Biden said it
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/29/biden-voters-should-blame-obama-not-bush-for-economy
Speaking truth to old-stream media bias.
A serious plan to replace Obamacare
President Obama's latest jobs speech was like watching the rerun of a bad horror movie. He repeatedly repackages his failed Keynesian economic policies into the next "big" jobs program. In response, our economy crumbles around us. President Obama is clearly trapped in the Keynesian Twilight Zone.
If you question Obama then you're smearing him. This site made it to Fight the Smears at least 27 times and we back up everything here with facts, substantiated with sources and documents. We provide plenty of opinion based on those facts.Waznmentobe looks into who is behind the newest version of Obama's Orwellian obsession and, what a surprise, it's Obama for America, also known as Organizing for America, or Obama's 'civilian army' of propagandizing agitators. Last fall we had a lot of fun, here and at the A-C page using the progs' own tools against them for the opposition by using the OfA website to help facilitate the 2010 electoral shellacking of the left. It was glorious. Here's what Whoopie found about OfA:
The site, a compendium of claims with rebuttals by the president's team, is a throwback to the 2008 campaign's Fight the Smears site.
AttackWatch lists a "news feed" where people can click over to find analyses from liberal groups like Media Matters and Think Progress that offer defenses of the president's position. RTWT
Here is the poop on Obama for America (aka: BarackObama.com) the official re-election campaign website.Whoopie also notes what a cheesy, poorly put together, cheap looking website that "Attack Watch" is. You can see for yourself without actually going there (they have cookies to track you after you leave the AW site) by visiting Lady Liberty who graciously posted some screen shots to spare us the trouble.
Presented by the Federal Election Commission
Committee ID: C00431445
OBAMA FOR AMERICA
PO BOX 8102
CHICAGO, IL 60680
Treasurer Name: NESBITT, MARTIN H
Committee Designation: P (PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE OF A CANDIDATE)
Committee Type: PRESIDENTIAL
Candidate State: Presidential Candidate
Link To: OBAMA, BARACK
And here is a link showing which companies, unions and organizations who contributed money for this website.
Say Anything's Rob Port wrote:This sounds eerily familiar to the Obama Truth Squad we had here in St. Louis.
Apparently, the Orwellian overtones of this sort of thing haven't quite sunk in with Obama and his people. He's asking us to put our ears to our neighbor's keyholes and report that which is inconvenient for the political agenda of the President. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, it should. It's not all that far from there toward targeting critics for intimidation. RTWTRob also posted this great video, the "Attack Watch Commercial": Awesome.
It's rather disgusting and very much in line with the tactics used by the Stasi (Ministry for State Security) of East Germany. Make no mistake folks, this is Obama compiling an enemies list, but it's not one composed of Political or media enemies as in the past. This one includes you and me. Average citizens. He is essentially saying to you or anyone else, 'hey, did you hear something about me? Did someone attack me? Go ahead, tell me about it.' It's insidious on a whole new level – even for this Chicago Thug-in-Chief. I went through the site quite thoroughly and I can flat-out say with 100% certitude that it is nothing more than a propaganda machine. This is of course, a foregone conclusion as we already knew just looking at its Orwellian 1984 color scheme that it would be. What floors me about it is the blatant fact this thing is meant to pit people against each other; neighbor vs neighbor, co-worker vs co-worker and so on. It's meant to induce paranoia about who is listening to you and why they are listening. The part that is already backfiring, as Twitter is showing us already, is that WE DON'T CARE. We've had enough. RTWTI had a really hard time resisting the urge to paste the Lady's whole post here because it is so awesome, be sure not to miss it. And she's right, we don't care and we have had more than enough of this crap to last a lifetime.
Sarah IS the ONE liberals have been waiting for!
I made the point the other day that Sarah Palin's speech in Indianola, Iowa, went to the core of the Tea Party movement:
I don't know what the future holds for Palin, whether she will be a candidate or just a powerful voice against crony capitalism. I also don't know whether the two are compatible. I am not convinced that even the Republican electorate is ready for the message. That's for another day.
What I do know is that in attacking crony capitalism, Palin gave voice to those of us who refuse to buy into the Democratic narrative that the answer to Democratic union pandering is Republican big business pandering. It's not about them, it's about us.
Pigs fly today. Anand Giridharadas at The NY Times picks up on this theme, recognizing that in vilifying Palin liberals have closed their minds to Palin's ideas, which are liberal (in the traditional sense, not the modern Democratic Party sense):
Ms. Palin's third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.
Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin's having said them.
A severe injustice has been perpetrated on the American people not by the vile derangement directed at Palin by the mainstream media, left-blogosphere and establishment conservatives, but by the closing of their collective minds.
The author also hints at possible things to come:
Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there?
The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market.
What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn't choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time.
Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism.
On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity.
No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting.
This probably will not signal a sea change in media coverage of Palin, or among conservative pundits. Liberals and conservatives alike have been played for fools by their media and their parties.
But hopefully it is a starting point of the recognition that Palin stands alone among major political figures in the United States seeking a transformation of the country consistent with its founding principles, not against them, principles which used to appeal to liberals. Palin's anti-statist anti-crony capitalism message has the power to reach across parties, which is why that message gets buried in Palin Derangement Syndrome.
With Palin, liberals will not get their nanny state, but that nanny state is disappearing by economic necessity anyway. But they also will not get a crushing corporatist/unionist state serving the interests of the politically well-connected, which is where we are heading rapidly, and there is no offender worse than Barack Obama.
Oddly enough, Sarah Palin may be the one liberals have been waiting for.
Perry just said what I've been saying for 3 years... Why does Obama want to keep us fighting in Afghanistan?
Perry surprised me (have I not been paying enough attention?) by essentially arguing, near the end of the debate, that we should remove our troops from Afghanistan now. By the way, the audience was quite generous with its cheers at any suggestion that we should have a more isolationist foreign policy.
Liberal certitudes continue to dissolve, the most recent solvent being a robust new defense of a 1905 Supreme Court decision that liberals have long reviled — and misrepresented. To understand why the court correctly decided Lochner v. New York and why this is relevant to current arguments, read David E. Bernstein's "Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform."
Since the New Deal, courts have stopped defending liberty of contract and other unenumerated rights grounded in America's natural rights tradition. These are referred to by the Ninth Amendment, which explicitly protects unenumerated rights "retained by the people," and by the "privileges or immunities" and "liberty" cited in the 14th Amendment. Progressivism, Bernstein argues, is hostile to America's premise that individuals possess rights that preexist government and are not fully enumerated in the Constitution. This doctrine stands athwart liberalism's aspiration to erase constitutional limits on government's regulatory powers.
An 1895 New York law limited bakery employees to working 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. Ostensibly, this was health and safety legislation; actually, it was rent-seeking by large, unionized bakeries and the unions. Corporate bakeries supported the legislation, which burdened their small, family-owned competitors. The bakers union hoped to suppress the small, non-unionized bakeries that depended on flexible work schedules.
One such was owned by Joseph Lochner, who challenged the law, prevailing in the Supreme Court, 5 to 4. The majority said "clean and wholesome bread" does not depend on limiting workers' hours: Workers are "in no sense wards of the state," and there is no evidence that baking is an especially unhealthful profession, so the law was an unconstitutional "interference" with an unenumerated right of individuals, the liberty of contract.
The main dissent radiated progressivism's statism and paternalism: Government may limit working hours lest workers damage their "physical and mental capacity to serve the State, and to provide for those dependent upon them." In another dissent, ultimately famous and hugely influential, Oliver Wendell Holmes, whose judicial restraint often expressed his dogmatic majoritarianism, defended "the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law." He said liberty should not be construed "to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion."
Princeton's president, Woodrow Wilson, agreed, dismissing "the inalienable rights of the individual" as "nonsense" inimical to government's ability to efficiently work its progressive will. So much for the idea that one of the Constitution's primary purposes is the protection of individual rights against majority tyranny.
Progressives celebrated Holmes's gift to government of almost untrammeled police powers. He said courts should defer to economic regulations because the Constitution does not "embody a particular economic theory." Thus began liberals' distortion of Lochner as expressing the court's commitment to laissez-faire doctrine.
Actually, the decision flowed from bedrock American doctrine: The individual possesses inalienable rights — here, liberty of contract — that cannot be legislated away for casual or disreputable reasons. Hence progressives' frequent denunciations of "individualism" — allowing individual rights, particularly those of property and contract, to impede the administrative state's regulation of society, immune from judicial review.
Bernstein recounts how liberty of contract was invoked — sometimes successfully, usually not — against legislatures that declared women unsuited to practice law or limited women to working fewer hours than men. Labor unions representing male bartenders produced Michigan's law banning female bartenders.
Other laws favored by progressives defended family men from "destructive" competition with female workers who, by working outside the home, "weakened the race." A feminist correctly argued, on Lochner's natural rights grounds, that restricting women's liberty of contract regarding hours of work "amounts to confiscation of whatever amount would have been earned during the forbidden hours." In 1926, Georgia's Supreme Court cited Lochner's affirmation of liberty of contract to overturn a law prohibiting black barbers from cutting white children's hair.
Lochner was successfully invoked against laws enforcing residential segregation by race but unsuccessfully against laws banning miscegenation. Many progressives supported such laws as enabling government to regulate racial friction. And after the triumph of progressive jurisprudence during the New Deal, courts capitulated to legislatures in the name of democratic deference to what Holmes called the "dominant opinion." It became mostly futile to invoke Lochner's logic — that individual rights often trump government's powers to boss people around.
Long execrated by most law professors, Lochner is the liberals' least favorite decision because its premises pose a threat to their aspiration, which is to provide an emancipation proclamation for regulatory government. The rehabilitation of Lochner is another step in the disarmament of such thinking.
© The Washington Post Company
There you go again, blaming the drug manufacturers.
Not sure which country you live in buy as an almost absolute certainty, the cost of healthcare has increased steadily each year for at least the last 25 years....and not evenly relative to the provider cost. that speaks to the unchecked greed of drug and medical providers. entities like medicare and va services get to claim what their discount will be...you and i dont.
saying in defense of our high cost healthcare that we are better than everyone else is illogical. we do have sophisticated medical capabilities, but our ability or willingness to get an appropriate treatment is overshadowed by the greedy who push newer, higher priced drugs and procedures for their gain
On Fri Sep 9th, 2011 9:30 AM EDT indi wrote:
>Many of the nations CEOs and company spokesman are saying what Newt Gingrich
>said in the debate the other day: Obamacare isn't the right solution to the
>nation's healthcare downward spiral. In fact, these companies are
>specifically NOT hiring because of the mandates in the law.
>Myth: Healthcare is in a downward spiral
>Truth: Healthcare is quite good, the best in the USA as it has ever been, in
>fact the best in the world.
>Truth: The cost of healthcare is in an upward spiral - but then everyone
>wants quality healthcare and that costs quite a lot.
>Truth: Too many people in America want something for nothing. There should
>be a significant cost to using healthcare - period. A copay would be a good
>thing, and not a tiny copay, but something on the order of 20-35%.
>Truth: Healtcare is also expensive BECAUSE of Medicare and insurance. When
>individuals who use healthcare don't share in the cost, then providers tend
>to overcharge because they can. Over decades it spirals into huge costs.
>The real problem is that people are becoming increasingly more unhealthy.
>They don't get enough exercise and the overeat.
>The solution to the cost of healthcare is not the government taking over the
>The better solution is competition amongst health insurance providers across
>state lines (The Feds prevent that now through previous legislation).
>There are many other provisions as well: Doctor's malpractice insurance
>is ridiculously high because the lawyers always want to bring law suits
>against them. These suits should have an upper limit.
>On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM, dude wrote:
>> Increasing the size of gov is not what i would choose...but if the size
>> increases because problems of the nation are finally being recognized and
>> addressed. it is because the obama wh has targeted problems such as the
>> nations healthcare downward spiral that causes even you heartache and
>> applied a solution for which the money grubbing reps were never even
>> concerned with
>> On Thu Sep 8th, 2011 3:54 PM EDT indi wrote:
>> >Sorry, A choice between Obama and Obama is not on the table.
>> >Obama is a clown and has NO EXPERIENCE (except for being a radical
>> >Obama is a proven antagonist to free markets who is an ELITIST who thinks
>> >are his subjects.
>> >Obama is only quick on the draw when it comes to INCREASING the size of
>> >Obama is REALLY good at bringing down the economy - that's now proven.
>> >Prosperity will come as soon as Obama is out of office.
>> >On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM, dude wrote:
>> >> good questions...no basis...how about this...
>> >> would I rather have some clown without experience like Palin at the seat
>> >> the most powerful nation on earth....or
>> >> ... a proven frat boy from texas who is quick on the draw and able to
>> >> the nation down to the opposite of prosperity?
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >> *From:* indi
>> >> *Subject:* Re: Newt had the best lines from the debate
>> >> Who would you rather have:
>> >> Obama and the Dems destroying the economy, or
>> >> Any Republican doing nothing, and the economy comes back on its own
>> >> ?
>> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, dude wrote:
>> >> rammed through...with the do nothing repubs ...doing nothing good
>> >> ------------------------------
>> >> *From:* indi
>> >> Fact: MSNBC is a totally biased organization towards Democrats.
>> >> While NBC representative Brian Williams had more than his share of
>> >> biased questions, it was Williams's co-moderator, Politico editor John
>> >> Harris who laid on the snark in his attempts to bait and attack the
>> >> candidates.
>> >> Such unbalanced questioning is par-for-the-course for Republicans
>> >> competing at the national level. More often than not, they take it in
>> >> stride. Tonight, though, Newt Gingrich was having none of it as he went
>> >> full-on after Harris's attempts to insert Gingrich into a non-existent
>> >> debate about an individual mandate to purchase insurance at the national
>> >> level that Republicans simply are not having. Video and transcript
>> >> The transcript:
>> >> JOHN HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, it sounds like we have a genuine
>> >> philosophical disagreement. In Massachusetts, a mandate, almost no
>> >> uninsured—in Texas, a more limited approach, about a quarter uninsured.
>> >> Who's got the better end of this argument?
>> >> NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get
>> >> Republicans fighting each other.
>> >> (Harris laughs, audience applauds)
>> >> GINGRICH: The fact is—
>> >> HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, we've got—
>> >> GINGRICH: The fact is—
>> >> HARRIS: We've got—
>> >> GINGRICH: No, no we don't—
>> >> HARRIS: We've got a choice between the individual mandate or not.
>> >> go ahead.
>> >> * GINGRICH: You'd have, you would like to puff this up into some giant
>> >> thing. The fact is, every person up here understands Obamacare is a
>> >> disaster. It is a disaster procedurally. It was rammed through after
>> >> lost Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. It was written badly, it was
>> >> never reconciled. It can't be implemented. It is killing this economy.*
>> >> * And if this president had any concern for working Americans, he'd walk
>> >> in Thursday night and ask us to repeal it because it's a monstrosity.
>> >> person up here agrees with that.*
>> >> (Audience applauds)
>> >> And let me just say-- since I still have a little time left, let me
>> >> say—
>> >> HARRIS: Sure.
>> >> GINGRICH: I for one, and I hope all of my friends up here, going to
>> >> repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight
>> >> other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated. And all of us
>> >> committed as a team, whoever the nominee is, we are all for defeating
>> >> Obama.
Many of the nations CEOs and company spokesman are saying what Newt Gingrich said in the debate the other day: Obamacare isn't the right solution to the nation's healthcare downward spiral. In fact, these companies are specifically NOT hiring because of the mandates in the law.
Increasing the size of gov is not what i would choose...but if the size increases because problems of the nation are finally being recognized and addressed. it is because the obama wh has targeted problems such as the nations healthcare downward spiral that causes even you heartache and applied a solution for which the money grubbing reps were never even concerned with
On Thu Sep 8th, 2011 3:54 PM EDT indi wrote:
>Sorry, A choice between Obama and Obama is not on the table.
>Obama is a clown and has NO EXPERIENCE (except for being a radical leftist).
>Obama is a proven antagonist to free markets who is an ELITIST who thinks we
>are his subjects.
>Obama is only quick on the draw when it comes to INCREASING the size of
>Obama is REALLY good at bringing down the economy - that's now proven.
>Prosperity will come as soon as Obama is out of office.
>On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 3:02 PM, dude wrote:
>> good questions...no basis...how about this...
>> would I rather have some clown without experience like Palin at the seat of
>> the most powerful nation on earth....or
>> ... a proven frat boy from texas who is quick on the draw and able to pull
>> the nation down to the opposite of prosperity?
>> *From:* indi
>> *Subject:* Re: Newt had the best lines from the debate
>> Who would you rather have:
>> Obama and the Dems destroying the economy, or
>> Any Republican doing nothing, and the economy comes back on its own
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, dude wrote:
>> rammed through...with the do nothing repubs ...doing nothing good
>> *From:* indi
>> Fact: MSNBC is a totally biased organization towards Democrats.
>> While NBC representative Brian Williams had more than his share of sneering
>> biased questions, it was Williams's co-moderator, Politico editor John F.
>> Harris who laid on the snark in his attempts to bait and attack the
>> Such unbalanced questioning is par-for-the-course for Republicans
>> competing at the national level. More often than not, they take it in
>> stride. Tonight, though, Newt Gingrich was having none of it as he went
>> full-on after Harris's attempts to insert Gingrich into a non-existent
>> debate about an individual mandate to purchase insurance at the national
>> level that Republicans simply are not having. Video and transcript follow.
>> The transcript:
>> JOHN HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, it sounds like we have a genuine
>> philosophical disagreement. In Massachusetts, a mandate, almost no
>> uninsured—in Texas, a more limited approach, about a quarter uninsured.
>> Who's got the better end of this argument?
>> NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get
>> Republicans fighting each other.
>> (Harris laughs, audience applauds)
>> GINGRICH: The fact is—
>> HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, we've got—
>> GINGRICH: The fact is—
>> HARRIS: We've got—
>> GINGRICH: No, no we don't—
>> HARRIS: We've got a choice between the individual mandate or not. Anyway,
>> go ahead.
>> * GINGRICH: You'd have, you would like to puff this up into some giant
>> thing. The fact is, every person up here understands Obamacare is a
>> disaster. It is a disaster procedurally. It was rammed through after they
>> lost Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. It was written badly, it was
>> never reconciled. It can't be implemented. It is killing this economy.*
>> * And if this president had any concern for working Americans, he'd walk
>> in Thursday night and ask us to repeal it because it's a monstrosity. Every
>> person up here agrees with that.*
>> (Audience applauds)
>> And let me just say-- since I still have a little time left, let me just
>> HARRIS: Sure.
>> GINGRICH: I for one, and I hope all of my friends up here, going to
>> repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each
>> other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated. And all of us are
>> committed as a team, whoever the nominee is, we are all for defeating Barack
Solyndra reps made 20 trips to WH before $500M award...
I just read that the FBI is raiding Solyndra as we speak.
When the president unfolds his new "jobs creation" program next Thursday lets hope it doesn't boil down to pouring more money into technology that isn't ready for prime time yet. Solyndra, one of our many "investments" just filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy after you and I guaranteed it a $535 million loan earlier this year.
So there's a thousand new jobs that didn't last long. Not that a thousand jobs were a bargain at $535 mil in the first place. See the lady with the box? We could have filled it up with money and just sent her and a thousand others home. Wait, that's pretty much what we did. Except that the workers didn't get the money either.
I'm not even going to say I told you so. I admit that I naively assumed that the "stimulus" would go towards the nation's infrastructure. Bad me for assuming. But not again. People, don't let him con you again.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on you, you somanabish.
OK, this figures:A solar energy company that intends to file for bankruptcy received $535 million in backing from the federal government and has a cozy history with Democrats and the Obama administration, campaign finance records show.
Shareholders and executives of Solyndra, a green energy company producing solar panels, fundraised for and donated to the Obama administration to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
I just read that the FBI is raiding Solyndra as we speak.
A solar energy company that intends to file for bankruptcy received $535 million in backing from the federal government and has a cozy history with Democrats and the Obama administration, campaign finance records show.
Shareholders and executives of Solyndra, a green energy company producing solar panels, fundraised for and donated to the Obama administration to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Fact: MSNBC is a totally biased organization towards Democrats.
While NBC representative Brian Williams had more than his share of sneering biased questions, it was Williams's co-moderator, Politico editor John F. Harris who laid on the snark in his attempts to bait and attack the candidates.
Such unbalanced questioning is par-for-the-course for Republicans competing at the national level. More often than not, they take it in stride. Tonight, though, Newt Gingrich was having none of it as he went full-on after Harris's attempts to insert Gingrich into a non-existent debate about an individual mandate to purchase insurance at the national level that Republicans simply are not having. Video and transcript follow.
JOHN HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, it sounds like we have a genuine philosophical disagreement. In Massachusetts, a mandate, almost no uninsured—in Texas, a more limited approach, about a quarter uninsured. Who's got the better end of this argument?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I'm frankly not interested in your effort to get Republicans fighting each other.
(Harris laughs, audience applauds)
GINGRICH: The fact is—
HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, we've got—
GINGRICH: The fact is—
HARRIS: We've got—
GINGRICH: No, no we don't—
HARRIS: We've got a choice between the individual mandate or not. Anyway, go ahead.
GINGRICH: You'd have, you would like to puff this up into some giant thing. The fact is, every person up here understands Obamacare is a disaster. It is a disaster procedurally. It was rammed through after they lost Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. It was written badly, it was never reconciled. It can't be implemented. It is killing this economy.
And if this president had any concern for working Americans, he'd walk in Thursday night and ask us to repeal it because it's a monstrosity. Every person up here agrees with that.
And let me just say-- since I still have a little time left, let me just say—
GINGRICH: I for one, and I hope all of my friends up here, going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama who deserves to be defeated. And all of us are committed as a team, whoever the nominee is, we are all for defeating Barack Obama.
Best of the night last night from the debate:
"Every person up here understands ObamaCare is a disaster…..if this President had any concern for working Americans, he'd walk in Thursday night and ask us to repeal it – because it's a monstrosity. Every person up here agrees with that!"
Another home run: "…I hope all my friends up here are going to repudiate every effort of the news media to get Republicans to fight each other to protect Barack Obama, who deserves to be defeated; and all of us are committed as a team – whoever the nominee is – we are ALL for defeating Barack Obama." (Perry clapping.)
Well said, Mr. Speaker. Excellent!
The leader who was once a luminescent, inspirational force is now just a guy in a really bad spot.
His Republican rivals for 2012 have gone to town on the Labor Day weekend news of zero job growth, using the same line of attack Hillary used in 2008: Enough with the big speeches! What about some action?
Polls show that most Americans still like and trust the president; but they may no longer have faith that he's a smarty-pants who can fix the economy.
Just as Obama miscalculated in 2009 when Democrats had total control of Congress, holding out hope that G.O.P. lawmakers would come around on health care after all but three senators had refused to vote for the stimulus bill; just as he misread John Boehner this summer, clinging like a scorned lover to a dream that the speaker would drop his demanding new inamorata, the Tea Party, to strike a "grand" budget bargain, so the president once more set a trap for himself and gave Boehner the opportunity to dis him on the timing of his jobs speech this week.
Obama's re-election chances depend on painting the Republicans as disrespectful. So why would the White House act disrespectful by scheduling a speech to a joint session of Congress at the exact time when the Republicans already had a debate planned?
And why is the White House so cocky about Obama as a TV draw against quick-draw Rick Perry? As James Carville acerbically noted, given a choice between watching an Obama speech and a G.O.P. debate, "I'd watch the debate, and I'm not even a Republican."
The White House caved, of course, and moved to Thursday, because there's nothing the Republicans say that he won't eagerly meet halfway.
No. 2 on David Letterman's Top Ten List of the president's plans for Labor Day: "Pretty much whatever the Republicans tell him he can do."
On MSNBC, the anchors were wistfully listening to old F.D.R. speeches, wishing that this president had some of that fight. But Obama can't turn into F.D.R. for the campaign because he aspires to the class that F.D.R. was a traitor to; and he can't turn into Harry Truman because he lacks the common touch. He has an acquired elitism.
Read the whole thing here.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders.
Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of smog's main ingredient, in part because of the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.
The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month — and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.
The withdrawal of the proposed regulation marks the latest in a string of retreats by Obama in the face of Republican opposition. Last December, he shelved, at least until the end of 2012, his insistence that Bush-era tax cuts should no longer apply to the wealthy. Earlier this year he avoided a government shutdown by agreeing to Republican demands for budget cuts. And this summer he acceded to more than a $1 trillion in spending reductions, with more to come, as the price for an agreement to raise the nation's debt ceiling.
A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had muted praise for the White House, saying that withdrawal of the smog regulation was a good first step toward removing obstacles that are blocking business growth.
"But it is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to stopping Washington Democrats' agenda of tax hikes, more government 'stimulus' spending, and increased regulations, which are all making it harder to create more American jobs," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.
Major industry groups had lobbied hard for the White House to abandon the smog regulation, and applauded Friday's decision.
"The president's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work. EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.
Republican lawmakers have blamed what they see as excessive regulations backed by the Obama administration for some of the country's economic woes, and House Republicans pledged this week to try to block four environmental regulations, including the one on some pollution standards, when they return after Labor Day.
But perhaps more than some of the other regulations under attack, the ground-level ozone standard is most closely associated with public health — something the president said he wouldn't compromise in his regulatory review. Ozone is the main ingredient in smog, which is a powerful lung irritant that occasionally forces cancellation of school recesses, and causes asthma and other lung ailments.
Criticism from environmentalists, a core Obama constituency, was swift following the White House announcement.
"The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe," said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters. "This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health."
In his statement, the president said that withdrawing the regulation did not reflect a weakening of his commitment to protecting public health and the environment.
"I will continue to stand with the hardworking men and women at the EPA as they strive every day to hold polluters accountable and protect our families from harmful pollution," he said.
The decision mirrors one made by Obama's predecessor, President George W. Bush. EPA scientists had recommended a stricter standard to better protect public health. Bush personally intervened after hearing complaints from electric utilities and other affected industries. His EPA set a standard of 75 parts per billion, stricter than one adopted in 1997, but not as strong as federal scientists said was needed to protect public health.
The EPA under Obama proposed in January 2010 a range for the concentration of ground-level ozone allowed in the air — from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. That's about equal to a single tennis ball in an Olympic-size swimming pool full of tennis balls.
Jackson, Obama's environmental chief, said at the time that "using the best science to strengthen these standards is a long overdue action that will help millions of Americans breathe easier and live healthier."
Obama has scheduled a primetime speech to a joint session of Congress and the nation next Thursday night to outline plans he has made for combating high joblessness and spurring economic growth.
The left are now wringing their hands fearing their agenda is overripe, blaming everyone else for their own spoiled pickling. While Obama's sinking prospects for re-election are disquieting, the real source of liberals' despair is their sudden, unexpected realization that the progressive agenda is dead in its tracks and will likely be in full retreat after 2012.
Obama is finished, but the demise of their identity politician is neither the main event nor surprising. He was a lame duck after he returned from Copenhagen empty handed in September 2009, expecting the mere presence of his electro-magnetic glow would secure the 2016 summer Olympics for Chicago.
He cannot claim a single success. His resume is a bibliography of failure. His signature achievement, the dubious namesake ObamaCare, was designed by someone else. Its central feature, the individual insurance mandate, is destined to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
We will have our fill of post mortems, ad nauseam, about how The One broke their hearts; his considerable skills, now considered overrated, were just no match for the enormity of the clean- up needed after Bush's mess; a victim of his opponents' entrenched racism.
Obama was only a convenient vessel, a mere tool. But enough about Obama; even the Congressional Black Caucus is ready to Move On.
The end of the Progressive Era, eclipsing Obama, has come from two places -- one fiscal and pragmatic, the other ideological and visceral. First, the debt crisis and persistent economic woes have made it clear that the progressive agenda is unaffordable and unsustainable. The money pumps in the forms of more borrowing and taxes cannot possibly keep up with the tons of green water spending coming aboard.
"Short-handed" by Lionel Smythe, National Maritime Museum, UK
Second, beyond the limited government ideology now gaining real traction, Americans without an ideology are finding that central planning madness from Washington is making their lives worse, not better.
The tipping point provoking the libs' worst nightmare was contained in Rick Perry's speech announcing his candidacy to be the Republican nominee for president. Perry proclaimed his mission was not to make government more accountable, effective, or efficient -- that's standard issue bromide from populist reformers. No, Perry was bold enough, and as his critics will assert reckless, to suggest government should be irrelevant -- his words "as inconsequential to your lives as possible." This may be the most radical anti-government posture since Calvin Coolidge, leaning on the likes of Lord Acton:
There are many things the government can't do, many good purposes it must renounce. It must leave them to the enterprise of others. It cannot feed the people. It cannot enrich the people. It cannot teach the people.
The liberal press are frightened out of their wits. Whether Perry is an authentic purebred limited government advocate may be debatable. No matter, he's close enough.
Perry's credibility as a governor, his disdain for Washington, his unapologetic and outspoken defense of conservative principles, his jobs and business climate record, all despite occasional lapses and rhetorical excesses -- in short his popularity and substance overcoming his defects -- make him the candidate the Dems fear most. Perry, more ruthless, pragmatic, and plain spoken than any of his rivals is the most likely to lead the coming dismantling of the federal government monstrosity.
MSM's Jeff Greenfield nearly soiled his pants describing Perry's brand of extremist limited government:
It is a formulation of a brand of current conservative thinking that breaks radically with two centuries of American history. There is no mission - other than defense against foreign foes - that is the proper task of Washington...
To argue that there is nothing of moment that Washington should be doing marks a version of that argument that is nothing short of astonishing.
Read all of it here. Greenfield seems to believe whatever the federal government does is equally momentous -- fighting wars, ending slavery, enabling westward expansion beyond the Alleghenies, and mandating rules on low flow toilets and energy saving light bulbs. Greenfield commits the increasingly commonplace liberal fallacy of conflating real with surreal. How absurd to suggest that by rejecting job killing global warming taxes and denouncing EPA regulations crippling business expansion and economic growth, Perry would also have opposed the Homestead Act and desegregation.
It doesn't require a PhD in economics or history to sort out the origins of the progressives' inevitable downfall. During the past 60 years we've rung up deficits in 51 of them. Democrats controlled both the US House and Senate in 38 of those years. The Democrats, increasingly dominated by the ideology of redistributive economics, welfare state largesse, and central planning elitism, have simply engorged themselves without restraint, spending us into oblivion.
Spend, spend , spend some more...of someone else's money. Then threaten to take more of it while libeling those who protest financing this bottomless pit.
The liberal vision of the ideal state is fat, sloppy and lazy. Why exert yourself if someone else will buy you food stamps and school lunches? Why bother learning to read, write, do simple algebra, or acquire any employable skills when you'll get free health care and subsidized housing? Why eat right and keep fit when obesity and diabetes is a protected disability?
Americans are finally fed up with the Democrats' value system: no personal accountability; moral equivalence; belief that success is derived from exploiting everybody else; everybody else is a hapless victim; we are all racists and xenophobes, consigned to endless acts of contrition where reparations and open borders would be the only relief.
Here's a story of a public school janitor describing the obscene waste in his school's cafeteria. An apt metaphor for the trillions of social program spending since LBJ's Great Society: taxpayer dollars shoveled onto a compost pile with nothing to show for it. Far from a bed of roses, instead fostering a culture of depravity, dependency, and entitlement. The writer of this piece wonders out loud what many of us think in private. Is poverty real with such bounty? Certainly poverty of spirit is real. We are an impoverished nation when it comes to intellectual honesty, denying that self- reliance and sweat equity, not government handouts, enabled American exceptionalism.
The liberal legacy soon to visit America has been displayed writ large in the London rioting. The consequences of the welfare state combined with illiteracy and a moral vacuum were predicted nearly 50 years ago by Daniel Patrick Moynihan's infamous "Report", The Negro Family: The Case For National Action. Moynihan focused his attention on urban black society, the fatal breakdown of the family unit, and was vilified by the left for doing so. Moynihan's insights should not confined to the black community. His observations would equally apply to Britain today and throughout much of post-modern America.
Today's black unemployment rate ranges from 20-40% depending on who's counting and where. What have the trillions devoted to our welfare state achieved for them? More illiteracy, more broken single parent families, more crime, more dependency, more rage. And now, we're bankrupt. What next?
What next is not more of the same. The welfare, entitlement and central planning state is a perpetual resource sink paying no dividends. Flush Obama and turn out the lights on the Progressive Century. The party is over.
I love this line:
Hey, guess what?
An "Obama Clock" app is jockeying for position with National Geographic's World Atlas atop the iTunes app store's reference best-seller list, partly because conservatives are eager to monitor President Barack Obama's skidding approval numbers and shrinking calendar, says the app's designer.
Liberals don't like the app because it shows Obama's numbers trending down, said Jeremy Ross, even though his app just publishes publicly available data.
…I figure that it'll come in handy, although I don't really expect the unemployment numbers to change all that much until we get a functional adult in the White House again. Still, as a snapshot of failure this is pretty good stuff.
Moe Lane (crosspost)