Via Newsbusters. Money quotes:
From the New York Times editorial, “Gross National Letdown,” of Thursday October 29, 1992:
President Bush smiled when he learned this week that economic growth during the third quarter reached a surprising 2.7 percent, almost twice the previous rate. But his smile shouldn’t be broad. The new figure almost certainly exaggerates the health of the economy, which continues to creep along at a painfully slow pace. Even the 2.7 figure is half the normal rate of recovery and not enough to bring down unemployment.
New York Times editorial, “Slow but Steady Improvement,” from Saturday October 27, 2012:
The slow pace of the nation’s economic recovery has picked up a bit lately. In the third quarter, the economy grew at an annual rate of 2 percent, beating expectations and the dismal 1.3 percent growth in the second quarter. Over the past year, the growth rate has been 2.3 percent. At that pace, there’s enough momentum to keep unemployment, currently 7.8 percent, from getting much worse.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
We all remember what a classless jackwagon Chairman Douchebag was when he slammed the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision at his SOTU address last year, with sitting justices present. It seems El Douché wasn’t a big fan of certain forms of political speech.
President Barack Obama’s campaign is asking top fundraisers to support a Democratic-leaning outside group that is backing the president’s re-election bid, reversing Obama’s opposition to “super” political action committees, which can spend unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections.
Obama’s campaign urged wealthy fundraisers in a Monday night conference call to support Priorities USA, a super PAC led by two former Obama aides that has struggled to compete with the tens of millions of dollars collected by Republican-backed outside groups.
Obama has opposed the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that stripped away some limits on campaign contributions. The new super PACs can’t coordinate directly with campaigns, but many have played a major role in the Republican primary contests, raising millions of dollars to use in negative advertising in early contests such as Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in an email to supporters Monday that the president’s campaign “can’t allow for two sets of rules” in which the Republican presidential nominee benefits from “unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm.”
“We decided to do this because we can’t afford for the work you’re doing in your communities, and the grassroots donations you give to support it, to be destroyed by hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads,” Messina said.
Republicans criticized the Obama campaign’s embrace of the outside groups, calling it a hypocritical shift by Obama after he chided the influence of secret, special-interest money. Obama has previously referred to the money as a “threat to our democracy.”
“This is a brazenly cynical move by Barack Obama and his political handlers, who just a year ago had the chutzpah to call outside groups a threat to democracy,” said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads.
“A threat to democracy” in ObaMao’s mind means “the possibility I may not be re-elected”!
Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s perfectly legal for him to use SuperPAC’s, especially after the SCOTUS gave the greenlight to them. But it is the epitome of disingenuousness, hypocrisy, and immorality for the man-child to use a form of campaigning that his petulant authoritarian behind was lambasting very recently. Scruples, schmuples, he gots a campaign to run!
B.O. on 60 Minutes on Sunday:
Kroft: Did you overpromise? Did you underestimate how difficult this was gonna be?
Obama: I didn’t overpromise. And I didn’t underestimate how tough this was gonna be.
B.O. two days later:
President Barack Obama said Tuesday he wishes he knew the full extent of the economic crisis when he took office, if only so he could have let Americans know just how tough the coming years would be.
“I think we understood that it was bad, but we didn’t know how bad it was,” Obama said in an interview with KIRO in Seattle.
He actually did know how bad it was…before he didn’t.
Night and Day, “How the MSM reports unemployment numbers when presidents of different parties are running for re-election” edition
The Right Sphere has the MSM dead to rights on this one. Night…
Take a look at these headlines:
Recent headlines regarding the drop in the unemployment rate from 9% to 8.6% right?
Those are headlines from January 2004, when the jobless rate dropped to 5.7% and when President Bush was just starting a re-election campaign.
Here are headlines from Friday’s job numbers:
The jobless rate in November fell 0.4%…because 300,000 unemployed gave up and dropped out of the job search market! The unemployment rate doesn’t count these people.
Let’s say I ask four girls out on a date, and all four tell me to drop dead. Let’s say I do this every week, and the results are always the same. I’ve got a 100% failure record. But let’s say that one of these girls finally gets tired of me asking her out, so she stops answering her phone and simply ignores me. Oh, joy! I just got a 25% reduction in the “uninterested in Crush” rate, because she’s not turning me down anymore! Sure, she is still uninterested, but I’m just not gonna count her anymore, because she gave up answering me.
That’s what the unemployment numbers are doing. Sure, they still are unemployed, but because they’re not even going to bother looking anymore, we can stop counting them as unemployed. Friggin’ brilliant.
As for the reporting? Nope…no liberal media bias!
Democrats: Stop calling it “ObamaCare”!
Use of the word Obamacare as a shorthand reference for the health care reform law has become a rallying cry for conservatives who are working to repeal the law.
Democrats have objected to the term.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY.) said Obamacare has “become sort of pejorative, for no particular reason — through usage and the way it’s used and who uses it. The Republicans are trying to make it pejorative.” (News flash, fat boy: the voters confirmed it as a pejorative in November 2010. Notice that a lot of your colleagues from last year haven’t been going to the swank D.C. buffets with you lately? “Man, it’s been quiet. Where’s Grayson?” – CL)
Nadler added that Republicans were trying to seize on Obama’s unpopularity to make the health care law unpopular as well.
“If you can identify something with someone who’s unpopular for whatever reason, then it becomes somewhat unpopular,” he said.
Obama: You know, I’m totally cool with “ObamaCare”!
Complicating things, President Barack Obama himself appeared to embrace the term in August.
“I have no problem with folks saying, ‘Obama cares,’” Obama said in Minnesota while he was on a bus tour of the Midwest.
“I do care,” he said. “If the other side wants to be the folks who don’t care? That’s fine with me.” (Dude, if crushing us with trillions in debt for a failed “health care” law that has delivered on none of its promises is caring, then please stop “caring” so much! – CL)
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The Old Gray Hag in 2005 on filibusters, when Democrats were in the minority:
The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes. . . . A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the ‘nuclear option’ in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton’s early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it’s obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it.
The Old Gray Hag in 2005 on filibusters, when Republicans were in the minority:
Democrats scored a small but significant victory for the cause of progress in the Senate late last week when they voted to prohibit one of the many delaying tactics that keep the chamber tied up in pointless partisan arguments. It was a long way from desperately needed filibuster reform, but it showed that sufficiently frustrated senators can take action to prevent the Senate from being a total dead weight. . . . Fear of ending up in the minority makes majority parties in the Senate avoid sensible rules. But ending the abuse of the chamber’s traditions–ultimately the far more significant abuse of the filibuster–would benefit both parties, and the country as a whole.
Nope…no liberal media
You gotta admit, 24 hours is quite a quick turnaround on hypocrisy, no? From NRO:
President Obama, yesterday: “I’ve asked leaders of both parties and both houses of Congress to come here to the White House on Thursday so we can build on the work that’s already been done and drive towards a final agreement. It’s my hope that everybody is going to leave their ultimatums at the door, that we’ll all leave our political rhetoric at the door.”
President Obama, today: “The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, for oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high.”
Wondering where all of the leftist blowhards are who had a conniption over gun-related rhetoric after the Giffords shooting?
Obama today: Raising taxes on businesses and “the rich” are needed to fight the deficit I created.
Obama in 2009? Not quite the same thing:
In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”
Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”
Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”
Obama made a similar argument in December, when he signed the bipartisan tax relief agreement – a deal that maintained Bush tax rates (even for the wealthy) and included additional tax breaks for businesses. “Millions of entrepreneurs who have been waiting to invest in their businesses will receive new tax incentives to help them expand, buy new equipment or make upgrades – freeing up other money to hire new workers.”
Stephen Hayes asks what I am wondering:
If Obama was right and the tax breaks in that deal freed up money for job creators to hire new workers, isn’t the reverse true? Isn’t it the case that new taxes on entrepreneurs and other job creators will leave them with less money to hire new workers? And wouldn’t raising taxes on the “wealthiest” just “put business further in a hole,” as Obama believed just two years ago?
His economics were right. So why the change?
I always got a kick out of that line of thinking. “Tax increases harm the economy. Since the economy sucks right now, we don’t need to harm it further. But once the economy recovers, THEN it’s a good time to harm the economy!”
When it comes to economics, ObaMao rides the short bus.
NYC mayor Bloomberg on why gay marriage in NY is a good thing:
In voicing his support for same-sex marriage, Mayor Bloomberg has mentioned — and appeared with — his niece Rachel, who is lesbian. “It brings it home,” he told me on the phone this week, though he added that beyond his desire for her to have everything she wants in life, “Government should not tell you what to do unless there’s a compelling public purpose.” He sees no such purpose in blocking same-sex marriage.
Always the supporter of individual liberty, that Bloomberg! Some of the “compelling public purposes” with which Bloomberg thinks that NYC should concern itself:
Banning things, or trying to, is what the [NYC] council does best.
Here’s the list from 2006.
- Aluminum baseball bats.
- The purchase of tobacco by 18- to 20-year-olds.
- Foie gras.
- Pedicabs in parks.
- New fast-food restaurants (but only in poor neighborhoods).
- Lobbyists from the floor of council chambers.
- Lobbying city agencies after working at the same agency.
- Vehicles in Central and Prospect parks.
- Cell phones in upscale restaurants.
- The sale of pork products made in a processing plant in Tar Heel, N.C., because of a unionization dispute.
- Mail-order pharmaceutical plans.
- Candy-flavored cigarettes.
- Gas-station operators adjusting prices more than once daily.
- Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.
If you had to think of one city on earth where the rulers should not try to impose a standard of ‘good behaviour’, it would surely be New York. Who in their right mind would seek to sanitise this concrete jungle, to sedate the city that never sleeps, to demand conformism and obedience from the inhabitants of a place which, in the words of a popular tourist T-shirt, is known as ‘New York F**kin’ City’?
You’d be surprised. New York is currently governed by a gaggle of health-obsessed bigwigs who believe they have a duty to grab New Yorkers by the scruffs of their outsized necks and drag them towards lives of bicycle-riding, non-smoking, booze-avoiding, fruit-snacking conformity. City Hall, under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is awash with that new breed of psycho-politician known as the ‘nudger’, who believes that he has the right to use psychological techniques and brute censorship to manipulate and ‘improve’ human behaviour.
The Bloombergers have become world-beaters in the banning of public smoking and the demonisation of junk food. It is testament to their successful colonisation of these islands that the banning of smoking in all public parks, pedestrian plazas and beaches passed without incident, and even without much angry commentary, on 24 May. Under the Smoke Free Air Act (it is clever, in an Orwellian kind of way, to use the word ‘free’ in an act of law that diminishes freedom), New Yorkers can no longer light up in Central Park, Prospect Park, the Brooklyn Promenade, the Coney Island concrete walk or even Times Square, that flashing, noisy advertisers’ paradise where you can still watch naked cowboys play guitar and buy Sarah Palin condoms from streetsellers — so long as you don’t puff on a ciggie at the same time. ‘Where can I smoke now?’ one New Yorker said to a newspaper. ‘In an underground fortress of shame?’
Not content with policing what New Yorkers puff, the Bloombergers want to control what they scoff, too. City Hall banned the frying of food in transfats in all restaurants in 2007, which was bad news for those of us for whom half the attraction of visiting NYC was to tuck into the deliciously unhealthy fare served up in its diners. And in 2008, the city forced all chain restaurants and foodsellers to publish the calorific information of their food, in the same-sized font as the label for the food itself. Walking down Fifth Avenue, I saw a huge poster in a Burger King window advertising two burgers for the price of one, alongside an equally huge notice saying: ‘1320 CALORIES.’ Even the temporary stalls that hawk hot dogs and ice-cream in Central Park and elsewhere display calorific facts. That salted pretzel you buy as you stroll back to your hotel (‘500 CALORIES’) now comes with a side order of inner turmoil and gym fantasies.
So, if you’re a homosexual in great shape who wants to wed his beau, NYC wants to “live and let live” with you. If you’re an overweight straight guy who wants to buy cigs and HoHos from Wal Mart, you can look forward to the heavy hand of Nanny York City crushing you…for your own good and for the “compelling public purpose” of New Yorkers.
B.O. in 2009: Let’s release those photos detailing alleged abuse by American soldiers.
BO in 2011: I’m not releasing photos of Osama’s stinking corpse.
What’s that, Mr. President? The photos are “very graphic”? So was watching people jump to their deaths from the blazing Twin Towers, you hyperactive condescending nanny. About ten years ago, we had a national traumatic experience as we all watched thousands of people die before our very eyes when the towers collapsed. Since then, we’ve seen Daniel Pearl beheaded, Madrid subway cars blown up, London buses and trains blown up, Bali nightclubs blown up, a Beslan school turned into a massacre site. We’ve seen enough death and dismemberment of innocent civilians to last a lifetime. So pardon me for thinking that our delicate sensibilities might be able to handle seeing the man with more American blood on his hands than anyone else on the planet missing an eye and with some brain matter exposed.
What’s that? It might be “an incitement to additional violence”? Show me one extremist Muslim who’s not going to go into a violent rage over killing bin Laden, but who will do so if he sees the photos. Go out and find him. A few weeks ago, a bunch of Afghanis went on a rampage and killed a bunch of aid workers because Pastor Pyro down in Florida decided to flame-broil a Koran. A controversial book, a cartoon, the latest conspiracy theory — it doesn’t matter. These guys are just looking for excuses to run around and kill people in a frenzy.
I am tired of my government’s adjusting its policies in these inane attempts to placate the triggers of rage among unstable people — as if it’s our fault for provoking them.
Apparently, releasing photos that may portray America in a bad light and may endanger our war-on-terrorism goals is fine and dandy. But releasing photos that don’t portray America in a bad light is verboten. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
It was said in 2009 that while bloodthirsty camelhumping Islamonuts would get whipped into yet another frothing frenzy after seeing the photos, we absolutely had to release them. But now we can’t release photos of OBL with a hidey-hole in his gourd because…bloodthirsty camelhumping Islamonuts would get whipped into yet another frothing frenzy?
Queen Botox in 2006:
[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done . . . is done. And even to capture him now I don’t think makes us any safer.
The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. . . . I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. . . . [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic. . . .
But it’s the Republicans that are politicizing OBL’s death, right?
Consistency, integrity, and shame are sooooooo passé!
Good catch by JWF.
Yeserday, Reid chastised Senate Republicans for forcing a repeal vote on ObamaCare that they knew was doomed to fail. In other words, he thought a “symbolic vote” was a waste of time.
In 2007, Reid said it was important to hold a symbolic vote on the Iraq surge.
As JWF puts it:
So when it came to trying to lose a war, Reid is down with symbolic votes. But when it comes to the will of the majority, he just hasn’t got time for any of it.
Hey, thanks to our friends in NV for sending this jack#ss back to DC!
Back in 2008, when Candidate Obama was running against Her Highness Hillary, he slammed her for her plan requiring Americans to buy health insurance. You know, the individual mandate? Partial transcript below (video here for full context):
“Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it,” Obama said in a Feb. 28, 2008 appearance on Ellen DeGeneres’ television show. “So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.”
So yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Candidate Obama was correct: the feds can’t force somebody buy a product or service. He even used Obama’s analogy from 2008 about mandating Americans buy a home:
In a ruling issued yesterday holding that the insurance mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson pointed to a similar statement that Obama had made in a Feb. 4, 2008 interview with CNN. “Indeed,” wrote Vinson, “I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.’”
So how did the prez describe the judge that agreed with Candidate Obama? Predictably:
“Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching,” wrote Obama aide Stephanie Cutter on the White House web site. “
The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent.”
Over at the Justice Department, officials made clear they would challenge the ruling immediately.
“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” said a Justice Department statement.
In a conference call with reporters, senior administration officials went even further in their attacks, labeling the ruling “odd and unconventional” and “well out of the mainstream” – predicting it would not stand the scrutiny of higher courts.
Don’t you love it when moonbats try to tell Normal America what is and isn’t “outside the mainstream”?
In 2000, winter snowfalls were on the way out:
Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
A decade later…
Huh. Go figure.
Kudos to Ed Driscoll for the chronicle.
President Kick#ss on July 14, 2009:
Now, my administration has a job to do, as well, and that job is to get this economy back on its feet. That’s my job. And it’s a job I gladly accept. I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, ‘Well, this is Obama’s economy.’ That’s fine. Give it to me. My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and carp and gripe.
B.O. today: It’s Bush’s fault.
Translation: I know I said that I wanted to own this economy, but now that it’s clear that the economy has gotten worse, I’ve got a case of buyer’s remorse. Can I have a refund?
Prez Kick#ss on Friday:
President Barack Obama’s decision to make public comments Friday that further stoked an already brewing controversy over the construction of a mosque near ground zero was “purely” his own, an administration official said Saturday.
B.O. the next day:
“In this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion. I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
And then after the pullback, he pulled back the pullback:
An administration official said Obama didn’t change his position on the mosque from Friday to Saturday. Obama believes it’s his job to uphold a fundamental piece of the Constitution that everyone be treated equally under the law, the official said.
The president believes it was appropriate for the board in Manhattan to approve the project near ground zero, the official said, and he was “absolutely not” walking back his remarks from Friday.
“The fair thing to do was to allow this to go forward,” the official said.
So the Community Organizer-in-Chief thought it would be a fine idea to weigh in on the legal right to build a mosque at Ground Zero (a right that few people are arguing), and only the legal right? I don’t think anyone was talking about the legal right, but the morality or wisdom of building a mosque at a site where 3,000 Americans were slaughtered by nutjobs of the religion that will be commemorated by this mosque. Besides, no one thinks he was merely speaking of the legal right, but that he was giving an outright endorsement of the idea (his denials to the contrary notwithstanding). As Jon at Exurban League tweets: “Obama’s statement last night ticked off 70% of the country. His ‘clarification’ today has ticked off the other 30%.”
The Dems are already slated to take a beating in November, and this can’t possibly help.
Dems in 2008:
“Hey WWE fans, I hope you’re all enjoying the program tonight,” Obama said to wrestling fans two years ago. “For a long time now we’ve had a politics where our leaders go after each other like they’re competing to become King of the Ring instead of coming together to provide universal health care, fix our economy and solve our other problems. That’s what I’m running for president to change.”
“Do you smell what Barack is cooking?” Obama added, a reference to the famous catchphrase of former WWE personality “The Rock,” played by actor Dwayne Johnson.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared as well, offering a similar message.
“Hi. I’m Hillary Clinton. Tonight in honor of the WWE, you can call me Hill-Rod,” she said. “This election is starting to feel a lot like King of the Ring. The only difference: The last man standing may just be a woman.”
Dems in 2010:
It took less than an hour after Linda McMahon’s triumph in the Connecticut Republican primary election for Senate Tuesday night for Democrats to throw her past as a pro wrestling CEO in her face, in a volley of attacks that is unlikely to cease until election day in November.
“Today the party of Bob Dole, Jack Kemp and Richard Lugar nominated a candidate who kicks men in the crotch, thinks of scenes of necrophilia as ‘entertainment,’ and runs an operation where women are forced to bark like dogs. This is what has become of the once grand old party,” said Hari Sevugan, national press secretary for the Democratic National Committee.
Full story here.
Hypocrisy: it’s what’s for dinner.
Candidate Kick#ss in 2008:
Here’s Mr. Obama on September 18, 2008, not long after the economic collapse: “Senator McCain’s first answer to this economic crisis was – get ready for it – a commission. That’s Washington-speak for ‘we’ll get back to you later.’”
“Folks, we don’t need a commission to spend a few years and a lot of taxpayer money to tell us what’s going on in our economy,” he continued. “We don’t need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can’t pay your bills. We don’t need a commission to tell us you’re losing your jobs. We don’t need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it – and that’s the kind of President I intend to be.”
President Kick#ss in 2010:
President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is meeting today as part of its efforts to craft recommendations by December on how best to address America’s red-ink problem.
Mr. Obama established the commission in February, saying debt and deficits can “hobble our economy” and “saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden.”
A burden for which he and his party are mostly responsible.
Breitbart’s got the video, a montage of President Present (when he was merely Senator Present) blasting the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Takeaway line: “We’re going to do some hard thinking about how we could have failed our fellow citizens so badly.”
And now, the with Gulf oil spill? B.O. is basically saying “Hey, nothing we can do. It’s BP’s fault. I’m going on vacation.”
Remember when it looked like the topkill method was going to stop the oil spill?
But make no mistake: BP is operating at our direction. Every key decision and action they take must be approved by us in advance. I’ve designated Admiral Thad Allen, who has nearly four decades of experience responding to such disasters, as the national incident commander. And if he orders BP to do something to respond to this disaster, they are legally bound to do it.
Now that it’s apparent the effort failed?
Struggling to convey command of the worsening Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Obama administration is taking steps to distance itself from BP and is dispatching Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to the Gulf Coast to meet with federal and state prosecutors. The Holder trip could signal that the environmental calamity might become the subject of a criminal investigation.
You gotta love that kind of forceful, authoritative leadership. Or not.
Juan McAmnesty on the campaign trail in 2008:
I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that is independent and a maverick of the Senate and I’m happy to say that I’ve got a partner that’s a good maverick along with me now.
Juanny Mac over the weekend:
“I never considered myself a maverick,” he told me. “I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities.”
Dems (including Obama) in 2005, when they feared the GOP majority would use the “nuclear option” for judicial confirmations, can be seen in this video montage saying one thing…
BIDEN: I pray to God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.
Isn’t that adorable? Democrats invoking the name of a God they regularly reject…how precious! Well, clearly God wasn’t paying any attention to the Vice-Plagiarist, judging by their “naked power grab” today.
“They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it’s never been done before,” Reid said.
Following Senate Democrats’ weekly luncheon, Reid said “nothing is off the table” but that “realistically, they should stop crying about this. It’s been done 21 times before.”
Notes Ed at Hot Air:
Dianne Feinstein said on the Senate floor that “it begins with judicial nominations, next will be executive appointments, and then legislation.” Now, Democrats want to skip over the first two — which never happened — and leap right to legislation. Chuck Schumer called the 2005 suggestion to exempt judicial nominations from the filibuster as “almost a temper tantrum”; if that was the case in 2005, what does 2010 represent? A psychotic break from reality? Straitjacket time?
Flaming hypocrites. Good thing their reign of terror is about to come to a much deserved end.
B.O. and Plugs both told us during the campaign in 2008 they wouldn’t raise taxes of any kind (cigarette, energy, income, etc.) on those making $200k $250k dollar-amount-du-jour-pulled-from-their-nether-regions, didn’t they? Yes, they did:
Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.
“Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year.
Even today’s story reminds people of that:
Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. When senior White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested in August that the administration might be open to going back on that pledge, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quickly reiterated the president’s promise.
What sayeth President Training Wheels now?
President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.
Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”
It’s almost as if he’s a big government statist who’d rather raise our taxes than rein in spending or something. Actually, it’s exactly like that.
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that B.O. is a shameless liar who will say anything to get elected and then totally ignore his own words after doping the electorate!
The fact is that President Bush’s misguided economic policies have failed to create jobs. Since President Bush took office, the country has lost 3.2 million jobs, the worst record since President Hoover. And today we learned that in July nearly half a million people gave up looking for a job.
Job losses are taking a real toll on the financial security of American families. While Democrats are fighting for opportunity, jobs, and economic security for working families, Republicans continue to focus on helping those who need help the least.
According to today’s survey, while the national unemployment rate dropped slightly, it still stands at a near record high. In addition, the unemployment rate for African Americans was still over 11 percent in July, and the unemployment rate for Hispanics was 8.2 percent in July.
With today’s unemployment numbers making 2003′s look like a Sunday picnic, here’s what San Fran Nan is saying today:
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that she’s quieter than Monica Lewinsky in her kneepads simply because the current president is of the same party that she is.
B.O. was against spending freezes…before he was for them.
Oprompter while campaigning in 2008:
OBAMA: The problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.
President Barack Obama intends to propose a three-year freeze on spending that accounts for one-sixth of the federal budget—a move meant to quell rising voter concern over the deficit but whose practical impact will be muted.
John F’ing Kerry just called to say “Hey, I thought that was a brilliant approach by Obama…before I didn’t.”
Reid and his leftist cohorts in 2006:
The conference process in the 108th Congress is a case study in how the Republican leadership abused the Rules of the House to block Members, both Republicans and Democrats, from legislating in an informed and thoughtful manner. House-Senate conferences are a critical part of the deliberative process because they produce the final legislative product that will become the law of the land.
Reid and his leftist cohorts today:
According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps–not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate–that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.
“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”
Video link here.
Hypocrisy: It’s what’s for dinner.
Rhode Islanders tossed out Stinkin’ Lincoln Chafee in 2006 in order to install Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Moonbattery) in the Senate. Nice job, RI!
The lowest of the low was the Republican vote against funding and supporting our troops in the field in a time of war. As a device to stall health care, they tried to stop the appropriation of funds for our soldiers. There is no excuse for that. From that there is no return. Every single Republican member was willing to vote against cloture on funding our troops, and they admitted it was a tactic to obstruct health care reform. …
In May 2007, Whitehouse was only one of 14 Senators to vote against the Iraq war funding supplemental to support the troop surge, at a time our troops were fighting al-Qaeda in the field in a time of war. Whitehouse also was one of 10 co-sponsors of a bill to cut off funding for the troops in Iraq unless troop withdrawals started within 120 days.
Not content with being a flaming hypocrite on war funding, Whitehouse decided to call the 60% of Americans opposed to ObamaCare a bunch of white supremecist cranks:
Voting ‘no’ and hiding from the vote are the same result. Those of us on the floor see it. It was clear the three of them who did not cast their yes votes until all 60 Senate votes had been tallied and it was clear that the result was a foregone conclusion. And why? Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president.
They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.
I approached Senator Whitehouse following his speech on the floor, and his responses to my questions were puzzling, to say the say the least. Mr. Whitehouse said he stood by his speech, but would not admit that he was accusing anyone who was against the health care bill as racist. He did reiterate that birthers are part of the group that is against the bill and are attacking president However, when I asked the Senator from Rhode Island what he meant by describing those who do not support the bill as “aryan,” he responded “No, I didn’t say that….again, pay attention to the speech.”
Um…we did pay attention. And yeah, ya did say it. It’s on audo. If you’re gonna get all Godwin on us, at least have a hair on your nutsack to stand by your statements.
Ed catches the comPost in a real doozy here.
What a difference a (D) makes! In 2003-4, George Bush got derided for talking about economic recovery during the 2004 election campaign while unemployment declined from 6.2% to 5.6%. Critics derided it as a “jobless recovery,” including the Washington Post. Now, however, an increase in unemployment has become a measure of improvement in the economy as it goes up to 9.5%.
Yes, folks, the comPost hails the loss of a quarter of a million jobs in August as proof that the economy is improving, and the words “jobless recovery” don’t quite seem to make their way into the comPost‘s report. No, instead they insist that unemployment going up is a good thing because…it didn’t go up as much as they thought it would?
I heard a rumor (and I’m just throwing it out there for you, make of it what you will) that today we have a Democrat president, and in 2004, we had a Republican president. Not that this has anything to do with the comPost‘s recent nuanced view of the economy, mind you.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
San Fran Nan (with an assist from Steny Hoyer) today in a USA Today editorial:
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.
Got it? Dissent is “un-America”!
Peloco in January 2006 when being heckled by the Code Pinkos:
But Pelosi never summoned help from police or security. She negotiated with the hecklers and at times even thanked the protesters for their advocacy and enthusiasm.
“It’s always exciting,” she told reporters after the meeting. “This is democracy in action. I’m energized by it, frankly.”
Peloco in June 2007, again with those bastions of blossoming patriotism, the Code Pinkos:
“Preserving our planet is a national security issue…,” Pelosi said and paused. “I always say the best preparation for combat is combat,” she responded. “So just go for it, I respect your enthusiasm.”
At the end of her remarks, she said, “Instead of fighting with us, which is your right to do, let’s work together.”
Got it? Dissent is “energizing”, a sign of “enthusiasm”, and is a “right” deserving of “respect”!
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism…well, sometimes. Right, Nan?
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett