16
Aug
Gene Simmons, you know the guy:
He just tweeted me this:
Seems kinda sure about that.
22
Mar
That’s not my poll, but it’s a dead-on appropriate question. Obama says it’s about the intended genocide Khadafi threatened. Well, that’s been going on unabated in Yemen, Sudan, and several parts of Africa. What’s so special about Libyans that other Africans don’t merit?
When Bush citied weapons of mass destruction and known threats coming from Iraq, a good chunk of the media claimed it was all about the oil. Libya has provided a lot more oil than Iraq ever did and so far, best I can tell, not one single person on MSNBC or CNN has questioned Obama about his intent regarding Libya. In fact, CNN has gone to more trouble to point out this action is nothing like Iraq. Attacking two genocidal dictators of oil rich nations is merely a coincidence according to CNN. What Bush did was bad, what Obama did justified. Only difference was the one Bush took out was attacking other countries repeatedly, the one Obama took out was not.
Check that, another difference was one country was threatening us with weapons of mass destruction, and had used them against others. The other was not.
Check that again, one had known terrorist organizations thriving and operating from their country, the other claims to be under attack from those terrorist organizations and had recently assisted us in targeting terrorist organizations.
Check that one more time. One had committed genocide against his own people, the other threatened to.
Check that yet again, one president asked Congress for approval to attack another country, one did not.
That’s more of your change you can believe in.
Good question!
What’s that you say? I left something out? Oh yeah. How many people would have answered differently if they had known it was Sarah Palin? Be honest. So many people are so hung up on the “Sarah Palin is stupid” liberal talking point that they more often than not will react simply to the name. Quite simply, it’s the overall Obama energy policies that have us in this mess. No new nukes, attacks on the coal industry, the drilling ban in the Gulf, the drilling ban in Alaska, the moratorium off the coast of California, and his bizarre meddling in the Middle East is what has gas at the price we have now. Put it this way:
| President | Change |
| GHW Bush | -11% |
| Clinton | 31% |
| GW Bush | 15% |
| Obama | 98% |
But a lot of people won’t worry themselves about that. They’ll just tell you Sarah Palin is stupid.
13
Sep
I’m still trying to figure this all out.
John Boehner said he might play nice with Obama and support whatever tax cuts Obama wants, since it’s better than nothing. Robert Gibbs immediately attacked Boehner pointing out it was the policies of the last eight years that got us in this mess now. That reflects what Obama said in Cleveland last week as well. So, now Boehner is being attacked for saying he will possibly support Obama. Which side is the “party of No”?
The bigger problem I see here is Obama is still playing a dangerous game in my opinion. He is reacting to Bush. He’s still putting Bush in control. He’s not being Presidential. He’s saying that in order to keep what was happening eight years ago from happening again, and to assure more of what is happening now keeps happening, we need to listen to Obama and not the people who are not in charge. Now, to illustrate my point here, take this poll real quick:
[polldaddy poll=3756484]
I’m gonna bet, before this is even voted on, that 2010′s not going to rate up there terribly highly. Now, what Obama’s banking on is people will look back on, say, 2005, and think how much worse it was than now. Two immediate problems, things weren’t so bad in 2005. And, people are concerned a lot more about right now than they are some point in the past. If they’re out of a job right now, and they had a job in 2005, the man in charge right now’s just not going to fare too well. And, the message Obama keeps delivering is not that he’s going to give that person a job, it’s that that person should be happy that it’s not 2005 all over again. I just don’t think that’s working too well:
Quite frankly, until Obama gets off this bizarre obessive compulsive blame game and starts acting like a leader, he’s going to dig himself even deeper into holes he won’t be able to get out of. I personally think he’s already there.
26
Jan
A full year into Obama‘s four year term, he’s still passing the buck:
“Today’s report from C.B.O. confirms that the recession inherited from the Bush Administration continues to erode the budget’s bottom line,” said Representative John M. Spratt Jr., the Democrat of South Carolina who is chairman of the House Budget Committee.
From the start of his administration, Obama promised to cut the $1 trillion deficit he inherited in half by 2012.
President Obama’s team may well have prevented the collapse of the nation’s banking system from a crisis the president inherited,
On and on and on it goes. Can’t blame Democrats because Obama inherited this mess. Only problem with that scenario is it was the Dems, not Bush, that created the mess in the first place.
That’s what’s happened since Nancy Pelosi and the Dems took over the spending and budgeting process. The economy was cruising along in one of the longest growth periods in the history of the planet. Then thing got bumpy in 2007. The big spike around January 2009 was not the beginning of the chart, it’s the MIDDLE of the chart. Obama was part and parcel to the problem as a member of the controlling party. The mess he’s complaining about is the mess him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid created with their spending plans.
Where it gets really pathetic is Obama blaming the minority party in Congress for not allowing the Democrats in Congress to spend the money as they see fit now. That’s what this is all about. So, if the President can’t control what Congress is doing in 2009 and 2010, how was the President in 2007 to blame for what that Congress did then?
Seems kind of obvious, in-your-face kind of stuff to me. But, no one in media can see that. They just keep repeating the Democrat Holy Grail over and over and over, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Meanwhile, they lost two Governor’s races and a long-time solid blue Senate seat. Last week the 12th incumbant Democrat retired rather than face the voters again. Was that a clue that the blame game wasn’t working any more? No, they blamed those losses on, you guessed it, the economy they inherited.
And the media sang backup.
Now Obama is saying he wants to freeze federal growth after spending a trillion dollars to stimulate it. But, he’s not sure he can do that. It may not be possible due to, drum roll please, the economy he inherited.
That would be yet another campaign promise broken.
And the media will blame it on the economy he inherited.
And the Democrat losses in November will multiply.
And Obama will blame it on Bush.
And the media will back him up.
Joe Biden is embarrassed by Joe Wilson’s heckling of Obama during last night’s speech. He has every right to be.
I bet if you look close enough, if Joe Biden’s there at all, he’s giving it all he’s got. You know how I knew this video would be around? When Joe Biden opens his mouth, I know there’s a laugh to be had. I’m giving Biden the benefit of the doubt and assuming he was embarrassed by no one jumping in to give Wilson an assist. Given the Dems 2005 effort, it does look bad.
25
Aug
A fellow had this to say, among other things:
….we had already seen two tax cuts sold on massively, easily documented false pretenses; a war launched with constant innuendo about a Saddam-Osama link that was clearly false, and with claims about WMDs that were clearly shaky from the beginning and had proved to be entirely without foundation. We’d also seen vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy. Oh, and Abu Ghraib was already public knowledge.
And to hammer home his point:
Bloggers like Atrios or Kos? Again, if you read their archives what’s striking is how sane they come off compared with the “serious” voices of the time.
OK, so now six months in to a liberal’s panacea, we’ve seen at least two tax increases, with more promised via allowing those tax cuts he complains about to expire. The current President, who echoed the exact sentiments of Paul Krugman, Atrios, and Kos, is now doing exactly what Bush did in both Iraq and Afghanistan that Krugman, Atrios, and Kos have complained about. If it was so wrong and they were not a threat, why is he staying there “indefinitely”? This same president is also getting hammered on the issues of WMD’s in, you guessed it, the Axis of Evil Bush complained about that Atrios and Kos assured us were just political scare tactics. We’ve also seen, in six months, no doubt, vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy as Obama has had numerous appointments withdrawn due to legal issues, and has already reneged on several environmental promises he made while campaigning. It’s gotten the point where even Greenpeace is panning Obama. He has also expanded Bush’s wiretapping policy, set up a White House tip line, moved investigations into the domestic enforcement agency, requested expanded internet surveillance, cozied up to Cuba while distancing Israel, totally undermined our international surveillance capabilities ala Jamie Gorelick, proposed a socialized health care model apparently no one wants, completely sold out to unions, and, his first budget will have more deficit than all eight of Bush’s combined. I mean, look at this again:
I’m sure I’ve overlooked other issues.
And, what makes it even more remarkable, he’s done all that in six months. Krugman had to list all eight Bush years to get a much smaller list.
Given all that, it makes complete sense to distrust anything the Obama administration says. That’s not reflexive, it’s rational. I resent Krugman’s insinuation because in order to believe that a completely biased opinion is rational is to assume all other opinions are irrational. To pick only certain issues to justify a rational conclusion is, well, not rational. That’s biased. Let’s look closer, shall we? First, the definition of bias:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
Now, reflexive:
reflex; responsive
Now, rational:
endowed with the faculty of reason:
Now, if a person only allows one set of evidence to be presented to make the argument they’re rational, is that using reason, or, is that showing a particular tendency or inclination?
Now, the difference between me claiming I’m rational and using the same argument to show Krugman is reflexive is because I told people Obama would do these things last year. I’m not reflexive. I am rational in that I am simply re-iterating a reasoned assumption I made in the past and commenting on issues as they happen. Krugman just bitches and whines about everything Bush, even well after Bush is gone. That’s just not rational. He’s got bigger problems to deal with than prosecuting people long gone. But, he can’t do that. He’s too reflexive. Probably because the present sucks so bad.
25
Aug
Over and over and over, President Obama has reminded us that he inherited this economic mess we’ve got now.
The two chief architects of his “fiscal disaster” would be the person who decides which budgets come out of Congres on the federal side. And, on the public side, it is largely determined by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. With Congressional spending plans, it is determined whether money is infused into the economy, or, in the case of Clinton’s latter years, money is pulled out of the economy. It is the Chairman’s decisions that determine whether credit is easier to get with lower interest rates, or harder to get with higher interest rates. It has been the balance of these two factors that have driven our economy for a long time.
Those two powers that be at this time would be Nancy Pelosi, who’s Congressional spending bills have determined the money flow since 2008, and Ben Bernanke, who was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2006. Upon taking office in 2009, Obama did not challenge Pelosi’s leadership role. That meant a continuation of the economic policies since 2008. As of today, Obama is re-appointing Ben Bernanke as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. That means a continuation of the policies of the Federal Reserve since 2006.
Which is it? If he inherited a fiscal mess, then he should be doing something about getting the people who created the mess he inherited out of the way, I would think.
That’s right, he’s blaming it all on Bush. The person who can suggest a budget, but can not vote on it.
Folks, this is pure BS. The next time he complains about the economy he inherited, ask him why he didn’t do one single thing about the people that created that mess.
Sometimes it gets real hard to figure this country out. Sometimes it doesn’t. The Gallup Poll started tracking the abortion issue in 1995. At the time, we had a pro-choice president. From 2001 until 2009, we had a very pro-life president. Since then, we’ve had a president who very strongly pro-choice. So, go figure this data from Gallup:
During the first pro-choice president’s term, Pro-choice dropped 8%. During the pro-life president’s term, pro-choice increased 2%. During the current pro-choice president’s term, pro-choice has dropped 8% already.
Maybe there’s something else out there affecting this issue, I don’t know. I don’t really follow it all that much. I just find it interesting that even on a hot topic such as abortion, people appear to change their opinions just to reject “authority”.
The story in this is that for the first time since Gallup has been doing this poll, more people are pro-life than pro-choice. That kind of surprises me as well.
13
Jan
Saw this headline courtesy of Zogby:
Obama Enjoys 60% Favorable Ratings and Modest Expectations For A Quick Economic Recovery
It came with this chart among others:
| Very Favorable | Somewhat Favorable | Somewhat Unfavorable | Very Unfavorable | Not Sure | |
| Obama | 41% | 19% | 15% | 22% | 4% |
| Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding | |||||
Sixty percent’s pretty dang good. However, I am kind of curious. When George HW Bush won in 2000, he was accused of stealing the election because Al Gore got more popular votes and Florida was so close they had to fling lawsuits all over the place to get it cleared up. By the time Bush took office, the damage was done. His popularity when he took office was only in the upper 50′s.
Due to an extreme event, his popularity would soar. Within a couple of years, it would slowly decline to what it was when he took office. Over time, it would drop to horrendous figures that made most major media giddy.
Contrasting that to Obama taking office as the annointed one of all media, it surprises me his numbers are not much higher than Bush’s were. I’m tellin ya’, the reality of Obama is not what the media is telling you. Unless he has some very big successes in very short order, things could get real ugly real quick. Of course, it should be noted that the most unpopularly elected president was Bill Clinton, who entered office at 49%. He actually left higher than he got elected with. However, people liked Congress then too.
