March 17-18, 2009
Mar 17 02:51 Obama's Postpartisan Personna History? Mar 17 03:24 Keeping The Heat On DFL Imperialists Mar 17 11:19 Pelosi Wants to Save Fossils Mar 17 11:58 Sen. About Face Eats Crow Mar 17 13:31 Budget Blogger Conference Notes Mar 17 14:43 ***BREAKING NEWS*** Chessani Rulings Upheld!!! Mar 17 22:39 White House's Credibility Gap Reaching Crisis Level Mar 18 10:07 Change We Can't Afford Mar 18 18:23 Obama Adminstration/Geithner Incompetence Displayed
Obama's Postpartisan Personna History?
Based on John Harwood's article , it appears that President Obama isn't interested in being a postpartisan president. (Why should this campaign promise last, right?)
There is an easier way.President Obama certainly could attempt to execute this strategy. When green energy and Cap and Trade are the spotlight of energy policy instead of increased drilling on the OCS, people won't just be upset. When health care reform drives up health care costs and adds $1,000,000,000,000 in additional federal spending per year, people will be red hot upset.
An easier way, that is, for President Obama to achieve his huge health care and energy goals than begging, pleading and negotiating for help from Republicans. The absence of bipartisan consensus, after all, has prevented strong action on either front for decades.
The easier way would let the president negotiate with only fellow Democrats. The deal they strike could pass Congress this year by a simple majority vote - in a single budget bill with historic health and energy policy changes that Republicans could not filibuster.
Here is how: Congressional Democrats pursue Mr. Obama's agenda under the arcane rules of "budget reconciliation." Here is the problem: By disarming the legislative minority, that path would cause the opposite of political reconciliation with Republicans.
Indeed, Republicans warn that such a move would be a hostile act, as bitterly divisive, one leader cautions, as President George W. Bush's conduct of the Iraq war.
"If President Obama takes a look at what happened to President Bush, he won't want to," said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. "It would be very difficult for Obama to have a successful presidency."
If President Obama thinks that the Cincinnati Tea Party was big, he ain't seen nothing yet.
When those programs turn out to be losers, there will only be one group to affix blame to. HINT: It won't affix to Republicans because they won't participate in such folly.
One thing I'd say to Sen. Alexander, though, is that he's assuming that President Obama puts a higher priority on re-election than on passing his radical agenda. I don't think that's the right assumption to make. I'm not saying that President Obama doesn't care about getting re-elected. I'm saying it appears that he's willing to sacrifice a second term if that's what's necessary to achieve his radical vision for America.
"He strongly believes that sustainable economic recovery depends on major action," said John D. Podesta, who directed Mr. Obama's presidential transition. "He's not going to give that up to make people feel the process is somehow sweeter."That's certainly an option in President Obama's arsenal but it's what will dramatically drop his approval ratings. Mr. Podesta's statement is foolish because there won't be a sustained recovery if President Obama's economic plan is enacted. Dramatically driving the cost of energy up while raising taxes on small businesses and maintaining an unsustainable deficit year after year certainly won't produce prosperity.
Quite the opposite. What it will create is dramatic inflation spikes, high unemployment and a shortage of money for small business loans. Does that sound like the pathway to sustained prosperity?
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:53 AM
No comments.
Keeping The Heat On DFL Imperialists
My Your Turn editorial on the DFL majorities' attempt to limit reporters' access is in this morning's edition of the SC Times.
Regular readers of LFR know that I've published more than a few opinions on the subject. One thing that I can't stress enough, though, is how willing the DFL House majority was to throw the First Amendment under the bus. The other thing I can't stress enough is the imperiousness of their behavior.
I've pointed out here that DFL Majority Leader Tony Sertich tried selling the restrictions as necessary for Capitol security. In that post, I cited Esme Murphy's response to DFL Majority Leader Sertich's talking point:
The proliferation of bloggers and journalists at the capitol and everywhere allows more people access to more information. It is not, as Rep. Tony Sertich, maintains "a security threat." The capitol has its own police force, after all.I stated in my Your Turn that there's no question that the DFL's attempted restrictions on reporters isn't constitutional.
Last week was a good week for the media from the standpoint that we all stood together for an important constitutional principle. Pat Kessler and Esme Murphy from WCCO, Tom Hauser from KSTP and TPT's Mary Lahammer said explicitly that there's more than enough information that needs publication to supply all journalists, whether they're TV reporters, print reporters or multimedia specialists like bloggers.
One thing that needs attention is the Senate's refusal to restore Dan Ochsner's floor credentials. I still haven't heard a plausible explanation for why Ox's credentials haven't been restored. I'm not confident I ever will. Nonetheless, I'll keep pushing the issue.
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:24 AM
No comments.
Pelosi Wants to Save Fossils
According to this article ,
Pelosi's spokesman, Brendan Daly, said the speaker was moved by the recent announcement by the Hearst Corp., the parent company of The Chronicle, that it would be forced to sell or close the paper if it could not achieve major cost-savings quickly. Hearst has said the paper lost $50 million last year and that this year's losses will probably be worse.Why should newspapers get a helping hand from Uncle Sam to survive? If they're economically viable, fine, let them continue publishing. If they aren't, let them follow the path of the unicorn.
The Chronicle's largest union, representing nearly 500 employees, ratified a contract Saturday that will clear the way for at least 150 job cuts while also eliminating certain rights and benefits. Another Hearst paper, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, will cease publication today and become a Web-only news outlet, Hearst said Monday.
"She's been a big fan of newspapers her whole life," Daly said. "She wants to ensure their survival, but is also very concerned about antitrust laws. We have to make sure we follow the well-established guidelines of the Justice Department."
People are understanding that print editions of newspapers will soon be a thing of the past, with the Wall Street Journal being a likely exception. Printing off newspapers costs lots of money, meaning they aren't competitive with newspapers like Politico.com and other online newspapers.
With revenues from advertising still declining, what newspaper can afford the expense of running the presses, paying the operators, etc.? Those things alone put these fossils at a competitive disadvantage.
Nonetheless, Speaker Pelosi wants to preserve these inneficient fossils at taxpayer expense. It's time to let them die . There's no reasonable justification for letting them survive, especially if they need the federal government's assistance in staying alive. That's proof that they need to go the way of the passenger pigeon.
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:21 AM
No comments.
Sen. About Face Eats Crow
Fox Business Channel nails Sen. Christopher Dodd's hypocrisy in this article :
Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Monday night floated the idea of taxing American International Group (AIG: 0.9159, 0.1358, 17.41%) bonus recipients so the government could recoup some or all of the $450 million the company is paying to employees in its financial products unit. Within hours, the idea spread to both houses of Congress, with lawmakers proposing an AIG bonus tax.Sen. Dodd has gotten by mostly by looking senatorial. He isn't the brightest bulb in the Senate's chandelier. His specialty is his ability to talk out both sides of his mouth. That worked 15 years ago. With the eternal memory of the internet, though, talking out both sides of one's mouth backfires more often than it works.
The move represents somewhat of an about-face for the Senator.
While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an "exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009", which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.
The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.
Separately, Sen. Dodd was AIG's largest single recipient of campaign donations during the 2008 election cycle with $103,100, according to opensecrets.org.
Sen. Dodd's faux outrage will soon be replaced by real outrage on behalf of America's taxpayers. His getting caught isn't helping him in the accessability department:
Dodd's office did not immediately return a request for comment.Finally, here's what the Dodd amendments said:
- Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009.
- For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:00 PM
No comments.
Budget Blogger Conference Notes
I just finished participating in a "Whip Blog Conference Call" with Kevin McCarthy, Mark Kirk and Jim Jordan.
According to this pdf file , President Obama's budget increases debt at a faster rate than the CBC's budget, which is saying something considering the fact that the CBC's budget is the most radical congressional budget.
I asked about the inflationary impact that President Obama's Cap and Trade tax increase will have. Rep. Jim Jordan said that it's potentially the most dangerous proposal in President Obama's budget. Rep. Jordan said that, in addition to increasing taxes on everyone, especially those of us living in the Midwest and the Rust Belt States, would jump dramatically, dramatically driving up home heating bills.
Rep. Jordan said that "India and China won't put the same restrictions on themselves", meaning that we'll be at a competitive disadvantage.
Noel Sheppard asked about President Obama's budget forecasting a growth rate of 3.2 percent next year. He asked how they can project that considering the fact that we'll likely still have unemployment rates north of 8 percent. Rep. McCarthy said that they're trying to get outside analysis of President Obama's projections. Rep. McCarthy said that President Obama's credibilty is taking a hit as a result of those projections.
The other news coming from today's call is that the Republican's alternative budget will be put out next week. They said that they'll have specific policies unlike how President Obama put $634,000,000,000 in his budget for health care reform, then omitted what his reform includes.
All three representatives said that their budget would include tax cuts and true fiscal restraint.
Originally posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009, revised 24-Mar 4:45 AM
No comments.
***BREAKING NEWS*** Chessani Rulings Upheld!!!
Today, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals issued their ruling that the dismissal charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani won't be re-instated. Here's TMLC's official statement on the NMCCCA ruling:
A Victory for Marine LtCol ChessaniRep. John Murtha's accusations have now been proven to be false. Among Rep. Murtha's accusations was that the Haditha Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" because they "cracked under the pressure" of war. We now know that they didn't kill innocent civilians in cold blood because charges against these Marines have been dropped.
---
ANN ARBOR, MI ; Late this morning, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals sitting in Washington DC, released their unanimous decision upholding the dismissal of charges against Marine Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of apparent Unlawful Command Influence. But the case may not be over yet.
For the last four years, LtCol Chessani has been investigated and prosecuted for his involvement in the so called "Haditha Massacre", a massacre that never happened. A 22-year veteran, Chessani has served three tours of duty in Iraq. He served in the First Persian Gulf War and in Panama. At the time of the November 19, 2005 Haditha incident, he was the Battalion Commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines ("The Thundering Third"), one of the most decorated units in the history of the Marine Corps.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, observed, "LtCol Chessani, one of the most effective combat commanders we had in Iraq, was made political scapegoat by the civilians in the Pentagon to appease the antiwar politicians and a liberal media. In fact, we now know that the story of the 'massacre' that prompted the Haditha prosecutions was a headline in a Time news article instigated by insurgent propaganda operatives."
Continued Thompson, "This nation has come to the point where we can't call terrorists captured on the battlefield 'enemy combatants.' We release the terrorists out of Guantanamo and prosecute the military our country placed in harms' way to defend us."
Robert Muise, an attorney with the Law Center, a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, argued the case on behalf of LtCol Chessani. The Law Center has been defending LtCol Chessani throughout his prosecution alongside his detailed Marine lawyers, LtCol John Shelburne and Captain Jeff King. Captain Kyle Kilian, a Marine appellate defense lawyer, also assisted in the appeal.
LtCol Chessani is the highest ranking officer facing criminal charges as a result of the much-publicized and ill-described "Haditha massacre." The criminal charges against him stem from a legitimate combat action taken by four enlisted Marines in his command after they were ambushed by insurgents in Haditha, Iraq, on November 19, 2005. Their actions resulted in the deaths of several ambushing insurgents.
Unfortunately and tragically, several civilians were also killed in the house-clearing operation.
Even though LtCol Chessani wasn't present during the incident, he was criminally charged with failing to launch a full investigation into the incident. If convicted, he faces 2 + years imprisonment, dismissal from the Corps, and loss of all of his retirement pay.
The essential holding of the military appellate court was as follows: "We are convinced the Government failed to meet its burden of demonstrating, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the proceedings were untainted by the appearance of UCI (Unlawful Command Influence). We are similarly convinced that an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would harbor significant doubt about the fairness of this proceeding ."
Another of Rep. Murtha's accusations was that the Marine officers, supposedly including Lt. Col. Chessani, covered the incident up. The NMCCCA upheld the dismissal of charges against Lt. Col. Chessani.
A day after Rep. Murtha made his accusations, he was asked where he got his information from . Here's Rep. Murtha's reply:
"All the information I get, it comes from the commanders, it comes from people who know what they're talking about."Based on the fact that charges were dismissed before court-martial in 6 cases and another man was acquitted, I'd suggest that Rep. Murtha either lied or he talked with people who knew less than what they claimed they knew. Frankly, it's easier to think that Rep. Murtha made this stuff up in his attempt to become the House Majority Whip.
Another red flag incident for me was Murtha's accusation of a cover-up:
GIBSON: Jonathan just mentioned, there's no charges yet filed against any of the Marines that were in this outfit, but Jonathan mentioned a moment ago, defense lawyers are already saying, well, there's drone video and there is actual radio traffic to higher-ups that will give a different picture than you have been talking about of this incident. What do you know about that?When Rep. Murtha said that he knew that there was a cover-up someplace, I said that he didn't know anything. If you know something, you can explain in detail what you know. A person who suspects something would say that he suspects a cover-up. That clearly didn't happen in this instance.
MURTHA: I can only tell you this, Charles. This is what the Marine Corps told me at the highest level. The Commandant of the Marine Corps was in my office just last week, so you know, I know there was a cover-up someplace . They knew about this a few days afterwards and there's no question the chain of command tried to stifle the story. I can understand why, but that doesn't excuse it. Something like this has to be brought out to the public, and the people have to be punished.
Should all the appeals for Lt. Col. Chessani turnout the way today's ruling did, that would leave only SSgt. Frank Wuterich with charges still pending. Considering the fact that the military has ruled that a masscre didn't happen and that the military has ruled there wasn't a cover-up, how much of a case is left against SSgt. Wuterich?
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:46 PM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 18-Mar-09 03:02 PM
now can we get murtha charged or forced to give up his bonuses since he wasn't doing his job right?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
White House's Credibility Gap Reaching Crisis Level
The first thing I thought after reading this article is that the White House must think that political activists don't do Google searches. Here's what ABCNews is reporting:
Sources in the Obama administration Tuesday said that despite previous media reports administration officials did not know until a couple weeks ago that the officials of the controversial AIG Financial Product Division were set to receive $165 million in bonuses on March 13.It's rather amazing that they'd make such a statement considering what the NY Times reported last November :
It wasn't until Monday, March 5, 2009, administration sources told ABC News, that officials of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York informed officials of the Treasury Department of the full extent of the $165 million in bonuses pending for the controversial Financial Products Subsidiary.
This was three days after the Obama administration had already announced a new commitment of an additional $30 billion for AIG.
"All of these 'rescues' are a disaster for the taxpayer, for the financial markets and also for the Federal Reserve System as an organization. Geithner, in our view, deserves retirement, not promotion."That's an awful lot of detail for the White House, and Mr. Geithner, to refute. Brian Faughnan, who participated in today's blogger conference call, thinks that Geithner's days are numbered :
Ouch.
"He was in the room at every turn of the crisis," said another executive who participated in several such confidential meetings with Mr. Geithner. "You can look at that both ways."
While Henry M. Paulson Jr., the current Treasury secretary, has taken a drubbing for the changeable nature of the government's efforts to bolster the financial industry, some of which clearly contradicted each other; Mr. Geithner has managed, for the most part, to remain unscathed. He's been widely praised as a bright, articulate out-of-the box thinker who is a bailout expert, to the extent anyone can truly be an expert at fast-changing emergencies.
Behind the scenes, Mr. Geithner was the point person for weeks of sleep-deprived Bailout Weekends. It was Mr. Geithner, not Mr. Paulson, for example, who put together the original rescue plan for the [AIG].
Today I had the opportunity to talk to Congressman Kevin McCarthy when he addressed the Heritage Foundation's conservative blogger briefing. I asked McCarthy how House Democrats view Tim Geithner, based on his conversations with his colleagues across the aisle.Another bit of proof that the end is near is that Geithner got the kiss of death today:
McCarthy said that Geithner was in 'dire straits', that he had blown his first impression, came across as the 'man with the plan' who had none, and now was getting mocked by Saturday Night Live. The AIG mess would only worsen his situation. As McCarthy pointed out, Geithner needs a strong support team to have a chance to turn things around, but seems unlikely to get one anytime soon. According to McCarthy, that seems to be the view of House Democrats as well.
If there was any doubt the White House is feeling the heat over Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's role in the AIG bonuses, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs gave a big clue Tuesday.As Brian rightly points out, coaches start cleaning out their lockers and polishing up their resumes when they get that fatal vote of confidence. That's the signal that the light at the end of the tunnel is a freight train, not a source of optimism.
"The president has complete confidence" in Geithner, Gibbs told reporters.
In Washington terms, "complete" and "confidence" are the two words no public official ever wants to hear, often a harbinger of trouble. And with public and congressional fury growing over the $165 million in bonuses, Geithner's role in the situation is getting close scrutiny.
The then and now transcripts from Robert Gibbs' White House briefing just shrinks the White House's credibility:
THEN:That was then. Here's this week's answer:
Jake Tapper, ABC: AIG, is the Administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?
Press Secretary Gibbs: Is it confident - I'm sorry?
Jake Tapper, ABC: That they know, that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion?
Press Secretary Gibbs: Yes.
Question: Did you guys first find out about these bonuses last week?QUESTION: Which whopper is Mr. Gibbs going to stick with?
Press Secretary Gibbs: I think that's true, based on what I read in the newspaper ...
Question: But, Robert, to follow up on Jake's point, did Secretary Geithner make a mistake by not reviewing these contracts; they're a year old ; before he cut a new check to AIG? Why didn't he do that?
Press Secretary Gibbs: I would certainly ask the Treasury; I'll ask the Treasury that.
BETTER QUESTION: Will Mr. Gibbs stick with one answer?
BEST QUESTION: Does it matter? It isn't like we'll trust anything that Gibbs, Geithner or this administration says anymore. After all, this administration's credibility is shrinking as fast as the national debt is exploding.
Posted Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:49 PM
Comment 1 by Walter Hanson at 18-Mar-09 03:05 PM
Gary:
Here's a great way to show his credibility gap. He is complaining this week about how a company is wasting $165 million dollars yet last week he thought it was a matter of life and death to sign a bill that had $9 billion dollars of earnmarks in it. He could've stopped the earnmarks by veoting the bill. Did he?
So what gives the President and Congress the right to complain after they got their newer and more expensive spending?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Change We Can't Afford
If the GOP wants to use a slogan to attack President Obama's health care reforms, I'd suggest they use the slogan 'Change we can't afford', especially after reading this AP article :
Guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans may cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, health experts say. That's more than double the $634 billion 'down payment' President Barack Obama set aside for health reform in his budget, raising the prospect of sticker shock at a time of record federal spending. Administration officials have pointedly avoided providing a ballpark estimate, saying it depends on details to be worked out with Congress.Everyone's heard the cliche that 'If you think health care costs alot now, wait until it's free.' Letting the federal government, the people who did such a wonderful job regulating AIG, Fannie and Freddie, regulate and run our health care system isn't just foolish. It's dangerous.
"It's impossible to put a price tag on the plan before even the basics have been finalized," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin. "Here's what we do know: The reserve fund in the president's budget is fully paid for and provides a substantial down payment on the cost of the reforming our health care system."
Still, the potential runaway costs are raising concerns among Republicans and some Democrats as Congress prepares to draft next year's budget. The U.S. spends $2.4 trillion a year on health care, more than any other advanced country. And some experts estimate that a third or more of that goes for tests and procedures that provide little or no benefit.
To those that say that we don't know what's in the bill, I'd suggest we know alot about it because President Obama's first choice for HHS Secretary, Tom Daschle, wrote about what that plan would look like. This WSJ article does a nice job outlining Sen. Daschle's vision of health care reform:
The Health Blog , among others, had put Daschle on the short list for the job. And he's gone to the trouble of writing a book about health care ( Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis , published in Feb.) to give us a pretty clear sense of where he'd like to take things.Thinking that government can run things efficiently isn't factually supportable.
His basic idea: Create a board modeled on the Federal Reserve to "offer a public framework within which a private health-care system can operate more effectively and efficiently, insulated from political pressure yet accountable to elected officials and the American people."
This should scare people:
The health care plan Obama offered as a candidate would have cost nearly $1.2 trillion over ten years, according to a detailed estimate last fall by the Lewin Group, a leading consulting and policy analysis firm. The campaign plan would not have covered all the uninsured, as most Democrats in Congress want to do. But it is a starting point for lawmakers.When the policymaking people can't put a pricetag on their policy initiatives, that's a red flag that tells me to run as fast in the opposite direction as fast as I can. The other red flag in these paragraphs is Mr. Sheils' statement about a plan "that commits the nation to covering all its citizens." I don't have a problem with using the tax system and free market principles to make health care available at affordable prices. I've got serious problems, though, with a system that doesn't look for ways to deliver important products at cheap prices. I've yet to see a government program that looks for cost effiencies. I have, however, seen government programs that cap prices paid out. Those things aren't the same thing.
John Sheils, a senior vice president of the Lewin Group, said about $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion would be a credible estimate for a plan that commits the nation to covering all its citizens. That would amount to around 4 percent of projected health care costs over the next 10 years, he added.
The cost of covering the uninsured is "a difficult hurdle to get over," Sheils said in an interview. " I don't know where the rest of the money is going to come from ," he added.
This isn't comforting either:
Economist Len Nichols, who heads the health policy project at the New America Foundation, said he calculates that guaranteeing coverage will cost $125 billion to $150 billion a year, when fully phased in.The fact that President Obama isn't willing "to be pinned down on an estimate" is code for saying that he doens't want people to really know how expensive his plan is.
Nichols said the Obama administration is not being "cagy" but "strategic" in refusing to be pinned down on an estimate . Taxpayers will get a better idea when congressional committees try to draft legislation later this year. "Until that gets revealed by the Congress, it would be highly premature for the president to assert that sort of number," Nichols said.
This is a habit of the Obama administration. This time, they refuse to tell the American people what a major reshaping of the health care industry will cost. Earlier, they refused to let people see what the stimulus bill's conference report contained before he signed it.
The Obama administration's happy talk about accountability and transparency is spin. It isn't reality. The Obama administration is about saying one thing, then doing the opposite. That's something Republicans should hammer his administration on daily.
They should, and will, present a better alternative to President Obama's and
Posted Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:16 AM
Comment 1 by Paul Ruszczyk at 11-Aug-09 12:46 PM
It is an insult to Americans to say that we can't afford health care for all. If the French can do it, we can do it.
Obama Adminstration/Geithner Incompetence Displayed
This article does a great job highlighting President Obama's, Tim Geithner's and the Democrats' incompetence. Here's what's being reported:
Professing shock at the bonus payments, Democrats have embarked on a hurry-up effort to impose what amounts to confiscatory taxes on the bonuses, a maneuver that almost surely will be tested in the courts. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner enjoys President Barack Obama's confidence, according to the White House.Here's what the Democrats' real problem is:
Gone are the days when they could merely bludgeon the Bush administration and promise to seek bipartisan solutions to the nation's economic problems. Now, in control of the White House and Congress, they are struggling to come up with an explanation for what no one in either party seems moved to defend.BINGO!!! I've said more than once that the biggest problem confronting President Obama that, for the first time in his life, he'll be judged on what he does, not on his speaking ability. Gone are the days when he can vote present like he did in the Illinois Senate. Gone, too, are the days when his centrist-sounding rhetoric isn't scrutinized against his actions.
Of course, AP articles wouldn't be complete without some Republican bashing like this:
Their overwhelming opposition to last month's stimulus bill appeared to be gaining little traction as Democrats showcase every shovelful of dirt that is turned, all in the name of economic recovery.Perhaps Mr. Espo can explain this Rasmussen poll that shows Republicans leading Democrats with the Generic Poll question:
Criticism that Obama and Democrats are embarking on a new era of tax-and-spend is undercut by the lack of a budget alternative from Republicans, the party that presided over a historic run-up in the federal debt earlier this decade when it controlled both the White House and Congress.
Less than 100 days into the Obama administration, polls have brought little good news to Republicans.
While a recent Pew survey found some slippage in Obama's support, it also registered only 28 percent approval for the job being done by GOP congressional leaders, the lowest in nearly 14 years. And a separate survey by CNN and Opinion research Corp. put support for the president's handling of the economy at nearly 60 percent.
Support for the Democratic Congressional candidates fell to a new low over the past week, allowing the GOP to move slightly head for the first time in recent years in the Generic Congressional Ballot. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district's Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.It sounds to me like Republicans are "getting traction" on the issues. This information is quite informative:
Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin , while non-investors would vote Democratic by a 45% to 33% margin.I'd love hearing Mr. Espo's explanation for how it's possible that Republicans lead Democrats on the generic ballot question for Congress while "not gaining traction" for "their overwhelming opposition to last month's stimulus bill." I'd love hearing that fanciful answer. That answer will likely have more spin to it than a top.
Simply put, the incompetence of the Obama administration is only exceeded, though not by much, by the AP's analytical abilities. Never has a nation been so poorly served by a presidential administration and the media as we're experiencing right now.
Posted Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:24 PM
No comments.
