That must have been a Herculean bit of research. How do we know he got to see all of Obama's efforts? He's blocked access to his record at Columbia.
Strutting and fretting in an insane world.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The next time somebody blames the economic crash on Bush,
show him this. It was Fannie, Freddie, Barney, Chris Dodd and the rest of the Democrats in Congress, with the help of some weak-kneed Republicans.
Michael Barone looks at Michigan:
Voters in my home state seem to have realized that the solution to joblessness is not to plunder the private sector, but to nurture it.Michigan was once the center of manufacturing in the U.S. But the unions and state government got greedy and if they didn't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, they drove it out of the state. They got a bailout from the taxpayers, but they charged it on our credit. When other mismanaged states show up with their hands out to the next Congress, I hope the new majority says "Talk to the hand."
17.6% Real Unemployment
What could go wrong? They thought they were clever by passing the bills without the tax increases needed to pay for them. They thought they could make housing affordable by government fiat. They lied to us about how Stimulus would turn the economy around with millions of shovel-ready projects.
If another country had done us this much damage it would be an act of war. That's why I'm so amazed that the polls show Democrats still in the running in so many elections. Obama was supposed to be so inspiring, but unlike FDR he has been spreading fear rather than restoring hope. We're not the rubes we used to be.
"Progressives" living in the past--the irony of our age. They've been replaying the New Freedom and the New Deal for nearly a century. And now they've accomplished nearly all their dreams and not even America's resilience can shake it off. The Ponzi scheme is bankrupt.
A column by Peter Roff is headed Obama Fundamentally Doubts America Is a Good Country. It begins with a reference to this Op-Ed by Shelby Steele which is acerbically entitled A Referendum on the Redeemer. Steele writes:
Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the "transformative" aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to "change" us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the "no" in the "party of no" even more formidable, if not definitive.Ouch! You could almost feel sorry for the dude, if he weren't so busy blaming everybody else, including us, the "scared," and attacking those who think that raising the national debt by $3,000,000,000,000 in two years is reckless and dangerous.
But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.
How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?
Read the whole thing, at both links. I can't match their eloquence.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Another sample of Pot and Kettle
A number of liberal websites are enraged that a McDonald's in Canton, Ohio included a campaign leaflet in their paychecks.
Where's their outrage about unions contributing to Democrats with members' dues money? It might have been in bad taste to tell employees that:
If the right people are elected we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above our current levels. If others are elected we will not.As I say, it might have been politically incorrect, but I'm not aware that employers are now exempted from the First Amendment. Given the economic effects of Obama's agenda, the statement isn't really a misstatement. The only thing that I seriously question is his use of the McDonald's logo at the top. The McDonald's corporate HQ might not like the message to represent corporate policy.
As always who you vote for is completely your personal decision and many factors go into your decision.
The following candidates are the ones we believe will help our business move forward.
John Kasich for Governor
Rob Portman for Senate
Jim Renacci for Congress
Here in Utah, I've noticed that a lot of the employees at McDonald's are ESL students. They speak to each other in Spanish and some have trouble pronouncing English words. I wonder how much of their earnings get sent home to Mexico.
No objection to subsidizing the economy of Mexico from the left, though. All they would like is for these workers to vote for Democrats. Rules be damned.
Need I point out that if they were part of a large union, they'd be getting anti-business propaganda every month, and have their dues, basically another payroll tax, directed where the union bosses want them to go. Even if they drove McDonald's out of business, they'd seek bailouts to preserve the union while the company's investors get the shaft.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Oh dear! I feel safe in predicting that Christine O'Donnell will lose.
Clinton approached Kendrick Meek asking him to drop out of Florida Senatorial race to help Crist beat Rubio. Apparenty Crist has already sold his soul, but why should Meek do the same?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Watching Special Report on Fox, I note that Mara Liasson is more vocal than normal, disagreeing strongly with other panelists, something she has seldom done in the past. At the end, Brett Baier says, "Mara, it's good to have you on the panel."
Call it the Juan Williams effect.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Glenn Reynolds rounds up reports of voting fraud from around the country. Strangely, they all benefit Democrats.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Why was this information classified? There was lots of evidence of WMD in Iraq. Democrats lied. George Bush was right.
Jon Ward at The Daily Caller
“There is no doubt that this is going to be a difficult election,” Obama told a crowd of roughly 8,000 enthusiastic supporters at the University of Minnesota.
At a fundraising dinner after the rally in Minneapolis, Obama was frank with the 100 attendees who paid between $2,500 and $50,000 to attend.
“I’ve got to admit, Mr. President, sometimes over the last couple of years, with all the negative ads and all the money that’s been pouring in, all the filibustering and obstruction in Congress, sometimes I just start losing altitude, start losing hope,” Obama said. “It just seems like change is so hard to bring about.”
The president went on to exhort the Democratic donors not to give up, and to keep supporting him and his agenda.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat whose political future is in jeopardy, appeared with Obama at the rally, and blamed a good portion of her party’s woes on a wave of campaign spending being poured into races across the country by outside conservative groups.
“Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where – because they won’t disclose it – is pouring in,” Pelosi said.
One reason so many Americans are unhappy with politics today is that it has abdicated its central role. It doesn't narrow our differences; it exaggerates them.
There never has been -- as commentator Michael Barone warns -- a golden age when Americans basked in bipartisan harmony. Still, the present popular revulsion with politics seems particularly powerful. Consider some recent poll results: If given the chance, 48 percent of Americans would replace every member of Congress, including their own; only 11 percent have a "very positive" view of the Democratic Party, slightly better than the Republican Party (7 percent) and slightly worse than the Tea Party (12 percent); 77 percent of the public sees the parties "bickering more," a huge increase from 2009 (53 percent).