February 15-17, 2009
Feb 15 02:36 It's Official: Obama Isn't Post-Partisan President Feb 16 13:41 DFL's New Hatchetman Makes Photo ID Disappear Feb 16 23:37 Burris' Blunders Feb 17 12:15 When the People Want Something Bad Enough Feb 17 14:37 My Q & A With Mike Pence Feb 17 16:41 What Illinois Corruption Looks Like
Prior Months: Jan
It's Official: Obama Isn't Post-Partisan President
Politico is reporting what conservatives knew since President Obama started claiming that he'd be a postpartisan, postracial president: President Obama is a bitter partisan . Conservative activists tried telling the public that his radical associations indicated that a President Obama would be the most radical, partisan president in our nation's history. Here's what Politico is reporting:
White House aides say they have concluded that Obama too frequently lost control of the debate and his own image during the stimulus battle. By this reckoning, the story became too much about failed efforts at bipartisanship and Washington deal-making, and not enough about the president's public salesmanship.This isn't shocking. In fact, it'd be a shock if President Obama, much like Sen. Obama, kept a single promise he's ever made.
For Obama's next act, the program is the same as he has been planning for months: New Deal-style plans to rescue struggling homeowners and rewrite regulations on the financial markets, plus a budget proposal that lays the groundwork for sweeping health care reform.
But the strategy to promote these items is getting an emergency overhaul. Obama plans to travel more and campaign more in an effort to pressure lawmakers with public support, rather than worrying about whether he can win over Republican votes in Congress. Officials suggested that the new, more partisan tone Obama embraced last week in his speech before House Democrats at their retreat and continued at his news conference Monday was what he should have been doing all along.
Remember the transformation he made on drilling? During a three day period, he first told Missouri audiences that drilling was a Republican scheme, then telling them that America could save as much oil as we'd get from drilling simply if they got regular tuneups and kept their tires inflated.
By the time his jet touched down in Florida, where polls showed that 60% of Floridians supported drilling on the OCS, then-candidate Obama said that he'd support drilling if it was part of a comprehensive energy package. Now that he's elected, his administration is taking steps to prevent drilling on the OCS.
Remember then-Sen. Obama promising the Nutroots that he'd filibuster the Patriot Act if it included blanket amnesty for telecommunication companies that assisted in preventing further terrorist attacks? He kept his promise until it was time to vote.
This week, President Obama claimed that nearly all economists from across the political spectrum agreed with his stimulus package. Except that they didn't.
It's been a rough week for President Obama in the truth-telling category, especially considering his telling an audience at a Caterpillar plant that their CEO told him that passing the Porkulus bill would mean Caterpillar would start hiring people back soon. Except that Jim Owens didn't tell Pesident Obama that . In fact, he issued a statement saying that there'd likely be more layoffs before they started hiring people again.
It appears as though President Obama's promises come with sunset dates.
There's ample proof that trusting President Obama, whether it's about the Patriot Act, the stimulus bill or being a postpartisan president. President Obama is providing us with proof that he's really a ruthless Chicago-style politician who'll do whatever it takes to get his radical agenda passed.
President Obama will use his popularity to get EFCA passed. It doesn't matter to him that EFCA would eliminate a person's right to cast a secret ballot, something that the American people hold as sacred.
President Obama will attempt to use his popularity to get government-run health care 'reform' passed.
The good news is that, while President Obama is popular, he doesn't have clout within his party. If you think he's got clout, then I'll ask a simple question:
Why did more House Democrats vote against President Obama's 'Let's Waste Hundreds of Billions of Dollars' Bill than Senate Republican turncoats voted for the legislation in the Senate?
President Obama's 'Let's Waste Hundreds of Billions of Dollars' Bill does more harm than good. It's undeniable that the legislation will cause inflation to spike. Every good economist will tell you that sharp spikes in inflation has the same effect as a tax increase. In fact, it's undeniable that that hidden tax increase is a terribly regressive tax.
The minute that President Obama signs the bill, the economy officially becomes his. If it succeeds, which is doubtful, he'll rightly be get credit for it. If it fails, which seems highly possible, his presidency will be weakened.
Posted Sunday, February 15, 2009 2:40 AM
Comment 1 by Eye\'s Wide Open at 15-Feb-09 07:29 AM
Great post. Recently, I discovered that Obama and the other socialists have allocated 20 million tax payer dollars to implement and emergency immigration of Gaza Palestinians.
I dare to say that this move was calculated and although at first glance it seems humanitarian, I dare say there is a link here that points to a one world religion and one world order. What is being imported is not just simple people but an ideology diametrically opposed to all that America stands for. I say no to Obama and the other socialists and that are in collusion to bring about a change that nearly have the American people oppose! Call me an alarmist or look at Britain and other European country's who are colonized.
Comment 2 by L. Skelly at 15-Feb-09 07:56 AM
He's not that far to the left, I think he's more centrist than he is left on many issues. I personally dont care for his stimulus plan either, I think he'll be back in 8 months or so asking for more. Some idiots still claim he's a Communist, Marxist whatever... total BS
Comment 3 by Eye\'s Wide Open at 15-Feb-09 09:45 AM
Skelly, before you call people idiots you might consider Obama's past affiliations. Lastly, you might be the fool who is projecting.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 15-Feb-09 10:07 AM
I can only hope that Republicans start, on the day after the signing, to point out what a miserable failure the thing is. You would think it would fail of its own colossal ignorance and arrogance, but America has fooled us before. So before we accidentally recover from this latest dose of too much poison, let's make sure we nail those killers to the wall, before they do still more damage to the patient.
Comment 5 by Jeff at 15-Feb-09 11:11 AM
I'm not sure if the stimulus will help that much. Economies go through cycles and recession is part of the cycle. I read a good article on the history of cycles at, I think,
http://www.recessioninfocenter.com
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 16-Feb-09 12:31 PM
Jerry, It isn't that America was fooled by this legislation. It's that 303 of the politicians we sent to Washington, DC didn't listen to us....AGAIN!!!
They're the same politicians who ignored us about passing legislation allowing drilling on the OCS.
They're the same politicians who tried ignoring us about passing Amnesty.
Notice a developing pattern?
Comment 7 by Freealonzo at 16-Feb-09 03:42 PM
It's that 303 of the politicians we sent to Washington, DC didn't listen to us,.AGAIN!!!
The reason they didn't listen to you again is because you offered up the same tired old solutions that you have in the past: Tax Cuts. Come up with some real, workable ideas, stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a socialist or terrorist and maybe you'll earn the credibility needed to have a position worth listening to.
Comment 8 by Walter Hanson at 18-Feb-09 06:52 PM
Free:
Check your history.
John Kennedy does an accross the board tax rate cut several years of economic growth only ruined because LBJ tried to cure poverty by spending money (oh we've already tried that Obama solution to spend money to death which didn't work)
Ronald Reagan did across the board tax rate cuts and we basically had 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth. Worked again!
George Bush (#43) does across the board tax rate cuts. The economy survives the 9-11 scare, hurican Katirina, the tech stock bubble exploding. Worked again!
What caused the deficit to go up wasn't a lack of revenue, but the congress (republican controlled spending like drunk democrats though give their new version of spending the republicans weren't spending like drunk Democrats)
So massive spending didn't work for FDR. Massive spending didn't work for LBJ. It looks like to me that history is on our side. Of course you have been brainwashed to believe that tax cuts are evil. yet than why was obama proud to claim that there were tax cuts in this package (the Republicans offered a better package of tax cuts by the way).
Learn your history Free.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL's New Hatchetman Makes Photo ID Disappear
Based on what he did Thursday, I'd say that Gene Pelowski is the DFL's newest hatchetman. Chairman Pelowski announced at the start of Photo ID hearing that Tom Emmer's bill would move to the next committee. It became apparent that Dr. David Schultz's testimony would eat up half of the hour allocated to hear testimony on the bill wouldn't be enough.
Rather than adjourn the hearing and invite the testifiers back for the next hearing, Democrat Pelowski instead called the vote and defeated the bill. It was apparent that House Democrats were worried that testimony given didn't strengthen their position that photo ID wasn't necessary.
In fact, Lucky Rosenbloom's testimony probably scared the daylights out of Democrats. Mr. Rosenbloo's impassioned testimony, with him waving his picture ID in the air and saying that "This is empowering", was visually powerful. Seeing a thoughtful, articulate African-American testify that photo ID is worthwhile isn't what House Democrats wanted to hear.
Josh Reed, a pollwatcher in the Twin Cities this year, testified that a number of students stood in long lines without photo ID or utility bill this year to vote. When they couldn't find someone to vouch for them, they weren't allowed to vote. Accoring to Reed, these students would've voted had photo ID been the law of the land.
The result would've been greater enfranchisement and higher turnout of voters.
That isn't the picture that Dr. Schultz and Rep. Paul Marquart tried painting. I said here that Mr. Reed's testimony tore the heart out of Dr. Schultz's testimony. Dr. Schultz testified that voter fraud was "statistically insignificant." He didn't say that photo ID actually helped increase voter turnout. Dr. Schultz's testimony wasn't based on firsthand experiences but on studies far removed from reality.
It wasn't in the Democrats' best interest to have Pelowski adjourn the hearing so that everyone could testify. That's because Rep. Dan Severson had testimony about a mysterious school bus that appeared on the St. Cloud State campus on election day. This mysterious bus raised red flags because, as King and I discussed yesterday on Final Word, Ward 1, Precinct 1 is limited to students living in St. Cloud State dormitories and two off-campus apartments.
We also discussed the fact that the polling place for Ward 1, Precinct 1 is Atwood Center, is close to the center of the SCSU campus and that the entire campus is approximately seven blocks north to south and possibly four blocks east to west.
Simply put, it isn't necessary for 75-100 students to get a bus ride to get to the polling station since the longest walk students living on campus would've made was four blocks.
It's my opinion that House Democrats didn't want this testimony being heard because these real life experiences don't fit their storyline. The purpose of hearings is to put a spotlight on important information. That clearly isn't important to House Democrats or Chairman Pelowski. That clearly wasn't important to Dr. Schultz, either.
Had that been important to Dr. Schultz, he would've spent more time interviewing people rather than just reading DoJ reports.
Posted Monday, February 16, 2009 1:41 PM
Comment 1 by Jeff at 16-Feb-09 10:12 PM
I think with this stimulus the federal deficit is likely to go even higher. I saw an interesting article, I think, on
http://www.recessioninfocenter.com
Comment 2 by Andrea at 17-Feb-09 04:29 PM
It's Josh Ruegg, not Reed. He's in my Senate District.
Burris' Blunders
Roland Burris' blunders haven't been as frequent as Rod Blagojevich's but what he lacks in quantity, he makes up for in quality . As a conservative, I frequently delight myself in watching liberals make idiots of themseselves. Yesterday's press conference was so painful that I stopped watching it after 15 minutes. Here's what the Chicago Tribune wrote about it:
Sunday afternoon, Roland Burris told a roomful of Chicago reporters that his plainly inconsistent sworn statements about his dealings with cronies of a now-defrocked governor aren't...inconsistent. We watched from a few feet away as the nervous senator sought refuge in Clintonian semantic distinctions: My first affidavit was limited to this, my sworn testimony was limited to that, and so on.Burris appears to be a typical Chicago politician. They think they can say anything and get away with it. They do things things that would almost make a Philadelphia politician blush.
We hope the people of Illinois eventually learn all there is to know about Burris' contacts with Rod Blagojevich's associates before the governor appointed Burris to the Senate. Burris' evolving discussion of those contacts raises more questions than it resolves.
At first, Sen. Burris appeared poised. That quickly disappeared as the media barrage began. At one point, Sen. Burris was asked a pointed question. That caused Burris' attorney to say that the senator couldn't take the question. When queried further, Burris' attorney said "Because I said so."
It was an inelegant moment to say the least.
Posted Monday, February 16, 2009 11:38 PM
Comment 1 by Lyn at 17-Feb-09 08:52 AM
Chicago politics. Those people really have a TRADITION going on.
Why the surprise about Burris and how he got nominated to fill Obama's seat? We should not be surprised. He was rushed through. Now we know why. He probably will stay right where he's at. I mean seriously since when is lying and who knows what else grounds for getting rid of an elected politician.
Oh wait he wasn't elected he was chosen. He is another "chosen one" just like el presidente Obama.
When the People Want Something Bad Enough
It's been ages since I started reading George Will's columns. In one of Mr. Will's writings, he stated that "If the people want something bad enough, and scream loud enough for long enough, eventually the leaders will follow." The past few years, I'm not certain that applies.
It certainly applied to the immigration debate. People were so upset with that legislation that they melted the Senate switchboard down with a flood of calls.
With Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid running the show in DC and with the DFL running the legislature in St. Paul, that axiom doesn't appear to apply anymore. These examples highlight why I think that axiom doesn't apply:
1) People certainly screamed loudly last summer during the House Oil Party. Speaker Pelosi was adamantly opposed to opening up the OCS because she couldn't afford to do anything that would give enronmental extremists a reason to stop pouring money into her candidates' campaigns.
2) People certainly screamed loudly the last two weeks during the debate (I'm using that term loosely.) on the stimulus bill. All their screaming couldn't prevent the Traitorous Trio from stabbing their House colleagues in the back.
3) On a local level, a House committee defeated Tom Emmer's Photo ID bill even though the bill draws near-unanimous support from Republicans, majority support from independents and strong support with moderate-to-conservative Democrats.
What this tells me is that we're at a crossroads, a crossroads that the GOP alphabets in DC and RPM leadership haven't picked up on. There's three parts to this crossroads.
One of the crossroads that we're at deals with communications. If we don't get more issue-specific, both with our solutions and our attacks, then we're wasting time and, more importantly, political credibility.
Another crossroads that the GOP finds itself at is that we aren't instructing people like we used to. Simply put, we've spent too much time looking for people who 'voted right' rather than finding great conservative minds.
Let's be clear about this: I'm not advocating abandoning conservatism. Quite the opposite.
What I'm saying is that we've worried about how people would vote on a specific set of issues. Instead, I'm advocating we spend more time studying how people reach their positions. Once I know what animates people, I'll know how to persuade people.
The other crossroads we're at dovetails with the second crossroads. Specifically, it deals with living out our conservative principles. In the past, we've heard the speeches that got us revved up, only to have the politicians disappoint us. What's needed are people who'll (a) fight for free market-oriented solutions, (b) fight against high taxes and stifling regulations and unfunded mandates and (c) speak to the needs of the prosperity-makers, aka small businesses.
That means emphasizing intelligent solutions for education and health care problems as well as for taxes, spending and regulations.
Before former Sen. Daschle withdrew his name from consideration as HHS secretary, it was clear that he'd be President Obama's point person to 'reform' health care from a federal standpoint. I recently had a brief Facebook exchange with John Kasich about his vision for Recharge Ohio . His perspective was completely different than Sen. Daschle's. Rep. Kasich thinks that states should be the testing grounds for reforms. I suspect that that's because welfare reform was tested in Wisconsin and Massachuesetts before their solutions were first tested at the state level.
The point to all this is simple: If politicians think that they don't have to listen to us but do have to listen to the special interest groups that fund their campaigns, then it's time to vote those that don't listen out of office. That means joining together in reducing Ms. Pelosi's and Sen. Reid's power. Their power will be reduced if they're in the minority or if their majority is slim.
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 12:18 PM
No comments.
My Q & A With Mike Pence
Last week, I had the privilege of participating in a blogger conference call with House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence. After the conference call, I contacted his staff to see if Chairman Pence was interested in doing an interview. When I found out he was, his staff and I decided that an email Q & A would be the best fit into Chairman Pence's schedule. Here is the text of my exchange with Chairman Pence:
1) One of the things worrying small businesses is affordable health care. First, are HAS's part of that solution? Second, If HSAs are part of the solution, how would health care shoppers access information about which clinics or hospitals have the best record on the various procedures and which hospitals or clinics have the best prices?I want to thank Chairman Pence for taking the time to answer these questions, especially since they are important to the economic well-being and liberty of our great nation.
A: Yes, I believe that Health Saving Accounts (HSA's) are part of the solution. I think insurance carriers and providers are getting better at disclosing price and quality information. For example, Aetna has started to put more information online for customers in selected markets. HSA's have certainly helped that process along.
The challenge is making sure the price information released is relevant to consumers ; telling them what an uninsured patient would pay doesn't mean much if the person has a health insurance plan that would get them a discount ; and figuring out the best way to report quality measures (both what those standards are and how they should be calculated).
Transparency is something that a lot of Republicans and Democrats agree on. I hope that all Members of Congress can work together on this issue in order to provide the best possible care for our nation's families.
2) Earlier this week, I read that the Obama administration is taking steps to prevent increasing domestic energy production, specifically preventing drilling on the OCS. First, will it require passing legislation to put the OCS off-limits or would it just take an executive order? Second, what will the House Republican Caucus do to get the oil flowing?
A: History has shown us that Democrats have not been supportive of lifting the ban on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), even if it means decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs and lowering the price of fuel. It is my hope that Congress and the Administration will work together on this issue to free American oil. Sadly, President Obama's Administration has recently taken steps in the opposite direction.
President Obama has the ability to issue a new Executive Order locking up the OCS and making it off limits to exploration. And, if he decides not to do that, the Democrat-controlled Congress has enough votes to reinstate the ban without the President's approval.
House Republicans will continue to fight to decrease our nation's dependence on foreign oil. We understand that allowing Americans to access our own oil resources will decrease the price of gas and create jobs. We will continue to push forth this effort until the Democrat leadership agrees to consider legislation that will encourage domestic energy exploration.
3) Earlier this week, Tom Harkin said that we need to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine. You've shown your opposition to that by submitting the Broadcaster Freedom Act. First, has the Broadcaster Freedom Act received a hearing in committee? Second, if it hasn't, which is what I expect, will the House Republican Conference be working with the Right Blogosphere and the various Face book networks to pressure Blue Dog Democrats to sign a discharge petition demanding the bill be given an up or down vote?
A: Unfortunately, my bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act, has not received a hearing. I strongly believe that this legislation is imperative to protecting our nation's airwaves. Every American cherishes a free and independent press. House Republicans understand that. You can rest assured that we will continue to fight this effort ; through every outlet available to us - in order to ensure that this freedom is not stripped away.
4) Activists know that you've submitted an alternative to the stimulus bill but most people don't know that. What things will the House Republican Conference do to trumpet the fact that Republicans did offer an alternative? Will part of this effort highlight the main things in your alternative?
A: House Republicans were very active in speaking out against the Democrats' so-called stimulus bill. However, House Republicans do not believe we should do nothing. We understand that the American people are hurting and that the economy is in a recession. House Republicans also know that we cannot borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. Americans want to see real solutions that don't force them and their family to foot the bill, and House Republicans have provided such a solution. The House Republican plan is a taxpayer-friendly solution that will create twice as many jobs as the Democrat plan at half the cost. The House Republican alternative does not include wasteful pork. It's a plan that our nation's hardworking families and small businesses need and deserve.
House Republicans will continue taking to the airwaves, newspapers and internet to spread the word about our alternative. We also will be spending a significant amount of time during the District Work Period communicating directly to our constituents about it. If you want to read more about the House Republican alternative, you can find additional information at www.GOP.gov.
Next, let's talk about some Republican initiatives that might attract support from Blue Dog Democrats.
1) Are there any bills where Republicans are working with Blue Dog Democrats? If there is, let us know what the chances are of getting those bills passed.
A: Republicans have reached out to the Blue Dogs on numerous occasions. Recently, in consideration of the Democrats' so-called stimulus bill, some Blue Dogs joined Republicans in opposing this massive spending bill. I hope that House Republicans and Blue Dogs can work together to root out wasteful spending in appropriation bills and other legislation. I encourage my friends in the Blue Dog Coalition to exert pressure on Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrat Leadership to enact fiscal discipline on behalf of the American people.
2) When Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker, she said that the House would use the pay-go system of budgeting. That's one of the things she hasn't followed through on. What's the likelihood of working with Blue Dog Democrats like Collin Peterson, Gene Taylor and Walt Minnick to pass a series of offsetting budget cuts?
A: I hope that House Republicans can work with these key Blue Dog Democrats to pass legislation that makes offsetting budget cuts a top priority. I appreciate all efforts in Congress to fight for responsible spending.
3) Finally, Is it possible to work with Blue Dog Democrats to enact lasting tax cuts for small businesses?
A: House Republicans know what high taxes can do to a small business - especially during this tough economic time when many businesses are struggling to make ends meet. I hope that Blue Dog Democrats will join House Republicans in our efforts to enact lasting tax cuts not only for small businesses, but also for hard-working families and farmers.
These types of communications are important to tell the tale that the formerly mainstream media hasn't told. For instance, while it's true that they haven't given the stimulus bill rave reviews, they haven't mentioned the fact that House Republicans put an alternative plan together. It's important that that information is highlighted.
SIDENOTE: I'm hoping that this won't be the last such interview with the GOP leadership in DC. Check back for more of these interviews.
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:39 PM
No comments.
What Illinois Corruption Looks Like
This past Sunday, Roland Burris made a number of statements that flew in the face of reality. Mark Brown of the Sun-Times highlights some of the exchanges Sen. Burris was asked in this article . Here's a sampling of those exchanges:
Rep. Jim Durkin: "Did you talk to any members of the governor's staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including, let me throw out some names -- John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenleaf, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody...associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor's arrest?"It's obvious that Rep. Durkin wanted to know if Roland Burris had contacts with each of the people he cited. It's equally obvious that Burris limited his answer.
Burris lawyer Timothy Wright: "Give us a moment." (Wright and Burris confer.)
Burris: "I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes."
Durkin: "I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor's staff prior to the governor's arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who is closely related to the governor?"
Burris: "I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business, and I did bring it up -- it must have been in September or maybe it was in July of '08 that, you know, you're close to the governor, let him know that I am certainly interested in the seat."
BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: Sen. Roland Burris has admitted that he tried raising money for ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich :
Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) has acknowledged that he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor's brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Obama.I think that's the easiest way to admit you didn't "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
Burris' latest comments in Peoria, Ill., Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.
I remember from the Clinton impeachment that one of Clinton's lawyers, perhaps Greg Craig or Lanny Davis, saying that impeachment was more than just telling something that wasn't accurate, that it also had to be pertinent to the case at hand.
Sen. Burris certainly didn't make an accurate statement but what he said certainly is pertinent to Gov. Blagojevich's impeachment because one of the articles of impeachment included play-for-pay.
UPDATE II: John Schmidt, the Sangamon Couty State Attorney, is investigating Sen. Burris' testimony before the impeachment committee:
Sangamon County State's Attorney John Schmidt said today he is now reviewing sworn testimony submitted by U.S. Sen. Roland Burris as part of a possible perjury investigation.This essentially ends Sen. Burris' brief time in the Senate. Burris's resignation is now just a formality.
"The case is under review," Schmidt told the Sun-Times. "We've received the affidavits and transcripts. That's where the review begins. There may be additional information we need. Should that be the case, we'll obtain it.
I'd be telling a Blagojevich-sized whopper if I said I was surprised.
Posted Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:44 PM
No comments.
