so-called distressed cities via wire transfer before Christie took the oath of office so he couldn’t stop it.
Thieving crooks to the end, but I don't hear Christie whining about it a la Barack Obama.
And Christie's first show across the bow of the teacher's union is....more like a nuke:
New Jersey Gov.-elect Christopher J. Christie nominated school-choice advocate Bret Schundler yesterday to head his education department, sending his strongest policy and political message yet with a Cabinet appointment.
The former Jersey City mayor has long-supported alternative education programs such as vouchers and school choice, as well as the less controversial charter schools.
The NJEA argues that increased government support of charter schools and other alternatives would divert funds from public schools, weakening them. It ran television ads and sent literature attacking Christie's positions during the campaign, which he referenced yesterday.
When asked at a Statehouse news conference what sort of message the Schundler selection sent to the teachers union, Christie said, "I don't think the appointment of Bret Schundler sends any signal to the NJEA. The election of Chris Christie sends a message to the NJEA."
How "controversial" are Schundler's positions to those outside the NJEA? Let's ask Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D, and a rising star):
"We are in lockstep with the governor" on education, said Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who presides over the state's largest city. "We are going to support our public schools. We're going to create high levels of accountability"
Maybe Baracky can sit at Christie's knee and learn the finer art of bi-partisanship, one which Christie has been practicing since day one:
Gov.-elect Chris Christie is to begin introducing his cabinet today by announcing Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow as the state's next attorney general, according to an official familiar with Christie's decision...
....A former ranking federal prosecutor, Dow worked with Christie in the U.S. Attorney's Office. By introducing Dow before any other cabinet member, Christie is underscoring his own background in law enforcement and the emphasis he plans to place on it during his term. Those familiar with the decision-making process also say the nomination of Dow, a registered Democrat, is meant to send the clear signal that Christie, a Republican, cares little for partisan labels, but rather gravitates toward effectiveness.
Tough on spending. Tough on crime. Tough on the unions. Party label be damned.
That is conservatism, Jersey-style!
In his first news conference as governor, Chris Christie signed eight executive orders which ranged from making pay to play rules apply to unions and suspending for 90 days new state rules and regulations. He also disclosed that the Corzine administration had figures showing the state’s anticipated cash flow is $1 million less that what Corzine publicly acknowledged...The governor also said the Corzine crowd moved the $121 million to the so-called distressed cities via wire transfer before Christie took the oath of office so he couldn’t stop it.
Thieving crooks to the end, but I don't hear Christie whining about it a la Barack Obama.
And Christie's first show across the bow of the teacher's union is....more like a nuke:
New Jersey Gov.-elect Christopher J. Christie nominated school-choice advocate Bret Schundler yesterday to head his education department, sending his strongest policy and political message yet with a Cabinet appointment.
The former Jersey City mayor has long-supported alternative education programs such as vouchers and school choice, as well as the less controversial charter schools.
The NJEA argues that increased government support of charter schools and other alternatives would divert funds from public schools, weakening them. It ran television ads and sent literature attacking Christie's positions during the campaign, which he referenced yesterday.
When asked at a Statehouse news conference what sort of message the Schundler selection sent to the teachers union, Christie said, "I don't think the appointment of Bret Schundler sends any signal to the NJEA. The election of Chris Christie sends a message to the NJEA."
How "controversial" are Schundler's positions to those outside the NJEA? Let's ask Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D, and a rising star):
"We are in lockstep with the governor" on education, said Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who presides over the state's largest city. "We are going to support our public schools. We're going to create high levels of accountability"
Maybe Baracky can sit at Christie's knee and learn the finer art of bi-partisanship, one which Christie has been practicing since day one:
Gov.-elect Chris Christie is to begin introducing his cabinet today by announcing Essex County Prosecutor Paula Dow as the state's next attorney general, according to an official familiar with Christie's decision...
....A former ranking federal prosecutor, Dow worked with Christie in the U.S. Attorney's Office. By introducing Dow before any other cabinet member, Christie is underscoring his own background in law enforcement and the emphasis he plans to place on it during his term. Those familiar with the decision-making process also say the nomination of Dow, a registered Democrat, is meant to send the clear signal that Christie, a Republican, cares little for partisan labels, but rather gravitates toward effectiveness.
Tough on spending. Tough on crime. Tough on the unions. Party label be damned.
That is conservatism, Jersey-style!
Barney Frank Feels "The Brown Effect"
Last night, at Scott Brown headquarters, as the results were coming in:
The new chant here, and it's a gem: "Barney's next!"
Seems like Barney got the message:
I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate.
I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened.
Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process....
Sweating much, fat man?
The new chant here, and it's a gem: "Barney's next!"
Seems like Barney got the message:
I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate.
I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened.
Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process....
Sweating much, fat man?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Liberal Bile Runneth Over...
Over at Kos, the impotent rage of denied children is in full swing:
Assuming these results hold, we will now have our first true teabagger senator -- and it didn't have to happen. Look for Senator Scott Brown to be in the Senate for only three years, but to use that as a launching pad of one unpleasant sort or another.
The "Teabagger" Senator....how long until Al Franken uses it on the Senate floor?
Assuming these results hold, we will now have our first true teabagger senator -- and it didn't have to happen. Look for Senator Scott Brown to be in the Senate for only three years, but to use that as a launching pad of one unpleasant sort or another.
The "Teabagger" Senator....how long until Al Franken uses it on the Senate floor?
Scott Brown winning the small towns...
....this is how it begins:
Coakley won Sudburry 51-48. Obama won here, 6,392 votes to 3,583 votes, 64.4 percent to 35.6 percent.
More:
Nantucket County
2008: Obama 4,059 McCain 1,863
2010: Coakley 2,139 Brown 2,032
A reader who has seen the results for a reliably Democratic precinct in Worcester has him winning with 50 percent turnout.
Obama carried Falmouth by about 4,200 votes, with about 60 percent. Tonight Brown carried it, 53-47.
This is how Christie took Jersey - town by town, eaking out a small win where Obama had previously dominated, and clearing huge margins in Republican strongholds.
Christie won Jersey by 4. I'm calling this one for Brown by about 4.5......
Coakley won Sudburry 51-48. Obama won here, 6,392 votes to 3,583 votes, 64.4 percent to 35.6 percent.
More:
Nantucket County
2008: Obama 4,059 McCain 1,863
2010: Coakley 2,139 Brown 2,032
A reader who has seen the results for a reliably Democratic precinct in Worcester has him winning with 50 percent turnout.
Obama carried Falmouth by about 4,200 votes, with about 60 percent. Tonight Brown carried it, 53-47.
This is how Christie took Jersey - town by town, eaking out a small win where Obama had previously dominated, and clearing huge margins in Republican strongholds.
Christie won Jersey by 4. I'm calling this one for Brown by about 4.5......
Coakley's Final Rally...If You Can Call It That....
...the final stop on her itinerary today? Shaking hands at the Boston Public Library. How typically....liberal.
So here's a pic of the crowd that rallied to meet their queen just over one hour ago:
What did she expect - supporters to stand out in the cold to shake hands? That's a Scott Brown kind of thing! Folks in pickup trucks may do that, but Prius drivers know better than to brave the elements!
This does not bode well for her turnout...but I suppose she knows that already....
So here's a pic of the crowd that rallied to meet their queen just over one hour ago:
What did she expect - supporters to stand out in the cold to shake hands? That's a Scott Brown kind of thing! Folks in pickup trucks may do that, but Prius drivers know better than to brave the elements!
This does not bode well for her turnout...but I suppose she knows that already....
No Exit Polls in Massachusetts Today...
....and I am not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing....
I'm feeling pretty confident, based on anecdotal evidence and parallels to the New Jersey governor's race, that the Democrats are going to get their clock cleaned when all is said and done tonight (Disclaimer: In Massachusetts, a Brown win by 2 can be considered a "clock-cleaning"). But without exit polls - no one thought the race would be competitive, no one thought they would be needed - will the Democrats get the message?
The Dems are in full damage-control/bullspit spin mode right now - Martha was a bad campaigner, Brown was "clever", the issues were local....you name it, anything to avoid stating the obvious: This is a blue-state revolt against a government that has gone too far.
With exit polling, it might be a bit harder for the Democrats to turn to their narcissistic narcotic of "it's got nothing to do with us". Hearsay evidence from Massachusetts shows that even Democrats are voting Brown in droves; faced with this information in black and white, could the Democrats continue to lie to themselves (or be lied to by Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi)? Would they be forced, in the presence of data showing overwhelming opposition to their agenda even in a friendly state, to rethink their strategies and vision for governing?
We'll never know. Instead, bet on those bullspit excuses ruling the day, and for the Democrats to stay in denial and return to business as usual on the 20th. Will this lead to even greater voter anger next November? Hell yeah, and may even give the Republicans control of the House and Senate once more.
But there's a lot of damage the Dems can do in the interim...
I'm feeling pretty confident, based on anecdotal evidence and parallels to the New Jersey governor's race, that the Democrats are going to get their clock cleaned when all is said and done tonight (Disclaimer: In Massachusetts, a Brown win by 2 can be considered a "clock-cleaning"). But without exit polls - no one thought the race would be competitive, no one thought they would be needed - will the Democrats get the message?
The Dems are in full damage-control/bullspit spin mode right now - Martha was a bad campaigner, Brown was "clever", the issues were local....you name it, anything to avoid stating the obvious: This is a blue-state revolt against a government that has gone too far.
With exit polling, it might be a bit harder for the Democrats to turn to their narcissistic narcotic of "it's got nothing to do with us". Hearsay evidence from Massachusetts shows that even Democrats are voting Brown in droves; faced with this information in black and white, could the Democrats continue to lie to themselves (or be lied to by Rahm Emmanuel and Nancy Pelosi)? Would they be forced, in the presence of data showing overwhelming opposition to their agenda even in a friendly state, to rethink their strategies and vision for governing?
We'll never know. Instead, bet on those bullspit excuses ruling the day, and for the Democrats to stay in denial and return to business as usual on the 20th. Will this lead to even greater voter anger next November? Hell yeah, and may even give the Republicans control of the House and Senate once more.
But there's a lot of damage the Dems can do in the interim...
Massachusetts Turnout Report #2: Where's The Democratic Machine?
A report from the ground:
..I vote and live in Charlestown a middle-class Irish section of Boston.I can tell you that the Menino (and Capuano) machine was nowhere to be found this morning.Da Mayor had hundreds of folks out during the presidential election last year and his own race this year. This time around? No one. There were no Coakley volunteers anywhere near Charlestown including the polling places.
In New Jersey, we feared and dreaded the crooked Corzine/Democratic machine would storm the streets on election day. I wrote this quickie post as I was live-blogging election day/New Jersey in November, at almost the same point in the day: Where Are The Democratic Hordes? Very similar to what you see reported above....
Wait for a Boston version of this Jersey excuse later today
The Democrats - especially in Newark, where turnout has been extremely light - are now claiming that they represent "working communities" where folks will most likely vote after 5PM.
Maybe, but that's assuming that Republicans don't work...
Christie won Jersey (with its 600K+ Democratic enrollment advantage) by 4%. Will Scott Brown best that? Hey, waves get bigger as they get closer to shore....
..I vote and live in Charlestown a middle-class Irish section of Boston.I can tell you that the Menino (and Capuano) machine was nowhere to be found this morning.Da Mayor had hundreds of folks out during the presidential election last year and his own race this year. This time around? No one. There were no Coakley volunteers anywhere near Charlestown including the polling places.
In New Jersey, we feared and dreaded the crooked Corzine/Democratic machine would storm the streets on election day. I wrote this quickie post as I was live-blogging election day/New Jersey in November, at almost the same point in the day: Where Are The Democratic Hordes? Very similar to what you see reported above....
Wait for a Boston version of this Jersey excuse later today
The Democrats - especially in Newark, where turnout has been extremely light - are now claiming that they represent "working communities" where folks will most likely vote after 5PM.
Maybe, but that's assuming that Republicans don't work...
Christie won Jersey (with its 600K+ Democratic enrollment advantage) by 4%. Will Scott Brown best that? Hey, waves get bigger as they get closer to shore....
Massachusetts Turnout Report: Light in The Cities, Heavy in the Suburbs
...just like we saw in New Jersey's off-year election that delivered us from Crooked Jon Corzine and gave us Republican Chris Christie (coincidentally being sworn in today). Two early turnout tales from Massachusetts:
.... I live in Winchester, just north of the city. Long line this morning at 7:00 AM when the polls opened— approximately 40 people were waiting to vote. With the exception of the 2008 presidential election, where there were 100 or so people in line, I haven't seen early morning turnout approach this. High turnout isn't necessarily uniform across the state. One of my co-workers (who prides himself on being one of the few conservative voices in Jamaica Plain) said that turnout was exceptionally low— much lower than the presidential election. Given Jamaica Plain's strong blue tilt, it will be interesting to see how turnout evolves over the course of today.
.......I live in arguably the most liberal neighborhood in downtown Boston (I'll never forget the look on the Obama canvasser's face when he came by my apartment last year and I told him I was voting for McCain). When I got to the polls this morning, my wife and I were the only two people there other than the poll workers. In November, the line was out the door and halfway down the block.
.... I live in Winchester, just north of the city. Long line this morning at 7:00 AM when the polls opened— approximately 40 people were waiting to vote. With the exception of the 2008 presidential election, where there were 100 or so people in line, I haven't seen early morning turnout approach this. High turnout isn't necessarily uniform across the state. One of my co-workers (who prides himself on being one of the few conservative voices in Jamaica Plain) said that turnout was exceptionally low— much lower than the presidential election. Given Jamaica Plain's strong blue tilt, it will be interesting to see how turnout evolves over the course of today.
.......I live in arguably the most liberal neighborhood in downtown Boston (I'll never forget the look on the Obama canvasser's face when he came by my apartment last year and I told him I was voting for McCain). When I got to the polls this morning, my wife and I were the only two people there other than the poll workers. In November, the line was out the door and halfway down the block.
Barack Obama: American Icarus
He set off one day shy of a year ago today, with the goodwill and best wishes of a large majority of Americans serving as the wind beneath his wings. Alas, despite cautions not to fly too far to the left, he was unable to resist, leaving him with melting wings - useless to him as he plummets headfirst to earth.
Scott Brown is not necessarily the sun in this tale, but more like the guy who pulled out the linchpin, and made the whole damn assembly collapse. And as The One returns to earth, much faster than he anticipated, he cannot cast about for blame, as the fault today lies with himself:
Say you’re a Democrat (I know, but just say). There’s going to be an election that will be a national referendum — a referendum on the Obama agenda. The presence on the ground of the president himself, and the former president, Clinton, and other big guns will assure that the election is national. Which of the 50 states would you like to see that election in? Massachusetts, right? Even better, this will be the race to replace a Kennedy brother, beloved and legendary.
The scenario couldn’t be any better for the Democrats.And yet they may lose. That, friends, is shocking.
I mean, the race is not in Arizona, which is a Republican state, by and large. It’s not in Missouri or Ohio, both of which are swing swates. It’s not in New Jersey — where a Republican was just elected governor — which is a pretty staunchly blue state. It’s in Massachusetts, a blue-blue-blue state. The only state that McGovern won. The state of Dukakis, John Kerry, Barney Frank, the Kennedys .
And by the time the polls close today, the state of Scott Brown, Republican representative of the state of Massachusetts, sent to make sure the bird named Obama stays grounded...
Scott Brown is not necessarily the sun in this tale, but more like the guy who pulled out the linchpin, and made the whole damn assembly collapse. And as The One returns to earth, much faster than he anticipated, he cannot cast about for blame, as the fault today lies with himself:
Say you’re a Democrat (I know, but just say). There’s going to be an election that will be a national referendum — a referendum on the Obama agenda. The presence on the ground of the president himself, and the former president, Clinton, and other big guns will assure that the election is national. Which of the 50 states would you like to see that election in? Massachusetts, right? Even better, this will be the race to replace a Kennedy brother, beloved and legendary.
The scenario couldn’t be any better for the Democrats.And yet they may lose. That, friends, is shocking.
I mean, the race is not in Arizona, which is a Republican state, by and large. It’s not in Missouri or Ohio, both of which are swing swates. It’s not in New Jersey — where a Republican was just elected governor — which is a pretty staunchly blue state. It’s in Massachusetts, a blue-blue-blue state. The only state that McGovern won. The state of Dukakis, John Kerry, Barney Frank, the Kennedys .
And by the time the polls close today, the state of Scott Brown, Republican representative of the state of Massachusetts, sent to make sure the bird named Obama stays grounded...