February 12-13, 2009
Feb 12 00:50 Kasich Leading Ohio Republicans In Right Direction Feb 12 01:35 Liveblog Thursday Feb 12 08:05 Obama: Hyperbolist-in-Chief Feb 12 08:54 Photo ID Liveblog Feb 12 10:48 House Permanent Rules Debate Liveblog Feb 12 18:36 The Ugly Facts About the Stimulus Package Feb 13 02:28 DFL Picks Ideology Over Proof Feb 13 09:07 President Obama's Gift to the GOP Feb 13 10:20 President Obama's Prediction Refuted By Caterpiller CEO
Prior Months: Jan
Kasich Leading Ohio Republicans In Right Direction
I've known about former Rep. John Kasich's RechargeOhio movement since last summer. It's an impressive movement that's sure to change Ohio politics for a long time. Earlier this afternoon, Chairman Kasich issued this statement:
"Ohio's economy is in a death spiral," said Kasich. "It is alarming that more than 111,000 jobs have left Ohio in the last two years, yet our state's leadership refuses to make the bold changes we need to become competitive again."The difference between John Kasich's vision and President Obama's vision is stark and startling. John Kasich put together budget blueprints that balanced the U.S. government's budget four years in a row. They balanced the budget while cutting taxes each year, while reforming welfare and while working with a Democrat in the White House.
As I travel across the state and speak to the people of Ohio, there is a clear desire for solutions and leadership, and not one-time fixes with federal bailout money for our state's economy," said Kasich. "The Recharge Ohio Leadership Team will be working to engage these citizens to make their voices heard, only a path to a pro-job growth environment for our state will be acceptable."
The Recharge Ohio Statewide Leadership Team will continue to grow as new leaders in all 88 counties join this movement to help put the spark back in Ohio's economy," said Jeff Polesovsky, Director of Recharge Ohio. "Concerned Ohioans can take action by signing up at www.RechargeOhio.com."
In short, John Kasich stuck to time-tested conservative principles in working with, and fighting with, a highly partisan Democratic president. That's gravitas I'd believe in in a heartbeat.
By comparison, President Obama's economic plan is to waste unprecedented amounts of money, borrowing unheard of amounts of money to pay for his wasteful spending. In addition to that, President Obama's plan includes paying off the Democratic Party's biggest political allies. That's old-fashioned cronyism I'd rather do without.
Let's examine John Kasich's blueprint for success. The first thing I notice is that his tax cuts aren't a one-time rebate. They're real tax cuts that will spur investment and job creation. Another thing I notice is that Chairman Kasich and the Recharge Ohio team is going out and actually listening to Ohioan's concerns and worries. Then they're using that information to craft sensible, proven solutions.
President Obama says that he's willing to listen to solutions from anyone across the political spectrum. Proof of that is sketchy. By comparison, John Kasich isn't talking about bipartisanship. He's living it. John Kasich's actions speak louder than President Obama's words.
Ohioans need John Kasich's leadership. Frankly, I'd rather have him in the Oval Office crafting economic policy than the guy we elected lst November. At least we know that John Kasich has a list of accomplishments and a set of core governing beliefs.
The biggest difference between John Kasich and President OBama is that President Obama is dressing up political philosophy and calling it economic policy. John Kasich is a believer that good policies makes for good politics. Chairman Kasich has put intelligent economic policies together before.
I wish we could say the same about President Obama.
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:52 AM
No comments.
Liveblog Thursday
This morning, I will be liveblogging the hearing for HF57, Rep. Tom Emmer's Photo ID legislation. After that, I'll be participating in a blogger conference call organized by House Republican Conference Chair Mike Pence. As soon as that's over, I'll be liveblogging the House Permanent Rules debate.
I'm expecting a calm conversation with Chairman Pence. I'm expecting fireworks from the hearing on HF57 and the House Permanent Rules fight. (Yes, I remember the tussle from 2007 .)
Check back tomorrow for fireworks and updates.
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:35 AM
No comments.
Obama: Hyperbolist-in-Chief
Nobody questions President Obama's speaking ability. What many conservatives are questioning is the substance of his statements. Richard Benedetto wrote about that in this article . Here's one of Mr. Benedetto's observations:
Obama also uses the superlative to extol the virtues of his management or his Cabinet picks. His nominees are always the best and the brightest. He bragged to NBC's Brian Williams last week that he put a functioning government in place "in record time."The people that constantly talk in extreme terms see life through extremist eyes. People will question that statement because the image that President Obama crafted suggests that he's a likeable, reasonable person. A quick look, however, says that he's studied with fanatics like domestic terrorist William Ayers. He's a student, too, of Saul Alinsky. These aren't likeable, reasonable people.
What record did he break? Most new administrations get the same amount of time between Election Day and Inauguration Day to put together a government, about 11 weeks. If anyone set a record, it was George W. Bush, who had only about five weeks to assemble his government because the 2000 election was not decided by the Supreme Court until mid-December.
Here's another observation Benedetto makes:
In his first interview since confirmation, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told The Wall Street Journal last week that failure to address global warming would devastate California. "You're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California," he said.There's a time-tested cliche that says that you're known by the company you keep. Mr. Chu is either attempting to scare people or he's an environmental extremist. He certainly isn't looking at the world through an objective lens. At minimum, his language doesn't prove that he's seeing reality.
This observation might be the most stinging of all:
Obama and company also have a fondness for the word "unprecedented," which means something has never happened before. Budding journalists are taught to avoid using that word because, once you do, someone is sure to come along and prove you wrong.It's time for President Obama to stop using extremist language. It's time he proved his policies are based in reality and actually provide a solution to real problems. Thus far, President Obama's economic policies haven't inspired confidence.
Nonetheless, Obama has used it with abandon. In his first radio address as president he said, "We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action."
What makes this economic crisis unprecedented? He never tells us. If he says it, he expects us to assume it must be so. He also has repeatedly said, using the superlative again, that we are faced with "the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression." Even The Associated Press has taken to using that label, stating it as fact.
Quite the opposite. Treasury Secretary Geithner's TARP II announcement was so bereft of details that it caused the Dow to drop almost 300 points after his announcement. Economist Larry Kudlow questioned whether Geithner was ready for prime time.
Great economic recoveries are almost always equal mixture of good policies and confidence in the policymaker's ability to get the policy right. There's no indication that Wall Street trusts the Obama administration. There's no indication that he'll get things right, especially after finding out that the stimulus bill sneaks policy provisions in that put the federal government in charge of health care decisions.
CEOs understand the need to reform health care. That isn't where he loses their support. Where he loses their support is when he installs extremist policies that put Big Brother in charge of which procedures and tests will or won't get done. That's a policy that America will be devastated by.
For all his sweeping rhetoric, there's no indication that President Obama wants to take the sensible approach to anything. That's the definition of either an extremist or an hyperbolist.
That realization won't insprire confidence at a time when inspiration is badly needed.
Techonrati: Hyperbole , Extremist , Global Warming , California , Steven Chu , Tim Geithner , TARP II , Stock Market , President Obama , Economy
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Originally posted Thursday, February 12, 2009, revised 12-Aug 12:04 PM
No comments.
Photo ID Liveblog
8:31 -- It's under way on time. Rep. Emmer is now addressing the committee. "I won't go through the specifics since everybody has had the chance to read it." Rep. Emmer is now talking about 25 states having Photo ID laws on the books.
8:33 -- Rep. Emmer is now talking about how the public wants to know that elections are held with integrity.
8:36 -- Rep. Emmer is now talking about the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional issues about the bill. Next Rep. Emmer addresses the issue of cost of providing a photo ID to those that need them but can't afford them.
8:37 -- Now Rep. Emmer is talking about how Minnesota's turnout has dropped since same day voter registration was enacted.
8:39 -- Now Rep. Kiffmeyer is talking. She's telling the committee that, under her time as SecState, Minnesota led the nation in voter turnout. She's now talking about her conversation with Atlanta former mayor Andrew Young. Young said that Photo ID brings legitimacy to the process.
8:42 -- Rep. Kiffmeyer is asking why we're holding back in passing this bill. She then mentions that people who made the 'it's not constitutional' argument is moot now.
8:44 - Rep. Kiffmeyer is talking about her time as SecState and that she offered to absorb the cost of photo ID's into the SecState budget.
8:47 -- Rep. Winkler is asking whether Minnesota Majority's statements that Minnesota's elections that don't use photo ID doesn't have any integrity. Rep. Emmer and Rep. Kiffmeyer distance themselves from those statements, though Rep. Emmer said that an election that doesn't have photo ID calls into question the integrity of the process.
8:49 -- Rep. Kiffmeyer says that, in her time as SecState, she'd visit polling places. Rep. Kiffmeyer says that students would approach her and ask why we didn't have photo ID.
8:52 -- Heated exchange between Rep. Marquardt and Rep. Emmer. Rep. Marquardt is playing the poll tax card in an attempt to play on emotions, not fact. Now Rep. Marquardt is questioning the proof that Rep. Emmer has presented.
8:55 -- Rep. Emmer is responding, asking "Why would we wait until there is a problem?"
8:58 -- Rep. Gottwalt is now talking, saying that photo ID is a reasonable procedure.
8:59 -- Rep. Buesgens is next. He's saying that turnout in Georgia jumped, ditto with Mississippi and Indiana.
9:01 -- David Schultz is first testifier. Prof. Schultz is saying that the best information suggests that voter fraud is statistically insignificantly.
9:03 -- Next he's saying that the Supreme Court ruling didn't say photo ID was etched in stone, just that there isn't proof that photo ID impacts voter turnout. Question: Does that evidence now exist?
9:07 -- Prof. Schultz is now saying that support for photo ID is based on fearmongering and racism.
9:09 -- Schultz is now repeating his statistical insignificant argument.
9:10 -- Rep. Gottwalt "You didn't answer my question. I don't appreciate the tone and the vitriol in your statement." "You can pile up studies and whatever you want but you don't talk about the direct evidence."
9:12 -- Prof. Schultz is again replying that his studies included evidence of voter fraud.
9:15 -- Rep. Morrow is giving cover for Prof. Schultz, asking whether Prof. Schultz can investigate things or if he has to rely on studies and government statistics. Prof. Schultz says that he's relying on DoJ statistics.
9:20 -- Rep. Emmer is now reminding the committee that they needed to get to the rest of the witnesses. Chair rules with Rep. Emmer, then Rep. Kalin starts talking again, followed by Prof. Schultz talking again, repeating the same arguments.
9:23 -- Josh Ruegg is now testifying. He saying that it's difficult for students to vote because they didn't have the required documentation. Some people who didn't vote left crying because they couldn't vote.
9:25 -- Reed is talking about a woman who was vouched for vouched for 3 other voters, which is illegal.
9:26 -- Signing off. Time for blogger conference call.
Originally posted Thursday, February 12, 2009, revised 28-Mar 12:12 AM
No comments.
House Permanent Rules Debate Liveblog
10:42-- Session getting underway.
10:45-- Roll call taken. Quorum present.
10:53-- Majority Leader Sertich is speaking about the process that was followed in putting the Permanent Rules together.
10:57-- Rep. Sertich immediately addresses the time and resource provision. (Section 2.42)
11:00-- Now addressing debating on constitutional amendment.
11:05-- Rep. Perpich is offering an amendment to the 2.42 provision.
11:10-- Rep. Seifert is asking if there is a guarantee that the GOP would be able to offer amendments or to represent their district.
11:12-- Rep. Sertich says that that guarantee exists.
11:15-- Rep. Severson is worried that this will limit representatives' ability to debate legislation, especially in the last days of the session. Rep. Severson says that a side can, intentionally or unintentionally, load up people to use "an hour and 45 minutes of a 2 hour time limit" so the other side don't have the time to offer their amendments.
11:20-- Rep. Seifert is giving a history of Permanent Rules debates and how this is the first time the House Permanent Rules would limit debate. He then offers an amendment to strike down the Sertich amendment.
11:27-- Chairman Pelowski is now talking about why the rules should change, citing an 'expert' that says technology has changed debate. Pelowski is now saying the legislature should PRIORITIZE the time. He then says that limiting debate is in Minnesota's best interest because time is limited.
11:32-- Rep. Pelowski is now saying that amendments should be limited because they haven't been heard in committee, a point that Leader Seifert mentioned earlier.
11:36-- Rep. Pelowski: "Minnesota is in a crisis. We will change."
11:45-- Rep. Demmer is saying that limiting debate goes against the fundamental principle of the legislature, that it's a matter of statesmanship.
11:47-- Rep. Scott is now talking about this rule making it more difficult to represent her constituents.
11:52-- Rep. Sertich is saying that he hopes to give liberal amounts of time for debate. QUESTION: How does that square with Chairman Pelowski's claim that time is an "finite resource"?
SIDENOTE: The House will break at 12:15 to allow members to do their committee work. The House intends to resume this debate at 7:00 pm.
OBSERVATION: Leader Sertich's tone is different and more conciliatory this year than last. Still, he's adamant about implementing the time limits rule.
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:02 PM
No comments.
The Ugly Facts About the Stimulus Package
Ed Morrissey's post at HotAir exposes the Porkulus bill for what it really is:
A bill that should've gone through the regular committee process and a pork-soaked bill. Here's Ed's list of pork in the bill:
- $550 million for a federal fleet of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
- $300 million for even more plug-in or "efficient" vehicles
- $300 million for "smart appliances"
- $13.9 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Authority (a lending mechanism for green energy projects)
- $8 billion for "high-speed rail grants" to states, which apparently includes Reid's Vegas project
$21.44 billion for "environmental" issues, none of which appears to have job creation in mind, including:
Lead Paint Abatement ($100 million)
EPA State revolving funds ($6 billion)
USDA water loans and grants ($1.38 billion)
DOE environmental management ($6 billion)- $15 billion to "increase and protect affordable housing"
- $7.2 billion for expanding broadband coverage
-
$15 billion for new Pell Grant funding
$44 billion for education block grants - $4.6 billion for "early childhood" programs
- $1.1 billion for "comparative effectiveness research"
I'm not usually alarmist but that's giving too much authority to the government. I don't want a distant bureaucrat deciding that bypass surgery can't be cost-justified because it's being performed on an 80 year old man. In fact, I want that decision to be between the patient and his doctor.
This porker of a bill is being passed because they've got the votes. It isn't winning because it's the right economic prescription.
Posted Thursday, February 12, 2009 6:43 PM
No comments.
DFL Picks Ideology Over Proof
This morning, I liveblogged the first hour of the House State and Local Government Operations Reform, Technology and Elections Committee hearing of Rep. Emmer's Photo ID bill. Several things became clear in watching this charade of a hearing.
The first thing that's worth noting is that Dr. David Schultz, a Hamline University election law expert, cited an irrational argument in saying that photo ID was an unnecessary hindrance to the electoral process. Dr. Schultz repeatedly said that voter fraud "was statistically insignificant."
QUESTION: How many races across the nation are won by statistically insignificant margins?
I'm not suggesting that all tight races that were won by 50-100 votes are the result of voter fraud. I'm suggesting that alot of close races could be decided by voter fraud.
Josh Reed's testimony tore the heart out of Dr. Schultz's testimony. Mr. Reed testified that he was a pollwatcher this year. The polling station Mr. Reed worked at had a high number of college students. This year, the lines were longer than normal. Many of these college students that stood in line didn't have photo ID, a utility bill or a roommate that could vouch for them.
As a result, a number of these students didn't cast their votes, something that a photo ID would've resolved, thereby increasing turnout.
It's also worth noting that approximately an hour was allocated for hearing witnesses. Dr. Schultz took half that time talking about statistically insignificant amounts of voter fraud. As a result, 6 witnesses who travelled to the Capitol didn't get to testify. One of the people that didn't get to testify was House Minority Whip Dan Severson.
Chairman Pelowski had the option of suspending the hearing and inviting the rest of the witnesses back to testify. Instead, they voted the bill down.
The significance of Chairman Pelowski's calling the vote is that Rep. Severson didn't get to testify about a bus that was spotted pulling up to the polling station on St. Cloud State's campus. Had Rep. Severson testified, he would've discredited Mark Ritchie's and Dr. Schultz's testimony.
For those not intimately aware of St. Cloud's precincts, Ward 1, Precinct 1 is the St. Cloud State dormitories. Students not living in the dormitories can't vote in Ward 1, Precinct 1. It's worth noting that Ward 1, Precinct 1 is, at most, a full square mile. It's also worth noting that Election Day was filled with bright sunshine and warm temperatures.
That begs these questions: What are the odds that a bus filled with students needed transportation to take them 3-5 blocks to the polling station? I'd put the odds at slimmer than slim. What are the odds that this bus brought in illegal voters? I don't know the answer because I can't view the sign-in sheet for Ward 1, Precinct 1. I'm betting, though, that there are people listed on that sign-in sheet that don't live in the St. Cloud State dormitories.
It's worth noting that the students living off campus in one of the apartment complexes live in HD-15A. That's significant because students living in Ward 1, Precinct 1 are part of HD-15B. In other words, they're different ballots.
It's my observation that 75-100 students voting in a precinct that isn't their home is statistically significant. After all, the SecState's website says that a little over 1,100 people voted in Ward 1, Precinct 1.
This article says that Mark Ritchie's testified that "he hadn't found a single instance of the imposture at the polls in the state's history." I'd suggest he stopped the ostrich thing and start looking. Just because Mr. Ritchie hasn't bothered looking for fraud doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
One of the last witnesses to testify was an African-American gentleman named Lucky Rosenbloom. Mr. Rosenbloom testified that a photo ID was "empowering." Mr. Rosenbaum also testified that "people don't keep their" utility bills. The sight of Mr. Rosenbloom holding his photo ID aloft and saying that his ID was empowering was inspiring.
Despite all the testimony about real life experiences, the DFL chose to listen to Dr. Schultz, a man who conducted studies and talked about statistical insignificant amounts of voter fraud and SecState Ritchie, who refuses to investigate the very real possibility of voter fraud.
This summary wouldn't be complete without mentioning the heated exchange between Rep. Tom Emmer and Rep. Paul Marquart. After Rep. Marquart said that there wasn't enough fraud to justify passing this bill, Rep. Emmer asked why we should wait until we have a big problem on our hands.
In other words, Rep. Emmer was suggesting that preventing a problem is wiser than solving a problem. I'd bet that most people would agree with that approach, thereby proving that Democrats don't agree with most people on this.
Finally, there's one set of statistics that shouldn't be ignored. Mark Ritchie says that requiring photo ID was just an unfunded mandate passed onto the counties. Tom Emmer refuted that before Ritchie's testimony with this information:
Emmer argued that Photo ID was not overly costly, the state would probably have to supply less than 143,000 photo IDs under the bill, a cost of about $1.19 apiece, he explained.According to my trusty calculator, that's a bill for $170,000. That's a price I'm willing to pay for election integrity.
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 10:01 AM
No comments.
President Obama's Gift to the GOP
According to Karl Rove , President Obama has helped the GOP. I totally agree. Mr. Rove also thinks that the House GOP has played a fairly depleted hand exceptionally well.
Congressional Republicans lack President Barack Obama's bully pulpit and do not have the majorities that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid enjoy. But they are playing their hand extraordinarily well.When Bill O'Reilly asked Dick Morris how much longer President Obama could continue to blame the Bush administration for the recession, Morris said perhaps 6-8 months. I think it's less than that, possibly as little as 4 months. That's the good news for President Obama. The bad news is that, while passing this stimulus bill is a political victory now for President Obama, it'll quickly turn into a long-term defeat.
Over the past month, House Republicans have used the stimulus bill to redefine their party, present ideas on how to revive the economy, and force congressional Democrats and the president to take ownership of the spending programs soon to be signed into law.
That's because the stimulus bill will do almost nothing to create jobs or spur economic growth.
Another bit of bad news for President Obama is that people are losing confidence in Democrats in general and President Obama in specific in terms of the economy.
What is becoming clear is that the House GOP is becoming energized by empowering its "Young Guns." Leader John Boehner has been good. But he wouldn't be as effective if he didn't have the help of Reps. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, and Mike Pence, the House GOP conference chairman. Reps. Paul Ryan and Dave Camp, the top Republicans on the Budget and the Ways and Means committees, are impressive and add depth to the leadership team.What these Young Guns lack in name recognition, they more than make up for in gravitas. Cantor is the person most responsible for getting all 177 House Republicans to vote against the original stimulus bill. (Most responsible other than Speaker Pelosi's my-way-of-the-highway tactics.) Mike Pence has a gift of informing while he's talking. There's a point to his communications. In a landscape filled with people who talk alot but say nothing, that's a refreshing alternative. Though I haven't studied Rep. Ryan, I've heard that he's the smartest man in the room on fiscal policy.
Good leaders succeed because they surround themselves with talented people. John Boehner is a skilled politician but he's also smart enough to have surrounded himself with talented cohorts. Though Pelosi's Democrats will pass much, if not all, of the things that they want, they'll get alot of intellectually hefty pushback from the House GOP team.
I can't summarize things better than this so I'll just get out of the way of Mr. Rove:
Mr. Obama, for all his talents, has already re-energized the GOP and sparked a spending debate that will last for years. The president won this legislative battle, but at a high price, fiscally and politically.
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 9:12 AM
Comment 1 by RINOHunter at 13-Feb-09 11:49 AM
So, how come when George Bush wants an insane irrational bailout of $700 million, so many RINOS hoped on board; but when the ObamaMessiah wants an insane irrational bailout $800 million, all of a sudden that's a bad thing. The RINOS have lost all credability. And rightly so...
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 13-Feb-09 02:32 PM
Back when the first "bailout" arrived it was tightly targeted, and there was widespread belief that this was the cure.
Now, with that failure in the rearview mirror, there is no excuse for another one, especially when it is targeted at all the wrong things.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 13-Feb-09 02:34 PM
I think Republicans will have turned the corner when they can lay legitimate claim to the truth that this has failed-- some 4-6 months hence-- AND can start to say "elect us and we will REVERSE these stupid things." It would be historic, and absolutely essential.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-09 03:24 PM
Actually, conservative economists agreed with President Bush's original plan because it would've eliminated the toxic assets left from the subprime scandal.
The original TARP went wrong when Secretary Paulson diverted the funds & let banks use the money for whatever they pleased.
Now that alot of of RINOs have been eliminated, the currrent GOP has a higher percentage of principled conservatives. It's that simple.
Comment 5 by eric z at 14-Feb-09 04:27 PM
Those young guns are not straight shooters.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 14-Feb-09 04:35 PM
I've had conversations with several of these people. I take it personally when people make cheap shots without being specific.
If you're going to make statements like that, I'll require you to cite specifics. That isn't optional.
Comment 7 by Freealonzo at 14-Feb-09 10:44 PM
When Bill O'Reilly asked Dick Morris how much longer President Obama could continue to blame the Bush administration for the recession, Morris said perhaps 6-8 months. I think it's less than that, possibly as little as 4 months
You guys blamed Carter and Clinton for Bush's screw-ups over his entire administration. I have a feeling it Dems can and will blame Bush for many years.
Also why are you still listening to Karl Rove. He hasn't been right about anything since 2004.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 15-Feb-09 01:26 AM
If you think that Obama's overreach & arrogance hasn't gotten the GOP fired up, then you're missing reality.
The enthusiasm gap that favored Democrats last year is gone. Also, blaming Bush is silliness because you own both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. by wide margins. If President Obama doesn't fix the banking system & this political payoff bill doesn't lift us out of this recession, we'll all point out that President Obama's plan didn't work.
If you don't like dealing with accountability, tough shit. With Democrats owning the House, Senate & White House, there's only one bunch to blame.
DEAL WITH IT!!!
Comment 9 by Freealonzo at 16-Feb-09 10:45 AM
If you don't like dealing with accountability, tough shit. With Democrats owning the House, Senate & White House, there's only one bunch to blame
I just want intellectual consistency. R's controlled congress all three branches for 6 years and the WH for 8. Where's your accountability for that?
President Obama's Prediction Refuted By Caterpiller CEO
Saying that Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens refuted President Obama's overselling his stimulus package is understatement. Here's what MSDNC first reported Wednesday:
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar has informed him it will rehire some of the thousands of workers it has laid off in recent weeks if Congress passes an economic stimulus bill.Here's what President Obama first said:
"Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off," Obama said today in Peoria.That reporting didn't last long:
But when asked today if the stimulus could do that, Owens said, "I think, realistically, no. The honest reality is we're probably going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."President Obama is working so hard to sell this pig of a bill that he's making things up. That's a surefire way of losing credibility. The bill will likely pass but it isn't likely to stimulate the economy, though it appears to have stimulated Capitol Hill Republicans.
I can't think of another time when an American president stated something as fact, then had it refuted later. There is precedent for this type of statement, though. Think Speaker Pelosi 'delivering' a message from the Israeli government to Syria that Israel was willing to return to the negotiating table.
When the Israeli government issued its statement, people ridiculed "Secretary of State Pelosi" for such an embarrassing misstatement. I suspect that this won't be the embarrassment to President Obama because the Fawning Media won't let it get that far.
The Right Blogosphere, though, will play this up as proof that President Obama isn't immune from telling an occasional whopper to sell his agenda. The attitude the Right Blogosphere should take is that we'll offer honest, objective criticism with the realization that it'll take time to win the public over to our message.
Winning people will take time but it's equally true that we've got to get started ASAP.
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 10:21 AM
No comments.
