The two winners in my opinion were Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Romney was smooth and presidential while Gingrich went to his strong suit, ideas.
Asked to address concerns that his campaign has been "a mess" that reflects badly on his leadership abilities, the former House speaker hurled the question back at moderator Chris Wallace.
"I TOOK SERIOUSLY BRET’S INJUNCTION TO PUT ASIDE THE TALKING POINTS. AND I WISH YOU WOULD PUT ASIDE THE GOTCHA QUESTIONS," Gingrich said, vowing again that he'd forge ahead with his campaign: "Like Ronald Reagan, who had 13 senior staff resign … and his new campaign manager laid off 100 people … I INTEND TO RUN ON IDEAS.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61156.html#ixzz1UoQg4xgZ
I think Gingrich put himself back into the race with his feisty performance. Calling out Chris Wallace for “gotcha questions” was brilliant.
Will Hillary Run?
…SO WHY ARE WE UNLIKELY TO GET A HILLARY CHALLENGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA, EVEN THOUGH IN SOME POLLS SHE IS PREFERRED OVER THE PRESIDENT AMONG DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW? The first reason has to do with the Democratic Party's partisan use of race. Democrats believe that all blacks and women belong only in their party, voting only for their candidates. The standard joke about Democrats is that when anything bad happens in the world, their spin with the media's help is always "women and minorities hardest hit." Democrats have been able to foist this anti-historical racial entitlement on the American people, despite their own party's abysmal record on Jim Crow, lynching laws, segregation, and voting rights, and they are not about to give it up. UNDERMINING THE "FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT" WOULD ERODE THIS UNMERITED BUT FAVORABLE POSITION, SO NEITHER DEMOCRATS NOR HILLARY CLINTON WILL EVEN ATTEMPT IT, EVEN IN THE FACE OF A FAILING PRESIDENCY.
The second reason why Hillary will not challenge the president is that such an affront would dispel the fairy dust surrounding the president and FORCE OBAMA VOTERS TO ADMIT THEIR VOTES CAST FOR HIM IN 2008 WERE UNINFORMED AT BEST AND NARCISSISTIC AT WORST. Obama voters were uninformed because they refused to look at the actual man. The media wing of the Democratic Party didn't help. Obama's record, his experience, and his life-long connections went largely unexamined and unreported by the fourth estate. TO PARAPHRASE SOCRATES, "THE UNEXAMINED CANDIDATE IS NOT WORTH ELECTING" AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MORE UNEXAMINED PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THAT BARACK OBAMA.
But voter narcissism played an even greater role. Many voted for Obama not simply because he was not George Bush or because he was left-leaning or sounded smart. THEY VOTED FOR OBAMA BECAUSE OF WHAT IT SAID ABOUT THEM. OBAMA VOTERS SAW THEMSELVES AS "ENLIGHTENED," BEHOLDING IN THE OBAMA RORSCHACH-TEST THINGS NO ONE ELSE COULD SEE. Who knows -- they might even live to tell their grandchildren that they cast an "historic" vote for the first black president. Historic voters going down in history. What could be more flattering?...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/between_hillary_and_a_hard_place.html
As Ollie (Hardy) used to say to Stan (Laurel), “This is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.”
Obama vs Obama vs Obama
….the president is discovering that BARACK OBAMA IS NOW AT WAR WITH BARACK OBAMA. It is not just that the public has fathomed that what Obama says one day will change the next. It is more troublesome than that: AMERICANS ARE CATCHING ON THAT WHAT OBAMA NOW INSISTS IS TRUE USUALLY PROVES AT ODDS WITH WHAT OBAMA ONCE ASSERTED. So the nation is insidiously tuning him out—a novel and annoying experience for the president, who heretofore had received little criticism over his habitual inconsistencies and had assumed his formidable powers of rhetoric and his own landmark heritage would trump any scrutiny from nit-picky critics.
In the recent debt discussions, OBAMA INSISTED ON "BALANCE": he was to play the role of the great compromiser in the middle who would choose the sober and judicious course between unreasonable Tea Party ideologues and fossilized Pelosi liberals. BUT HOW CAN HE SOUND CREDIBLE ABOUT THE RECKLESSNESS OF NOT AUTHORIZING A HIGHER DEBT CEILING WHEN HE HIMSELF VOTED NOT TO RAISE IT IN 2006—WHEN THE AGGREGATE DEBT WAS ROUGHLY HALF OF WHAT IT IS NOW? In 2007 and 2008, Obama did not even show up to the votes for authorizing a higher ceiling.
But more importantly still, Obama has proposed three budgets that ran up nearly $5 trillion in new debt. He submitted a record deficit budget for 2012 that no one in the Senate—Democrats included—could go on the record voting for. His critics assert, as even his supporters wince, that THE BIGGEST DEFICIT SPENDER IN THE HISTORY OF PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION CAN HARDLY TALK CREDIBLY NOW ABOUT THE NEED FOR HIGHER REVENUE AND TAXES TO PAY FOR HIS OWN PROFLIGACY. It is almost as if Obama 3.0 is saying, "Please, by no means act as President Obama 2.0 did between 2009-2011, or as Senator Obama 1.0 did from 2006-2008."…
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/88851
People aren’t listening, because he isn’t credible.
The System is Working
… The people spoke; the process worked. Yes, it was raucous and divisive, but change this fundamental should not be enacted quietly. This is not midnight basketball or school uniforms. THIS IS THE FUTURE OF GOVERNMENT-WORKER POWER AND THE SOLVENCY OF THE STATES. IT DESERVES BIG, SERIOUS, ANIMATED PUBLIC DEBATE.
Precisely of the kind Washington (exhibit B) just witnessed over its debt problem. You know: The debt-ceiling debate universally denounced as dysfunctional, if not disgraceful, hostage-taking, terrorism, gun-to-the-head blackmail.
Spare me the hysteria. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE 2010 ELECTORATE, AS REPRESENTED IN CONGRESS, FORCED WASHINGTON TO FINALLY CONFRONT THE NATIONAL DEBT. IT WAS A TRIUMPH OF DEMOCRATIC POLITICS — a powerful shift in popular will finding concrete political expression.
But only partial expression. DEBT HAWKS ARE UPSET THAT THE FINAL COMPROMISE DOESN’T DO MUCH. But it shouldn’t do much. They won only one election. They were entrusted, as of yet, with only one-half of one branch of government.
BUT THEY DID BEGIN TO TURN THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER AROUND. The process did bequeath a congressional super-committee with extraordinary powers to reduce debt. And if that fails, THE QUESTION — HOW MUCH GOVERNMENT, HOW MUCH DEBT — WILL GO TO THE NATION IN NOVEMBER 2012. WHICH IS ALSO HOW IT SHOULD BE….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-system-works/2011/08/11/gIQAKPXc9I_story.html
Dr. Krauthammer hits the nail on the head here. What we are seeing is not a failure of governance, but a success. The people are speaking and arguing, but their voices are being heard.
BHO turning Gray: Vote for Barack!
… ABC News reported Aug.4 that on the president’s 50th birthday his WIFE SAID HER HUSBAND’S GRAYING HAIR IS “PROOF” HE’S HANDLED HIS JOB WELL AND DESERVES RE-ELECTION IN 2012. “Every day, [except when she’s gallivanting on vacation in foreign countries] I see Barack make choices he knows will affect every American family.” Such as overhauling national health care, which he wrongly promised would bring competition, choices, savings, and efficiency. Or insisting on the touted stimulus law that stimulated plenty of ridicule. Or the decision to go into Libya briefly, but which gave the U.S. a third war to soak up tax dollars
Mrs. Obama made her latest promotional statement in an e-mail blast to supporters. MAKING PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONS “IS NO SMALL TASK FOR ANYONE—AND MORE PROOF THAT HE’S EARNING EVERY LAST ONE OF THOSE GRAY HAIRS,” she said….
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/11/why-obama-is-really-turning-gray/
This is beyond stupid. What is MO thinking of?
Obama’s war on Jobs
Earlier today, President Obama gave yet another airy speech about the greatness of America, how we’re innovative, and how loves to see things with the stamp “Made In America” on them. I ranted about that speech as he delivered it, here. As he said that stuff about “Made In America,” his own administration is standing pat in the way of Americans making airliners, and Boeing is losing orders to its non-American competitors. OBAMA NEVER BOTHERED TO ADDRESS THAT GLARING GAP BETWEEN WHAT HE SAYS AND WHAT HE DOES.
THIS PRESIDENT IS ALL TALK, AND HE MEANS NONE OF WHAT HE SAYS. While he speaks loftily about bringing American jobs back, HIS OWN BUREAUCRACIES ARE UNLEASHED IN THE SERVICE OF KILLING AMERICAN JOBS. That’s not an opinion, it’s simply fact. And when American businesses point out that Obama’s bureaucracies are killing jobs, he ignores them.
President Barack Obama is ignoring heated concerns from within his own administration THAT NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGULATIONS ON THE COAL INDUSTRY WILL BE ECONOMICALLY DEVASTATING.
The EPA is plowing forward with new Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) mandates on the coal industry. The new regulations would force coal energy plants to install new giant scrubber-like materials in their smokestacks to capture carbon particles. Carbon captured in this way would then be made innocuous through a chemical process.
In a lengthy letter to EPA Director Lisa Jackson, OBAMA’S SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ADVOCACY OFFICE WROTE THE EPA “MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATED” THE ECONOMIC “BURDEN THIS RULEMAKING WOULD IMPOSE ON SMALL ENTITIES.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/11/obamas-epa-ignores-small-biz-concerns-that-its-coal-regulations-will-kill-jobs/
And here’s the part they aren’t talking about. The cost of this won’t just be a burden to small businesses, but to everyone. We will all pay more for our electricity to capture CO2 which is a life giving trace gas having only a dubious connection to warming the planet. And that will have the same effect that rising gas prices have leaving the consumers with less money to buy other things. This administration is the most economically illiterate one I’ve ever seen.
Select One: You find President Obama’s speeches
a) Tedious, b) Boring, c) Incredulous?
If someone looked at your face while watching President Obamamake a speech or hold a press conference, I'll bet it would reflect pain and discomfort. YOUR FACIAL EXPRESSION MIGHT BE DESCRIBED AS A GRIMACE. There are a number of reasons for that kind of reaction. It might not even matter whether you are liberal or conservative. There is much about Mr. Obama's style and content that repels rather than attracts.
For example, the man IS TIRESOMELY REPETITIVE. How many times has he used the terms "millionaires and billionaires," "shared sacrifice," and "corporate jet owners"? HE GIVES NEW MEANING TO THE TERM AD NAUSEAM. Most of what he repeats wasn't worth saying the first time. You're left wondering, "IS THAT ALL YOU'VE GOT?"
Saying the same thing over and over makes you totally predictable and uninteresting. Mr. Obama has become tedious and boring.
HOW MANY TIMES HAS HE TOLD US THAT CREATING JOBS IS GOING TO BE HIS NUMBER ONE PRIORITY? Has it ever happened? His "credibility gap" is growing wider than LBJ's.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/12/why-president-obama-is-painful#
Obama’s strong suit has become his weak suit; the more we see him speaking the lower his ratings go. The latest Rasmussen Poll of likely voter has him down 22% on strongly disapprove and down 12% of at least somewhat disapprove.
Is there Waste In Government?
SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE CHARGING TAXPAYERS FOR A TRIP TO HAWAII, The Daily Caller has learned. The entire press staff of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is in Maui, even though a field hearing there won’t happen until next Wednesday….
….A committee staffer told TheDC that the reason the hearing will be in Maui is “MOSTLY BECAUSE IT’S HIS [COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SEN. DANIEL AKAKA’S] HOME STATE.” It’s unclear if the field hearing will focus on any issues relating at all to Hawaii, or if the reasoning for scheduling the trip there is only because Akaka will already be in Hawaii during the congressional recess.
THE STAFFER SAID AKAKA IS THE ONLY SENATOR WHO WILL ATTEND.
The Democratic committee staffers used taxpayer funding to travel to Hawaii a full week before their committee’s hearing date.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/12/democratic-hill-staffers-head-to-maui-on-taxpayers-dime-for-senate-indian-affairs-committee-field-hearing/#ixzz1Upa8ok00
Hmmm, a committee meeting with only one Senator in attendance. Nothing to see here folks. Don’t look at the elephant in the room.
Bureaucratic Insanity
A NEW RULE BEING PROPOSED BY THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WOULD REQUIRE FARMERS TO GET COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSES.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is a part of DOT, wants to adopt standards that WOULD RECLASSIFY ALL FARM VEHICLES AND IMPLEMENTS AS COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES, officials said. Likewise, the proposal, if adopted, would require all farmers and everyone on the farm who operates any of the equipment to obtain a CDL, they added.
The proposed rule change would mean that ANYONE WHO DRIVES A TRACTOR OR OPERATES ANY PIECE OF MOTORIZED FARMING EQUIPMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PASS THE SAME TESTS AND COMPLETE THE SAME DETAILED FORMS AND LOGS REQUIRED OF SEMI-TRACTOR TRAILER DRIVERS….
…If the DOT reclassifies farm vehicles and implements as commercial vehicles, the federal government will have regulatory control over the nation’s farm workers, estimated at over 800,000, by requiring them to have commercial drivers licenses.
That possibility worries county farmers and others in Halifax County interested in agriculture.
“I have a CDL, but very few farmers have one,” said Nathalie farmer Ronnie Waller. “This is just another bureaucratic hurdle for the farmer….
http://www.gazettevirginian.com/index.php/news/34-news/3739-proposed-rule-on-farms-called-absurd
This is what big government means to us. Farmers are actually truck drivers. Who’d of thunk it.
No comments:
Post a Comment