Saturday, December 11, 2010

More Problems for Obama

Obama and the left

Hence, Mr. Obama sold out his allies for nothing meaningful in return - and they know it. Progressives are seething. MANY HOUSE DEMOCRATS ARE IN REVOLT. The New York Times' PAUL KRUGMAN AND FRANK RICH HAVE DENOUNCED HIM. MSNBC host KEITH OLBERMANN HAS COMPARED THE PRESIDENT'S CAPITULATION TO BRITISH PRIME MINISTER NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN'S "APPEASEMENT" OF NAZI DICTATOR ADOLF HITLER. Mr. Obama is losing his left flank - the very people who propelled him to the presidency.

Liberals are finally discovering what most Americans already know: MR. OBAMA CANNOT BE TRUSTED. He is a narcissist who believes that everyone and everything - including his own country - must be subordinated to serve his needs. His messiah complex threatens to tear America apart.

For all the talk of the Republicans divisions, it appears the Democrats are in total disarray.

The Left Misses the Mark

That take was quickly reinforced on Tuesday, when Obama, almost chastising his angry left-wing base for not understanding political realities, analogized Republicans to "hostage-takers," holding Obama and America and its poor and proletariat ransom to tax cuts for the bloody rich. The president bemoaned his moral dilemma, FORCED AS HE WAS TO "NEGOTIATE" WITH REPUBLICANS, WHO KNEEL BEFORE WHAT OBAMA DESCRIBED AS "THEIR HOLY GRAIL": "TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY." It was a stunning metaphor, and rather offensive: That cup overfloweth, apparently, with the real presence of the blood of the workers, which Republicans and their loyal factory bosses and greedy landlords slurp up from the fruits of the assembly line.


What caught my attention was the left’s belief that tax cuts for the wealthy was the central economic doctrine of the Republicans. What I see is tax increases for the wealthy seems to be a central religious like belief of the left. And they don’t care if tax increases would hurt the country, they simply think it is the right thing to do.

From Audacity to Animosity

We have not in our lifetimes seen a president in this position. HE SPENT HIS FIRST YEAR LOSING THE CENTER, WHICH ELECTED HIM, AND HIS SECOND LOSING HIS BASE, which is supposed to provide his troops. There isn't much left to lose! Which may explain Tuesday's press conference.

President Obama was supposed to be announcing an important compromise, as he put it, on tax policy. Normally a president, having agreed with the opposition on something big, would go through certain expected motions. He would laud the specific virtues of the plan, show graciousness toward the negotiators on the other side—graciousness implies that you won—and refer respectfully to potential critics as people who'll surely come around once they are fully exposed to the deep merits of the plan.

Instead Mr. Obama said, essentially, that HE HATES THE DEAL HE JUST AGREED TO, HATES THE PEOPLE HE MADE THE DEAL WITH, AND HATES EVEN MORE THE PEOPLE WHO'LL CRITICIZE IT. His statement was startling in the breadth of its animosity. Republicans are "hostage takers" who worship a "holy grail" of "tax cuts for the wealthy." "That seems to be their central economic doctrine."

As for the left, they ignore his accomplishments and are always looking for "weakness and compromise." THEY ARE "SANCTIMONIOUS," "PURIST," AND JUST WANT TO "FEEL GOOD ABOUT" THEMSELVES. In a difficult world, they cling to their "ideal positions" and constant charges of "betrayals."

President Obama appears unhinged. What comes next should be interesting.

F*** The President?

Jonah Goldberg from the Corner of National Review on Line wonders….

When Rep. Joe Wilson yelled “you lie!” — which he most certainly should not have done, everyone was convinced that racism was the only explanation. But WHEN A DEMOCRAT SHOUTS, ADMITTEDLY IN A DIFFERENT FORUM, F*** THE PRESIDENT, NO SUCH SPECULATION ARISES. That’s fine, I’m fairly sure that racism isn’t the culprit here. But I’m also sure that if this was a story about a Republican, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich would bang out several columns insisting that racism told the whole story and Keith Olbermann would be busting out his Field Guide to North American Klansmen. Of course, OLBIE’S NOW SO MAD AT THE PRESIDENT, HE MUST BE WONDERING IF HE’S A RACIST.

Nancy Pelosi's kabuki won't upset tax deal

On Thursday, the Democratic House caucus told the president to take a hike on his tax deal. The soon-to-be minority leader Nancy Pelosi proclaimed: "We will continue discussions with the president and our Democratic and Republican colleagues in the days ahead to improve the proposal before it comes to the House floor for a vote." DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT.

Republican House leaders CONSIDER THIS TO BE A SHOW FOR THE DEMOCRATIC BASE. An advisor to a Republican in leadership told me last night, "THEY WILL BRING WHATEVER GETS THROUGH THE SENATE TO THE FLOOR. THIS IS ALL KABUKI THEATER." Other Republicans on the Hill agree that the Democrats will have no choice but to bring the bill up on the House floor.

There are a lot of opinions on what is going on. But I think you can say, the left is angry, horrified, dismayed, upset, and lashing out. After the election, the left was in denial (reelecting Nancy Pelosi as their leader) and holding onto at least the rich would have to pay more taxes. This quickly moved on to anger when President Obama caved on tax increases for the wealthy. This will be followed by bargaining or at least an attempt to bargain (get a better deal), then depression and finally acceptance. I wouldn’t want to spend Christmas with one of these far left pols.

Obama speaks on the Deal to NPR


Obama also signaled that he expected some minor changes to the plan to satisfy the concerns of wavering Democrats in the House and Senate – but insisted that the broad outlines of the final bill would be what he proposed this week, with tax cuts continuing for all Americans for two years and an extension of unemployment benefits through 2011.

We live in interesting times.

Senate fails on repeal of 'Don't ask, don't tell' included in defense authorization bill

The Senate on Thursday dealt a severe blow to the repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law, dimming the chances for the Clinton-era ban to be scrapped this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) failed to garner the necessary 60 votes for a procedural motion to start considering the 2011 defense authorization bill, which contains a provision to repeal the ban on openly gay people serving in the military. The final vote was 57-40.

Another Harry Reid promise bites the dust.

House passes massive spending bill

The fate of House legislation to freeze the budgets of most Cabinet departments and fund the war in Afghanistan for another year is now in the hands of the Senate, where it faces uncertain prospects.

The House passed the bill Wednesday evening by a 212-206 vote. IT WOULD CAP THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES AT THE $1.2 TRILLION approved for the recently finished budget year — a $46 billion cut of more than 3 percent from President Barack Obama's request.

It includes $159 billion to prosecute the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq next year and DEALS A BLOW TO OBAMA'S EFFORTS TO CLOSE THE NAVY-RUN PRISON FOR TERRORIST SUSPECTS IN GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

The 423-PAGE MEASURE, OPPOSED BY REPUBLICANS, CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS and some anti-war lawmakers, wraps a dozen unfinished spending bills into a single measure.

SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE WORKING ON A DIFFERENT APPROACH THAT WOULD PROVIDE SLIGHTLY MORE MONEY, provide more policy guidance, and INCLUDE THOUSANDS OF PET PROJECTS SOUGHT BY LAWMAKERS. It's unclear whether that measure can get enough support from GOP old-timers to survive a filibuster by party conservatives. THE HOUSE BILL IS FREE OF SUCH "EARMARKS."

I doubt this will pass the Senate. The Republicans will force the new Republican controlled House to deal with this as they should. And this House should go beyond a freeze to a cut in spending.

Clouds and Climate Confusion

Clouds have bedeviled scientists' efforts to figure out how much warming might result from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Science is publishing today a new study by Texas A&M atmospheric scientist Andrew Dessler that finds that clouds contribute to future warming. As Science's press summary describes Dessler's results:

“On a global scale, clouds presently influence climate in a way that cools the planet. But, they will lose some of that cooling capacity as climate warms, according to a study that supports current ideas about how atmospheric carbon dioxide affects global temperature. CLOUDS CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON CLIMATE, and this is responsible for much of our uncertainty about the amount of warming that will be caused by increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. IT’S GENERALLY AGREED THAT OVERALL THIS FEEDBACK IS POSITIVE, with warming being exacerbated as clouds trap larger quantities of outgoing infrared radiation, but so far we have only a general idea of this effect. ….”

This study contradicts the findings of University of Alabama in Huntsville climate researchers Roy Spencer and William Braswell published earlier this year in the Journal of Geophysical Research. INTRIGUINGLY SPENCER AND BRASSWELL USED THE SAME DATA AS DESSLER: SPENCER STANDS BY THEIR RESULTS AND RESPONDS:

“What is the new evidence of positive cloud feedback that Dessler has published? Well, actually it isn’t new. It’s basically the same evidence we published in the Journal of Geophysical Research earlier this year,...

Yet we came to a very different conclusion, which was that the only clear evidence of feedback

we found in the data was of strongly negative cloud feedback. But how can this be? How can two climate researchers using the same dataset come to opposite conclusions?......

But what if the warming was caused by fewer clouds, rather than the fewer clouds being caused by warming? In other words, WHAT IF PREVIOUS RESEARCHERS HAVE SIMPLY MIXED UP CAUSE AND EFFECT WHEN ESTIMATING CLOUD FEEDBACKS?

A short but interesting read. Clouds are the most important aspect to the whole Global Warming debate. The statement “IT’S GENERALLY AGREED THAT OVERALL THIS FEEDBACK IS POSITIVE” is the crux of the argument. It is generally agreed to by the warmists, but not by skeptics. If clouds do not provide positive feedback, it’s completely over for the AGW hypothesis. And a lack of positive feedback would explain why through billions of years we haven’t had continuous examples runaway heating happening. The atmosphere appears to be much more stable than the AGW crowd would predict with their “science.”

No comments:

Post a Comment