As long-time readers will recall, Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite political historians and pundits. He is, like me, a conservative living in a blue state (for him, California).
He has previously lamented the fact that the President gets away with murder due to our docile press. In this NRO post, Hanson simply tells it like it is. Our President is a serial liar. Its not pleasant to use the term, but the facts are what they are.
Hanson lays out the parade of half-truths, mischaracterizations, obfuscations, and outright falsehoods that have been a hallmark of the Obama presidency.
I have to believe that if Barak Obama was a Republican, he would be reviled in the press. As a Democrat, his Praetorian Guard media has only grudgingly acknowledged his penchant for dissemblege.
Read Hanson's post and decide for yourself.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Presidential Prevarication
Let's face it. Our President has a problem telling the truth.
His Obamacare promises..."If you like you current policy, you can keep it. Period!"...and..."if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period!"...are now clearly shown to have been a campaign ploy.
Now he "apologizes", so to speak. What exactly is he apologizing about? It appears that he's sorry that we didn't realize he was lying in the first place. NBC's Chuck Todd, who elicited the "apology" in a recent interview, subsequently noted that he thinks that the Presedent does not believe what he said was a lie. This despite aides having been quoted (in a Wall Street Journal report) as saying they told Mr. Obama that his "you can keep" it line was not accurate.
Our President will say anything to get and keep his job and to get his way on governmental matters. You see, I guess his view is that if a statement helps him in the campaign of the moment, it must be true.
If only we had a free and unbiased media.
His Obamacare promises..."If you like you current policy, you can keep it. Period!"...and..."if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period!"...are now clearly shown to have been a campaign ploy.
Now he "apologizes", so to speak. What exactly is he apologizing about? It appears that he's sorry that we didn't realize he was lying in the first place. NBC's Chuck Todd, who elicited the "apology" in a recent interview, subsequently noted that he thinks that the Presedent does not believe what he said was a lie. This despite aides having been quoted (in a Wall Street Journal report) as saying they told Mr. Obama that his "you can keep" it line was not accurate.
Our President will say anything to get and keep his job and to get his way on governmental matters. You see, I guess his view is that if a statement helps him in the campaign of the moment, it must be true.
If only we had a free and unbiased media.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Under Barack's Bus
President Obama announced that he accepted the decision by UN Ambassador Susan Rice to withdraw her name from consideration for appointment to be Secretary of State.
As noted in Weekly Standard blog post, the President also criticised the unfounded attacks on her character of recent weeks. Of course, those "attacks" resulted from Obama having sent her out to mislead the public on his behalf.
So now Susan Rice joins the four dead embassy officials as victims of the Benghazi scandal. At least she didn't have to take a real bullet.
As noted in Weekly Standard blog post, the President also criticised the unfounded attacks on her character of recent weeks. Of course, those "attacks" resulted from Obama having sent her out to mislead the public on his behalf.
So now Susan Rice joins the four dead embassy officials as victims of the Benghazi scandal. At least she didn't have to take a real bullet.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Where The Economy Goes From Here
As a conservative, I have grave concerns about President Obama's re-election and its likely effects on the US economy. I have been quite afraid that we are likely to head further down the road towards a state-directed economy, much like European social democracies.
In this blog, University of Chicago economist, John Cochrane, makes a few predictions. They really aren't pretty. The most obvious; that four more years of Obama means four trillion more dollars added to our national debt.
The part of his post that troubles me the most, however, is his description of the incredible breadth of regulations which are already on tap and slated to be implemented as a result of current legislation and executive fiat. Here are his examples just dealing with the EPA:
In this blog, University of Chicago economist, John Cochrane, makes a few predictions. They really aren't pretty. The most obvious; that four more years of Obama means four trillion more dollars added to our national debt.
The part of his post that troubles me the most, however, is his description of the incredible breadth of regulations which are already on tap and slated to be implemented as a result of current legislation and executive fiat. Here are his examples just dealing with the EPA:
- Greenhouse gases. Detailed industry controls focusing on greenhouse gas emissions. They're even going to regulate cow farts. Sorry, Farm Methane Emissions. It's funny unless you're a dairy farmer. Hundreds of billions
- Between greenhouse gases, much tighter mercury limits, and designating coal ash a "hazardous substance" like nuclear waste (I'm exaggerating, but that's the idea), the end of coal.
- Tight fracking regulations.
- Much tigher ozone standards. Many cities are now way over the limit.
- Cut sulfur in gas from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. EPA: $90 billion a year
- Temperature standards to protect fish in power plant cooling ponds
- Tighter standards for farm dust. Farms have to submit mediation plans.
- Water quality control for every body of water in the country.
- Strict regulation of industrial boilers ($10-20 billion)
- Formaldehyde emissions from plywood. I didn't know Home Depot was a dangerous place to hang out.
There are a lot more examples, coming as a result of the ACA (Obamacare), the Dodd-Frank law, and other Federal laws and executive orders.
Read the whole post, but make sure you have the stomach for it. If this guy is half right, our economic future is not a happy one.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Where Conservatives Go From Here
I spent my day yesterday feeling down because I didn't get the "presents" I wanted for "Electionmas" (as Ann Althouse put it). I'm done feeling gloomy, though and now its time to move on, disappointed but glad I live in a Democracy. As Mo Udall once said after losing an election, "The people have spoken.....the bastards".
The "soul searching" is now beginning for Conservatives and Republicans. There will be many calls for being more inclusive or for finding candidates who will argue conservative principles more forcefully. There have already been call for purging the GOP of Tea Party members or apostates like Chris Christie.
The GOP must take this look, but as it does, it must reflect on the fact that Obama's election and re-election tells us that the United States is not the same country it was 20-30 years ago. It is not simply politics, however. The culture has changed and unless conservatives find a way to get their ideas into the current cultural mainstream, they are doomed to political failure.
This piece by Andrew Klaven outlines the problem and offers a few suggestions for a plan of attack. He suggests that political success can only be built upon a foundation of ideas which must be spread through the culture. Here are a couple of excepts from his article:
"The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions. I’m an artist; I play the long game.
To win that game, to create an electorate more deeply committed to true liberty and resistant to the sort of cultural scare tactics the president’s campaign team used so effectively, there are three areas to which conservatives need to commit intellectual and financial resources—three areas that our intelligentsia and funders, in their impractical practicality, too often ignore."
Klavan goes on to outline those three areas, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry and religion among intellectuals (particularly in academia). His conclusion:
"In the aftermath of a crushing electoral defeat, all this [Klavan's discussion of ways to change the current culture] may seem a distant business, an airy conversation for another day. It isn’t. The demography of the country is changing, but demography is not destiny. Ideas are. We must retake the culture and begin speaking truth to a new America."
I think Klavan is really on the right track. I encourage you to read it. I hope that conservatives and GOP leaders realize that the path to political victory lies, in part, outside of electoral politics.
The "soul searching" is now beginning for Conservatives and Republicans. There will be many calls for being more inclusive or for finding candidates who will argue conservative principles more forcefully. There have already been call for purging the GOP of Tea Party members or apostates like Chris Christie.
The GOP must take this look, but as it does, it must reflect on the fact that Obama's election and re-election tells us that the United States is not the same country it was 20-30 years ago. It is not simply politics, however. The culture has changed and unless conservatives find a way to get their ideas into the current cultural mainstream, they are doomed to political failure.
This piece by Andrew Klaven outlines the problem and offers a few suggestions for a plan of attack. He suggests that political success can only be built upon a foundation of ideas which must be spread through the culture. Here are a couple of excepts from his article:
"The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions. I’m an artist; I play the long game.
To win that game, to create an electorate more deeply committed to true liberty and resistant to the sort of cultural scare tactics the president’s campaign team used so effectively, there are three areas to which conservatives need to commit intellectual and financial resources—three areas that our intelligentsia and funders, in their impractical practicality, too often ignore."
Klavan goes on to outline those three areas, the mainstream news media, the entertainment industry and religion among intellectuals (particularly in academia). His conclusion:
"In the aftermath of a crushing electoral defeat, all this [Klavan's discussion of ways to change the current culture] may seem a distant business, an airy conversation for another day. It isn’t. The demography of the country is changing, but demography is not destiny. Ideas are. We must retake the culture and begin speaking truth to a new America."
I think Klavan is really on the right track. I encourage you to read it. I hope that conservatives and GOP leaders realize that the path to political victory lies, in part, outside of electoral politics.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
What's A Government To Do?
That is the question Mark Steyn asks in this NRO post. He points out that President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg have talked a good game on global warming issues and frequently warned about the effects of "rising oceans". But, despite the talk (and trillions in spending) there is precious little to show for it.
Steyn points out that a sea wall that would have protected NY harbor would have cost $10 billion, far less than the cost of the damage done by Sandy. Its also less than 2% of the famed Obama stimulus which neither stimulated the economy nor left behind any material physical manifestation of its expenditure.
Steyn notes that our political "leaders" no longer even attempt, let alone complete, produce serious, major accomplishments. After discussing building the protective seawall that could have been with only a fraction of the stimulus money, Steyn sums up our current situation:
Steyn points out that a sea wall that would have protected NY harbor would have cost $10 billion, far less than the cost of the damage done by Sandy. Its also less than 2% of the famed Obama stimulus which neither stimulated the economy nor left behind any material physical manifestation of its expenditure.
Steyn notes that our political "leaders" no longer even attempt, let alone complete, produce serious, major accomplishments. After discussing building the protective seawall that could have been with only a fraction of the stimulus money, Steyn sums up our current situation:
"And yet it never happened – and, if we’re honest with ourselves, in today’s sclerotic America, you can’t even imagine it happening, can you? Let us go to Nanny Bloomberg himself:
But with so many prescient warnings, city authorities are struggling to explain why so little was done. Mayor Bloomberg has said it was difficult to translate such warnings into concrete action.
They can chisel that on the epitaph of the republic."
Yet, as Steyn notes, he protected New Yorkers from too much soda:
"What does Nanny B ever translate into “concrete action”? Why, here he is posing with a desktop of carbonated beverages. This is what passes for political leadership in America. Can you imagine this ridiculous man or the spendaholic president he’s endorsed ever actually building a flood barrier?"
Read the whole post. It includes a link to a longer Steyn article about Big Government failures in big crises.
Random Thoughts
I'm in the office taking a break from getting some work done. It's amazing how much more productive I can be when no one is around and the phone is not ringing. I think I accomplished more in 3-4 hours working late or on the week-end than I do working 8 hours during a regular day.
The election is now only three days away. I'm ready for the decisions to be made. Obviously, I am a strong supporter of Mitt Romney for President and Maggie Brooks for Congress. The polls show close races, but I think Mitt has the upper hand. Maggie's situation is not as clear; the latest poll showed an increase in the lead for Louise Slaughter. Frankly, I felt that the Brooks campaign did not generate the level of enthusiasm that I expected. I am certainly no political pro, but I wish there had been a few more rallies and maybe a few less commercials. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for both of them.
The internals from the poll I mentioned confirmed something else that I have long believed. Namely, that eastside Republicans are wishy-washy members of the party. The poll shows that westside Republicans strongly support Maggie, while the party (un)faithful in Pittsford, Perinton and Penfield are far more tentative. It doesn't surprise me. Eastsiders are superior, you know. They play squash; westsiders grow it. They like to show that they aren't robotic partisans, but that they are sophisticated and capable of nuance. Well, their nuanced voting preferences may well keep Louise in Washington for two more years.
Is it possible for the media to be more in the tank than they are right now? The complete failure to cover the Benghazi story is a disgrace; their pro-Obama take on his hurricane Sandy efforts is laughable. I watched Bob Woodward, he of Watergate fame, try to explain the failure of the media to press Mr. Obama on the multi-faceted Benghazi scandal. At least he was a little embarrassed. Meanwhile, the president drops into New Jersey for a one hour photo-op with Chris Christie and then jets off to another Vegas fundraiser (hmm....hasn't he done that before. And back in NY and NJ, 8 hour gas lines, no power or water, FEMA befuddled, Staten Islanders dumpster-diving for food. The media crucified GW Bush for just "flying over" New Orleans during Katrina. But Obama, nah, he's their guy.
Finally, I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to call the election for Mitt Romney. My brother was in Vegas last week (he just missed the President...darn!). I told him to look for a book that was taking bets on the election. I wanted to put money on Romney/Ryan over 300 electoral votes. We'll see Tuesday night/Wednesday morning if I am Nostradamus or if I'm tearing up my tickets to the inaugural ball.
The election is now only three days away. I'm ready for the decisions to be made. Obviously, I am a strong supporter of Mitt Romney for President and Maggie Brooks for Congress. The polls show close races, but I think Mitt has the upper hand. Maggie's situation is not as clear; the latest poll showed an increase in the lead for Louise Slaughter. Frankly, I felt that the Brooks campaign did not generate the level of enthusiasm that I expected. I am certainly no political pro, but I wish there had been a few more rallies and maybe a few less commercials. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for both of them.
The internals from the poll I mentioned confirmed something else that I have long believed. Namely, that eastside Republicans are wishy-washy members of the party. The poll shows that westside Republicans strongly support Maggie, while the party (un)faithful in Pittsford, Perinton and Penfield are far more tentative. It doesn't surprise me. Eastsiders are superior, you know. They play squash; westsiders grow it. They like to show that they aren't robotic partisans, but that they are sophisticated and capable of nuance. Well, their nuanced voting preferences may well keep Louise in Washington for two more years.
Is it possible for the media to be more in the tank than they are right now? The complete failure to cover the Benghazi story is a disgrace; their pro-Obama take on his hurricane Sandy efforts is laughable. I watched Bob Woodward, he of Watergate fame, try to explain the failure of the media to press Mr. Obama on the multi-faceted Benghazi scandal. At least he was a little embarrassed. Meanwhile, the president drops into New Jersey for a one hour photo-op with Chris Christie and then jets off to another Vegas fundraiser (hmm....hasn't he done that before. And back in NY and NJ, 8 hour gas lines, no power or water, FEMA befuddled, Staten Islanders dumpster-diving for food. The media crucified GW Bush for just "flying over" New Orleans during Katrina. But Obama, nah, he's their guy.
Finally, I'm going out on a limb and I'm going to call the election for Mitt Romney. My brother was in Vegas last week (he just missed the President...darn!). I told him to look for a book that was taking bets on the election. I wanted to put money on Romney/Ryan over 300 electoral votes. We'll see Tuesday night/Wednesday morning if I am Nostradamus or if I'm tearing up my tickets to the inaugural ball.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
The Stretch Run
The final debate is in the books. Who was the winner?
There are a number of views about who won, but it appears that the most widely held view is that Gov. Romney passed the "Commander-In-Chief" test. That is, he looked like a guy who was qualified to handle the foreign policy and military apparatus of the world's greatest power.
Many rabid partisans (including, to an extent, yours truly) wanted Romney to go after the President, particularly regarding the Benghazi consulate attack. Romney apparently decided to be "Presidential" and avoid the confrontation. The plan was that he should not give anyone the idea that he was a scary war-monger. Romney also tried to connect foreign policy to the economy. Many pundits seem to suggest that this was a winning strategy.
Some post debate polls seem to bear this out. While Obama was seen to have "won" the debate, those same polls showed that strong majorities saw him as being qualified to be the Commander-In-Chief. Also, big majorities said that the economy is the number one issue and they were clearly convinced that Romney has the edge in that realm.
Finally, Obama took some rather petty cheap shots at Romney. He was trying to get Romney's goat. Romney did not take the bait and the President looked small in comparison.
Based on the change in the race for the White House since debate number one, it seems pretty clear that the Romney campaign came out on top after the debate season.
There are a number of views about who won, but it appears that the most widely held view is that Gov. Romney passed the "Commander-In-Chief" test. That is, he looked like a guy who was qualified to handle the foreign policy and military apparatus of the world's greatest power.
Many rabid partisans (including, to an extent, yours truly) wanted Romney to go after the President, particularly regarding the Benghazi consulate attack. Romney apparently decided to be "Presidential" and avoid the confrontation. The plan was that he should not give anyone the idea that he was a scary war-monger. Romney also tried to connect foreign policy to the economy. Many pundits seem to suggest that this was a winning strategy.
Some post debate polls seem to bear this out. While Obama was seen to have "won" the debate, those same polls showed that strong majorities saw him as being qualified to be the Commander-In-Chief. Also, big majorities said that the economy is the number one issue and they were clearly convinced that Romney has the edge in that realm.
Finally, Obama took some rather petty cheap shots at Romney. He was trying to get Romney's goat. Romney did not take the bait and the President looked small in comparison.
Based on the change in the race for the White House since debate number one, it seems pretty clear that the Romney campaign came out on top after the debate season.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
In The Eye Of The Beholder
Last night's debate was pretty much a draw. Instant polls gave a small advantage to the President, but the focus groups on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all had small majorities of undecideds coming out for Romney.
The President's performance was much better than it was in the Denver debate. (It could hardly have been worse.) Romney was steady but unspectacular and he failed to hit Obama hard on a questionable statement about the Benghazi Consulate attack. The President stated that he had called the attack a terror attack the morning after the news came out. This is certainly at odds with the statement made days later by UN Ambassador Rice on several Sunday news shows and the President himself, two weeks later at the UN, where the "spontaneous demonstration" caused by an "offensive video" claims were repeated.
In fairness to Romney, he seemed poised to ask a follow up when moderator Candy Crowley jumped in and cut him off. It was a fairly blatant intervention. After she spoke up, Romney seemed flustered and did not deliver the knock-out blow. I'd say Candy pleased her fellow liberal MSM colleagues with her shielding of their man.
Frankly, I doubt that this debate changed many minds. Democrats were happy that Obama woke up and argued his points forcefully. Republican were a bit disappointed that Mitt didn't bash Obama again, but given what a big win he had the first time, a repeat was unlikely.
I still think Romney was the winner because he again showed himself to be clearly capable of taking on the job of President. I remain convinced that the polls have been close, despite Obama's dismal record, because most Americans were not sure that Romney was OK. They have seen him twice now and he doesn't have two heads or appear to eat babies. Moreover, many previously undecided voters realize that as a successful businessman, Romney has what it takes to create jobs. That's why I believe Romney will win the election.
The President's performance was much better than it was in the Denver debate. (It could hardly have been worse.) Romney was steady but unspectacular and he failed to hit Obama hard on a questionable statement about the Benghazi Consulate attack. The President stated that he had called the attack a terror attack the morning after the news came out. This is certainly at odds with the statement made days later by UN Ambassador Rice on several Sunday news shows and the President himself, two weeks later at the UN, where the "spontaneous demonstration" caused by an "offensive video" claims were repeated.
In fairness to Romney, he seemed poised to ask a follow up when moderator Candy Crowley jumped in and cut him off. It was a fairly blatant intervention. After she spoke up, Romney seemed flustered and did not deliver the knock-out blow. I'd say Candy pleased her fellow liberal MSM colleagues with her shielding of their man.
Frankly, I doubt that this debate changed many minds. Democrats were happy that Obama woke up and argued his points forcefully. Republican were a bit disappointed that Mitt didn't bash Obama again, but given what a big win he had the first time, a repeat was unlikely.
I still think Romney was the winner because he again showed himself to be clearly capable of taking on the job of President. I remain convinced that the polls have been close, despite Obama's dismal record, because most Americans were not sure that Romney was OK. They have seen him twice now and he doesn't have two heads or appear to eat babies. Moreover, many previously undecided voters realize that as a successful businessman, Romney has what it takes to create jobs. That's why I believe Romney will win the election.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Be Careful What You Wish For
President Obama regularly claims that the American people should give him more time to fix our economy because he was handed such a gigantic economic mess. He likes to claim that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Well, in addition to his claims making him sound like a whiner, they may be demonstrably wrong, as well.
This blog post offers an opposing view.
Moreover as Lloyd Tackitt (via Instapundit) notes, Obama asked for the job: “Obama didn’t inherit a bad economy, he applied for the job of fixing it. He literally begged to get his hands on it so he could fix it. He ran a competitive campaign to get the job of fixing it and shouted about how bad of a condition it was in. Now he twists it so that it sounds like it was something dumped on him he didn’t really want. He has gone from bragging that only he could fix it, to whining that it was worse than he expected. Why is it that no one calls him out on this? I haven’t heard even the most conservative of pundits call him on this.”
I agree. Obama asked for the chance. We gave it to him. He failed.
Next contestant!
Well, in addition to his claims making him sound like a whiner, they may be demonstrably wrong, as well.
This blog post offers an opposing view.
Moreover as Lloyd Tackitt (via Instapundit) notes, Obama asked for the job: “Obama didn’t inherit a bad economy, he applied for the job of fixing it. He literally begged to get his hands on it so he could fix it. He ran a competitive campaign to get the job of fixing it and shouted about how bad of a condition it was in. Now he twists it so that it sounds like it was something dumped on him he didn’t really want. He has gone from bragging that only he could fix it, to whining that it was worse than he expected. Why is it that no one calls him out on this? I haven’t heard even the most conservative of pundits call him on this.”
I agree. Obama asked for the chance. We gave it to him. He failed.
Next contestant!
Steyn on Benghazi and Big Bird
Mark Steyn penned this hard-hitting analysis of the Obama administration's double talk on the terror attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others at our Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Steyn usually laces his commentary with biting humor. You will note, however, that this piece doesn't include so much of that style. Instead, you'll find that Steyn is rather disgusted with the President and his minions, who really seem to elevate Obama's re-election above all other considerations. Steyn's closing lines say it all. "'Greater love hath no man than this,' quoth the President at Chris Stevens' coffin, 'that a man lay down his life for his friends.' Smaller love hath no man than Obama's, than to lay down his 'friend' for a couple of points in Ohio."
Steyn usually laces his commentary with biting humor. You will note, however, that this piece doesn't include so much of that style. Instead, you'll find that Steyn is rather disgusted with the President and his minions, who really seem to elevate Obama's re-election above all other considerations. Steyn's closing lines say it all. "'Greater love hath no man than this,' quoth the President at Chris Stevens' coffin, 'that a man lay down his life for his friends.' Smaller love hath no man than Obama's, than to lay down his 'friend' for a couple of points in Ohio."
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Note To Romney, GOP...Don't Get Cocky
While its just about unanimous across the political spectrum that Romney cleaned the President's clock in tonight's debate, I sure hope that nobody in Romney's camp thinks the election was won tonight.
It was a great start. I'm sure that this was the first time many millions of Americans got an unfiltered look at Romney. They had to be impressed with his knowledge and demeanor. Moreover, if all they ever knew about Romney had come from the MSM or the Obama campaign, they must be perplexed that he is nothing like the heartless aristocrat they had heard about.
Still, Obama's palace guard in the media will start spinning the story in some way. Also, you may recall that in 2004, Kerry beat up George W. Bush pretty badly in their first debate. Bush did much better later. Of course, he was helped by the whipping Dick Cheney gave to John Edwards in the VP debate. Obama probably should not count on Joe Biden taking out Paul Ryan.
Romney needs to know that Obama will be out for blood next time. Surely, Obama will be far better prepared. He will challenge Romney on a number of points and Romney should expect to take shots about his "inappropriate" criticism of the embassy attacks and his 47% comments. Romney needs to repeat this steady, assertive performance a couple more times. If he can, he may well become President. If he tries to coast, he'll be an also ran.
It was a great start. I'm sure that this was the first time many millions of Americans got an unfiltered look at Romney. They had to be impressed with his knowledge and demeanor. Moreover, if all they ever knew about Romney had come from the MSM or the Obama campaign, they must be perplexed that he is nothing like the heartless aristocrat they had heard about.
Still, Obama's palace guard in the media will start spinning the story in some way. Also, you may recall that in 2004, Kerry beat up George W. Bush pretty badly in their first debate. Bush did much better later. Of course, he was helped by the whipping Dick Cheney gave to John Edwards in the VP debate. Obama probably should not count on Joe Biden taking out Paul Ryan.
Romney needs to know that Obama will be out for blood next time. Surely, Obama will be far better prepared. He will challenge Romney on a number of points and Romney should expect to take shots about his "inappropriate" criticism of the embassy attacks and his 47% comments. Romney needs to repeat this steady, assertive performance a couple more times. If he can, he may well become President. If he tries to coast, he'll be an also ran.
Romney 1---Obama 0
Debate number one went to Mitt Romney by a knockout.
I'm a partisan, but anyone who watched this had to have the same opinion. In fact, a number of liberal commentators were stunned by the President's poor showing. Chris Matthews was almost apoplectic in his view that Obama was weak tonight.
For me, the thing I noted was the vast difference in knowledge about economic matters. Romney was in command of facts and economic principles. The President had only his talking points. He clearly does not have a real grasp on economics. If the average guy watched this, there was a clear contrast in competence.
I'm a partisan, but anyone who watched this had to have the same opinion. In fact, a number of liberal commentators were stunned by the President's poor showing. Chris Matthews was almost apoplectic in his view that Obama was weak tonight.
For me, the thing I noted was the vast difference in knowledge about economic matters. Romney was in command of facts and economic principles. The President had only his talking points. He clearly does not have a real grasp on economics. If the average guy watched this, there was a clear contrast in competence.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
But He's Trying!
The Saturday edition of the Democrat and Chronicle included a guest essay from RIT Professor Ronald Amberger. The essay was titled Obama doesn't set oil prices and tried to "explain the real reasons that oil prices are rising ("speculators, people who refuse to conserve oil and the refusal to look to alternative energy sources").
The essay is brief, but Professor Amberger's agenda comes through quite clearly. He is clearly in the Obama/Chu camp of persons who think that Americans need to get used to higher prices for fuel so that "good" (read: green) alternative energy sources are economical (he underscores the fact that natural gas or nuclear energy need not apply).
He makes an incredible argument that if we produced more oil in the US it would only mean "that less oil is produced elsewhere and the price is unaffected". Really? I would love to challenge the economic theory behind that statement, but suffice it to say, if we produced more oil in the US, we would, at least not be lining the pockets of our enemies by purchasing foreign oil. Amberger, like Obama and Chu, wants us to fall for green energy even though the cost is 4 to 5 times the cost of carbon fuels and despite the fact that no green energy source has proved feasible on any significant scale.
The thing that really bugs me about the essay is the hypocrisy. The President, the Energy Secretary and Professor Amberger all actually believe that rising prices for gasoline are a good thing. They just don't want to be blamed by the" unreasonable" and "ignorant" public who don't want or like the high prices. If they are all so damn sure they are right, they should make the case for alternative energy without resort to smoke and mirrors.
The problem is that they can't.
The essay is brief, but Professor Amberger's agenda comes through quite clearly. He is clearly in the Obama/Chu camp of persons who think that Americans need to get used to higher prices for fuel so that "good" (read: green) alternative energy sources are economical (he underscores the fact that natural gas or nuclear energy need not apply).
He makes an incredible argument that if we produced more oil in the US it would only mean "that less oil is produced elsewhere and the price is unaffected". Really? I would love to challenge the economic theory behind that statement, but suffice it to say, if we produced more oil in the US, we would, at least not be lining the pockets of our enemies by purchasing foreign oil. Amberger, like Obama and Chu, wants us to fall for green energy even though the cost is 4 to 5 times the cost of carbon fuels and despite the fact that no green energy source has proved feasible on any significant scale.
The thing that really bugs me about the essay is the hypocrisy. The President, the Energy Secretary and Professor Amberger all actually believe that rising prices for gasoline are a good thing. They just don't want to be blamed by the" unreasonable" and "ignorant" public who don't want or like the high prices. If they are all so damn sure they are right, they should make the case for alternative energy without resort to smoke and mirrors.
The problem is that they can't.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
No "Obama Moment" For Kodak
The Kodak bankruptcy has understandably been big news in Rochester, but given Kodak's iconic status, it has also made news across the country.
This is a sardonic take by Henry Payne in the National Review Online about the way the Obama administration operates, using the Kodak B/K as its basis. To be fair, Kodak would not have been a business which really justified a bail-out, but Payne is correct on the point that since Kodak is a non-union shop, the idea would never have come up in the current administration.
This is a sardonic take by Henry Payne in the National Review Online about the way the Obama administration operates, using the Kodak B/K as its basis. To be fair, Kodak would not have been a business which really justified a bail-out, but Payne is correct on the point that since Kodak is a non-union shop, the idea would never have come up in the current administration.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Assault on Gingrich Shows GOP Establishment Wants Romney
In the last few weeks, Newt Gringrich rose rapidly in polls of Republicans regarding the GOP Presidential nomination.
Right on cue, the attacks from the usual suspects in the liberal media began. They went after Gingrich the way they had with each GOP contender who rose to the top.
But with Newt, there was another phenomenon. He was also attacked savagely from the GOP itself. The National Review, George Will, the Wall Street Journal, and Glenn Beck all opined about why Newt would be a bad choice. Even Rush Limbaugh warned listeners that they should not make a choice because they want a candidate who is articulate and will do well in debates.
I guess this all stems from the belief among mainstream Republicans that Mitt Romney has the best chance of beating Obama. And, as we all know, nothing is more important than beating Obama.
Well, I'm not so sure.
I want to see the President turned out of office as much as anyone on the right. He has been a disaster and four more years of Obama would be ruinous for the country. But would we really be better off with Mitt Romney as President? In some ways, the obvious answer is yes. Surely, a President Romney would take steps to cut government spending, slow the growth of government and restore many of the tenets of Capitalism.
So why don't I trust him? Why do I feel that he is a George H.W. Bush clone; a guy who will say "read my lips" but when push comes to shove, will cave in to "moderation"?
I think that Romney is just one more "go along, get along" Republican who will try to find "common ground" with the Democrats. In doing so, he may slow the runaway train that is our government, but he won't stop it. I fear that the politicians and pundits in Washington still don't get it. We are at the end of the line. The cliff is looming and we can't just slow down the train; we have to turn it around.
If that is the kind of President the GOP elects, the GOP may be finished, because the Tea Party will abandon the Republicans and start to nominate their own candidates. Romney could be the guy who turns the GOP into the 21st century version of the Whigs.
Right on cue, the attacks from the usual suspects in the liberal media began. They went after Gingrich the way they had with each GOP contender who rose to the top.
But with Newt, there was another phenomenon. He was also attacked savagely from the GOP itself. The National Review, George Will, the Wall Street Journal, and Glenn Beck all opined about why Newt would be a bad choice. Even Rush Limbaugh warned listeners that they should not make a choice because they want a candidate who is articulate and will do well in debates.
I guess this all stems from the belief among mainstream Republicans that Mitt Romney has the best chance of beating Obama. And, as we all know, nothing is more important than beating Obama.
Well, I'm not so sure.
I want to see the President turned out of office as much as anyone on the right. He has been a disaster and four more years of Obama would be ruinous for the country. But would we really be better off with Mitt Romney as President? In some ways, the obvious answer is yes. Surely, a President Romney would take steps to cut government spending, slow the growth of government and restore many of the tenets of Capitalism.
So why don't I trust him? Why do I feel that he is a George H.W. Bush clone; a guy who will say "read my lips" but when push comes to shove, will cave in to "moderation"?
I think that Romney is just one more "go along, get along" Republican who will try to find "common ground" with the Democrats. In doing so, he may slow the runaway train that is our government, but he won't stop it. I fear that the politicians and pundits in Washington still don't get it. We are at the end of the line. The cliff is looming and we can't just slow down the train; we have to turn it around.
If that is the kind of President the GOP elects, the GOP may be finished, because the Tea Party will abandon the Republicans and start to nominate their own candidates. Romney could be the guy who turns the GOP into the 21st century version of the Whigs.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
In Over His Head
If you have ever read this blog, you know that I am not a supporter of Barak Obama. Despite that, I started off, like most Americans (including those who voted for McCain or others), wishing him well and hoping for positive results for the country. At this point, however, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that President Obama is not up to the job.
The simple fact is that we elected a man who did not have sufficient experience or sufficient skill to be President. He campaigned skillfully, but now that he has had two years in office, we see that it was all tightly scripted smoke and mirrors. Left to his own devices, forced to make tough decision, asked to lead on divisive issues, he has proven to be the proverbial "empty suit".
Lately, this has become clear to many people. I have collected a number of articles below, by writers much more skilled than I, which outline some of the main criticisms of the President. Granted, the writers are conservatives who are no fans of Obama, but if you read the articles, you will recognize that they ring true.
Victor Davis Hanson of NRO: March 17th.
Mark Steyn of NRO: March 19th.
John Hinderaker of PowerLine: March 15th, March 18th, March 19th.
Charles Krauthammer of Fox News/WaPo/ NRO: March 11th, March 18th.
There were many more articles I could point to, but they all lead to the same conclusion. Jimmy Carter is starting to look good to a lot of people.
The simple fact is that we elected a man who did not have sufficient experience or sufficient skill to be President. He campaigned skillfully, but now that he has had two years in office, we see that it was all tightly scripted smoke and mirrors. Left to his own devices, forced to make tough decision, asked to lead on divisive issues, he has proven to be the proverbial "empty suit".
Lately, this has become clear to many people. I have collected a number of articles below, by writers much more skilled than I, which outline some of the main criticisms of the President. Granted, the writers are conservatives who are no fans of Obama, but if you read the articles, you will recognize that they ring true.
Victor Davis Hanson of NRO: March 17th.
Mark Steyn of NRO: March 19th.
John Hinderaker of PowerLine: March 15th, March 18th, March 19th.
Charles Krauthammer of Fox News/WaPo/ NRO: March 11th, March 18th.
There were many more articles I could point to, but they all lead to the same conclusion. Jimmy Carter is starting to look good to a lot of people.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Real Deal
We are all probably a bit cynical when it comes to politics and the impact of elections, but I truly believe that the election that is on tap next Tuesday is really as important as its being promoted to be.
It is clear in many realms of our lives there has been an erosion of personal responsibility. The "nanny state" has made wards and/or victims out of an increasing number of us. The number of people who are willing to accept responsibility for all aspects of their lives is actually decreasing as the amount and extent of government intervention in our daily lives increases.
It is quite clear that President Obama and the Democrat leaders of Congress took their election victories in 2008 as a mandate to dramatically increase the role of government in our economic and political lives. The stimulus and the health care bill were passed despite clear opposition from the American people. Frankly, the Democrats at all levels of government, basically told us that we should just mind our place and let them handle these important matters.
If the American people do not rise up and soundly repudiate Obama and the Democrats on Tuesday, I fear our chance to ever stop the inexorable march to the left will be lost for good. We are too close to the tipping point in America. If we don't stop the Democrats now, there will not be an America left as we grew up knowing it. It will become a European style social democracy (leaning towards a socialist state). As Reagan once said, "if America goes, liberty is lost because there is nowhere else to go".
As Tuesday approaches, I am hopeful and optimistic. I pray that the wave will surprise even those pollsters who predict a Tea Party victory. Failure in this is simply not an option.
It is clear in many realms of our lives there has been an erosion of personal responsibility. The "nanny state" has made wards and/or victims out of an increasing number of us. The number of people who are willing to accept responsibility for all aspects of their lives is actually decreasing as the amount and extent of government intervention in our daily lives increases.
It is quite clear that President Obama and the Democrat leaders of Congress took their election victories in 2008 as a mandate to dramatically increase the role of government in our economic and political lives. The stimulus and the health care bill were passed despite clear opposition from the American people. Frankly, the Democrats at all levels of government, basically told us that we should just mind our place and let them handle these important matters.
If the American people do not rise up and soundly repudiate Obama and the Democrats on Tuesday, I fear our chance to ever stop the inexorable march to the left will be lost for good. We are too close to the tipping point in America. If we don't stop the Democrats now, there will not be an America left as we grew up knowing it. It will become a European style social democracy (leaning towards a socialist state). As Reagan once said, "if America goes, liberty is lost because there is nowhere else to go".
As Tuesday approaches, I am hopeful and optimistic. I pray that the wave will surprise even those pollsters who predict a Tea Party victory. Failure in this is simply not an option.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Does Michelle Know?
President Obama visited the Buffalo area yesterday on his "White House to Main Street" tour. In addition to speaking with workers at a local factory, he stopped for lunch at Duff's, a popular Buffalo area chicken wing restaurant.
The President ordered 10 wings, french fries and onion rings. I was really shocked by his order, given the First Lady's commitment to healthy eating. This link will take you to the website outlining her plan to fight childhood obesity.
What kind of example is the President setting by eating high-fat, deep fried foods? He apparently believes that appearing to be a "regular guy" who likes to try local dishes, trumps his wife's efforts as a food Nazi.
I'm with him on this one!
The President ordered 10 wings, french fries and onion rings. I was really shocked by his order, given the First Lady's commitment to healthy eating. This link will take you to the website outlining her plan to fight childhood obesity.
What kind of example is the President setting by eating high-fat, deep fried foods? He apparently believes that appearing to be a "regular guy" who likes to try local dishes, trumps his wife's efforts as a food Nazi.
I'm with him on this one!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Broder Misses The Mark
David Broder penned this column today. In it he described the Obama presidency as one which will be deemed "an era of substantial but deferred accomplishments".
This is at least the second Broder column since the passage of "Obamacare" in which Broder, like so many inside the beltway pundits, has lauded the President's accomplishments and essentially predicted an Obama "comeback" in stature and effectiveness.
The strangest part of this column (at least to me) is that Broder used the President's recent nuclear arms summit as the basis for his views. Broder lauds the President for seeking "a nuclear free world" (I'll leave aside my view that this is more a bumper sticker slogan than a well-defined policy). But Broder goes on to discuss the summit as if it represented real movement towards nuclear arms reduction.
Obama has done little in the real world to stop the growth of nuclear weapons. Broder and others will point to his deal with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. But the Russians only did that deal so that they would not have to replace obsolete missles to retain parity with the US. We got rid of useful weapons, they got rid of junk.
Further, I'd argue his inaction on Iranian nukes will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and virtually insure that terrorists get their hands on nuclear materials. The Israelis cannot let Iran actually develop weapons that the Iranian President says he will use on Israel. As such, Israel must inevitably attack the Iranian nuke facillities. The US has apparently decided it will not acquiesce in such an attack and has denied Israel the "bunker buster" bombs which it would likely have used in such an effort. That will leave Israel with only one choice; use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran. That will set off an effort by every major Middle Eastern arab nation to get nuclear weapons.
Broder though thinks this summit will have the effect of going dramatically further down the path of disarmament. After all, Broder noted that 46 nations sent representatives who expressed their assent to the goal. I wonder if some aging pundit in 1928 waxed eloquent over the banning of war as public policy when more than 50 nations signed the Kellog-Briand Treaty? That worked out well, didn't it?
Sadly, Broder is clearly past his prime. He is wrong on both his belief in the value of the nuke summit and the re-birth of the Obama presidency. I think the November elections should allow for a useful evaluation of what Americans think on this score.
This is at least the second Broder column since the passage of "Obamacare" in which Broder, like so many inside the beltway pundits, has lauded the President's accomplishments and essentially predicted an Obama "comeback" in stature and effectiveness.
The strangest part of this column (at least to me) is that Broder used the President's recent nuclear arms summit as the basis for his views. Broder lauds the President for seeking "a nuclear free world" (I'll leave aside my view that this is more a bumper sticker slogan than a well-defined policy). But Broder goes on to discuss the summit as if it represented real movement towards nuclear arms reduction.
Obama has done little in the real world to stop the growth of nuclear weapons. Broder and others will point to his deal with the Russians to reduce the number of nuclear warheads. But the Russians only did that deal so that they would not have to replace obsolete missles to retain parity with the US. We got rid of useful weapons, they got rid of junk.
Further, I'd argue his inaction on Iranian nukes will lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and virtually insure that terrorists get their hands on nuclear materials. The Israelis cannot let Iran actually develop weapons that the Iranian President says he will use on Israel. As such, Israel must inevitably attack the Iranian nuke facillities. The US has apparently decided it will not acquiesce in such an attack and has denied Israel the "bunker buster" bombs which it would likely have used in such an effort. That will leave Israel with only one choice; use tactical nuclear weapons on Iran. That will set off an effort by every major Middle Eastern arab nation to get nuclear weapons.
Broder though thinks this summit will have the effect of going dramatically further down the path of disarmament. After all, Broder noted that 46 nations sent representatives who expressed their assent to the goal. I wonder if some aging pundit in 1928 waxed eloquent over the banning of war as public policy when more than 50 nations signed the Kellog-Briand Treaty? That worked out well, didn't it?
Sadly, Broder is clearly past his prime. He is wrong on both his belief in the value of the nuke summit and the re-birth of the Obama presidency. I think the November elections should allow for a useful evaluation of what Americans think on this score.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
