Obama's TR Moment

What’s new today

Story #1 has Dr. Krauthammer hammering BHO.  #2 show BHO claiming an unemployment insurance extension and extending the tax cut on Social Security will create more jobs than the Keystone pipeline (estimated jobs 200,000).  Since both of those are extension, I’m not sure how they will create any new jobs!  #3 has Republicans questioning a two month gap in information about SC Justice Kagan.  #4 is my teaching moment today.  A very interesting discussion of the role of government.  #5 is something to keep your eye on.  Will Hillary challenge Obama?  #6 has Peggy Noonan looking at Newt Gingrich.  Another article worth your viewing and look at my comments as well. #7 is an article of fracking.  Here’s a environmentalist nightmare.  It appears to be completely safe and delivers fossil fuels that are relatively clean, but somehow they just can’t back it.  #8 is a repudiation by PolitiFact of a Jon Stewart claim about Christmas.  #9 is a fun look at 19 of life’s little victories. 

1.  Obama Explains it all to You

In the first month of his presidency, Barack Obama averred that IF IN THREE YEARS HE HADN’T ALLEVIATED THE NATION’S ECONOMIC PAIN, HE’D BE A “ONE-TERM PROPOSITION.”

When three-quarters of Americans think the country is on the “wrong track” and even Bill Clinton calls the economy “lousy,” how then to run for a second term? Traveling Tuesday to Osawatomie, Kan., site of a famous 1910 Teddy Roosevelt speech, Obama laid out the case

It seems that HE AND HIS POLICIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT STATE OF THINGS. Sure, presidents are ordinarily held accountable for economic growth, unemployment, national indebtedness (see Obama, above). But not this time. RESPONSIBILITY, YOU SEE, LIES WITH THE RICH.

Or, as the philosophers of Zuccotti Park call them, the 1 percent. For Obama, these rich are the ones holding back the 99 percent. THE “BREATHTAKING GREED OF A FEW” IS CRUSHING THE MIDDLE CLASS. If only the rich paid their “fair share,” the middle class would have a chance. Otherwise, government won’t have enough funds to “invest” in education and innovation, the golden path to the sunny uplands of economic growth and opportunity.

Where to begin? A country spending twice as much per capita on education as it did in 1970 with zero effect on test scores is not underinvesting in education. It’s mis-investing….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-campaign-for-class-resentment/2011/12/08/gIQApYDagO_story.html

Krauthammer once again nails it.  Obama is a member of the political class with only good intentions in their heart so anything that goes wrong is not their fault. 

2.  Obamanomics:  Oh-Oh. 

… President Obama said that he will delay his vacation and keep Congress in session until the passage of his desired payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension -- two proposals that Obama said would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline that his administration recently delayed.

"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama said when asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "HOWEVER MANY JOBS MIGHT BE GENERATED BY A KEYSTONE PIPELINE," HE SAID, "THEY'RE GOING TO BE A LOT FEWER THAN THE JOBS THAT ARE CREATED BY EXTENDING THE PAYROLL TAX CUT AND EXTENDING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE."

For the record, it is estimated that Keystone would create about 200,000 jobs.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/obama_echoes_pelosi_-_unemployment_benefits_create_jobs.html#ixzz1g2PBvciE

Obama must go.  The man is delusional. 

3.   GOP Questions Two Month Gap on Kagan’s history

The top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee said Thursday the Obama administration is fueling speculation about Justice Kagan ’s impartiality because IT WON’T TURN OVER DOCUMENTS DETAILING HER ROLE IN CRAFTING THE LEGAL STRATEGY TO DEFEND THE HEALTH CARE LAW.

Rep.Lamar Smith, the committee chairman, told Attorney General Eric Holder   that emails show Justice Kagan took an interest in the case in January 2010, when she was solicitor general, and he demanded to know WHAT ROLE SHE PLAYED BETWEEN THEN AND MARCH 2010, when President Obama tapped her to sit on the high court.

“The issue is how involved was she in health care discussions between Jan. 8 and March 5. Just as President Nixon had an 18½-minute gap, does Ms Kagan have a two-month gap?” Mr. Smith said.

Conservative groups have called for Justice Kagan to recuse herself from ruling on the health care case, which the Supreme Court last month said it will consider next year.

Mr. Smith has requested a fuller explanation of Justice Kagan’s role. HE SAID THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DENIED HIS REQUEST, BUT NEVER CITED ANY LEGAL PRIVILEGE TO WITHHOLD INFORMATION.

Mr. Holder told the committee they tried to wall off Justice Kagan from conversations once they knew she was under consideration for the Supreme Court.  

“My memory is, whenever we had conversations about the health care bill, then-Solicitor General Kagan was not present,” he said.

But MR.SMITH SAID THAT WALLING OFF WOULDN’T HAVE OCCURRED UNTIL MARCH, LEAVING THE TWO-MONTH GAP HE QUESTIONED.

Mr.Holder also again declined to cite a specific legal privilege that would allow him to withhold documents or prevent committee investigators from interviewing department employees about Justice Kagan’s involvement. Instead, the attorney general said he has “separation of powers” concerns.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/8/gop-questions-two-month-gap-kagans-health-care-inv/

4.  The Role of Government

….Public Choice Theorists, like Nobel Laureate James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, provided an alternative view of government that was consistent with that of the Founders. THEY SAW GOVERNMENT AS JUST ANOTHER INSTITUTION IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS POPULATED BY SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. As such, it would be an active player in the economy and society to the extent possible.

So long as these individuals could benefit from outcomes, GOVERNMENT COULD NOT BE AN HONEST BROKER. IN THEIR VIEW, THOSE WHO "SERVE" ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM THE "GREEDY" BUSINESSMAN WHO POLITICIANS REGULARLY CONDEMN.

This view of human nature drove the Founders to develop The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and the separation of powers in an attempt to contain misbehavior by government. Public Choice theory is merely a modern intellectual affirmation of what our educated Founders knew two and one-half centuries ago.

GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARILY RUN BY SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS UNTIL WE DISCOVER A WAY TO BREED AND ELECT ANGELS. FRIEDRICH HAYEK, AMONG OTHERS, ARGUED THAT A BIASED PROCESS ATTRACTS AND ENABLES THE "WORST" TO SUCCEED IN GOVERNMENT. (See "The Road to Serfdom" for his reasoning).

Passive and unbiased government is not impossible, merely highly improbable. Noble phrases like "public service" should be seen as modern day examples of what Nock saw as self-serving propaganda.

What Does This Mean?

Public Choice theorists deal with the difficulties of providing the proper incentives and disincentives to prevent self interest from exploiting positions in government. Charles R. Anderson recently used a taxonomy that is consistent with Public Choice and history. HE DESCRIBED TWO ORIENTATION OF GOVERNMENT -- PRINCIPLED VERSUS PRAGMATIC.

Mr. Anderson's description of the two follows:

1) A government which is HIGHLY LIMITED BY PRINCIPLE IN POWER AND SCOPE TO THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE EQUAL, SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, the ownership of one's own mind and body, and the pursuit of personal happiness. This is the legitimate government envisioned by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

2) A so-called PRAGMATIC GOVERNMENT NOT RESTRICTED BY PRINCIPLE TO A LIMITED SCOPE AND WITH FEW POWERS WHICH IS INCLINED TO BESTOW SPECIAL PRIVILEGES ON SPECIAL INTERESTS. Such a government may be a democracy, an oligarchy, a one-party state, or a dictatorship and IT MUST OF NECESSITY TRAMPLE THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OUR PERSONAL INTERESTS ARE TOO DIVERSE FOR GOVERNMENT TO FOSTER ALL OF OUR INTERESTS. It must pick which interests it will favor and which it will suppress. It violates the principle that government should do no harm….

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/government_of_the_elites_by_the_elites_and_for_the_elites.html#ixzz1g2MjJpVf

Somehow when someone goes to work for the government they become chaste and good.  And if they leave government they become stupid and evil.  Just look at John Corzine as an example. 

5.  Will Hill Challenge O?

Jimmy Carter was not just defeated by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election. Carter, the president who could easily be confused with his own floppy sweater, WAS FIRST KNOCKED DOWN BY SMILIN' TED KENNEDY, who was entitled to be president because he was a Kennedy. (Don't ask, this is how Democrats think.) Kennedy ran against Carter because the other Democrats were less prone to suicide than they are today. They still lost big.

OBAMA STARTED THE FIGHT THREE YEARS AGO, IN THE MINDS OF FEMINISTS, BY TARRING HILLARY AND BILL AS "RACISTS." Today we are getting media leaks from the Clintons: “I don’t know what the future holds” said Bill the other day, going wink, wink, nudge, nudge, and looking sincere. LIBERAL SNITCH PAUL BEDARD SAID IT MORE CLEARLY IN THE US NEWS BLOG: HILLARY CAMPAIGN CONSPICOUSLY EMERGES.

This could become a grudge match. You can call smear good and honorable Americans with the racist brush all you want, but just don't call another Demagogue a racist. It's not polite. They have ways of making you pay. And feminists are the nastiest of them all. Harvard's left feminists ate President Larry Summers for breakfast one day. And

Hillary's supporters have been boiling with rage since she lost to the Chicago Machine….

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/a_hillary_grudge_match_with_bam.html#ixzz1g2PzhLBT

Democrats tend to hope there is a bloody fight between Newt and Mitt and perhaps a third party run by Ron Paul.  But right now, the more likely third party candidate would be Bloomberg and if Hillary gets into it with O, expect a blood bath. 

6.  Noonan on Gingrich

….That's the problem with Newt Gingrich: IT'S ALL TRUE. It's part of the reason so many of those who know him are anxious about the thought of his becoming president. It's also why people are looking at him, thinking about him, considering him as president.

ETHICALLY DUBIOUS? TRUE. INTELLIGENT AND ACCOMPLISHED? TRUE. Has he known breathtaking success and contributed to real reforms in government? Yes. Presided over disasters? Absolutely. CAN HE LEAD? YES. IS HE ERRATIC AND UNRELIABLE AS A LEADER? YES. Egomaniacal? True. Original and focused, harebrained and impulsive—all true. ..

 … Republicans on the ground who view Mr. Gingrich from afar, who neither know nor have worked with him, are more likely to see him this way: "WHO WAS THE LAST PERSON TO ACTUALLY CUT GOVERNMENT? WHO WAS THE LAST PERSON WHO ACTUALLY LED A MOVEMENT THAT BALANCED THE FEDERAL BUDGET? . . . THE LAST TIME THERE WAS TRUE WELFARE REFORM, THE LAST TIME GOVERNMENT WAS CUT, GINGRICH DID IT." That is Rush Limbaugh, who has also criticized Mr. Gingrich.

And that is exactly what I've been hearing from Newt supporters who do not listen to talk radio. They are older voters, they are not all Republicans, and when government last made progress he was part of it. THEY HAVE A VERY PRACTICAL SENSE OF POLITICS NOW. The heroic era of the presidency is dead. They are not looking to like their president or admire him, they just want someone to fix the crisis. The last time helpful things happened in Washington, he was a big part of it. SO THEY MAY HIRE HIM AGAIN. ARE THEY PUT OFF BY HIS SCANDALS? NO. THEY THINK ALL POLITICIANS ARE SCANDALOUS….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577086824255350642.html

Noonan raises a red warning flag but also explains Newt’s appeal.  In reading this it makes me think of Steven Jobs.  Fired from Apple he came back to save the company and created a new future that went way beyond Apple.  He appears to not have been the nicest person around or the easiest to work for, but he was genius.  Could Newt do the same thing especially since we need the country fixed?  Is he worth the gamble? The Republicans will have a big say in this because whoever the Republicans nominate will be the next president of the United States. 

7.   Fracking:  The left tries to make a Mountain out of an Ant Hill

Hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") is the process used by the energy industry to extract immense deposits of oil and natural gas from deep geologic formations that only a few years ago were unreachable. It involves injecting a solution of water and chemicals far underground, typically thousands of feet below groundwater supplies. FRACKING WAS FIRST USED IN OKLAHOMA IN THE 1940S AND IN THE YEARS SINCE HAS BEEN EMPLOYED IN MORE THAN A MILLION OIL AND GAS WELLS ACROSS THE NATION. There is NOT A SINGLE INDEPENDENTLY DOCUMENTED INSTANCE OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION BY FRACKING ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY, a fact that was confirmed as recently as May by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson during congressional testimony.

So why did the EPA announce Thursday in a draft report that CHEMICALS "LIKELY" ASSOCIATED WITH FRACKING WERE FOUND AT A DRILLING SITE NEAR PAVILION, WYO.? Big Green activists who are determined to stop fracking will loudly proclaim from every media rooftop in coming days that there is now "proof" that fracking endangers drinking water across America. Here's what these ideologically blinded zealots won't tell you:

The next two sentences in the EPA announcement quoted in the opening paragraph state: "EPA also re-tested private and public drinking water wells in the community. The samples were consistent with CHEMICALS IDENTIFIED IN EARLIER EPA RESULTS RELEASED IN 2010 AND ARE GENERALLY BELOW ESTABLISHED HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS." By "below," the EPA means that chemicals in the groundwater do not exceed acceptable health and safety standards….

….The facts remain as they were stated by Jackson in May: The EPA has not yet documented a single case in which fracking caused groundwater contamination.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/12/here-comes-another-rush-judgment-fracking/1987696#ixzz1g2U1y97F

Fracking is safe.  We have more than 1,000,000 wells fracked and there is absolutely no evidence of environmental damage even when there have been accidents.

8.   Jon Stewart on Christmas—Funny but Wrong

The Rhode Island controversy over Gov. Lincoln Chafee's decision to call the decorated spruce tree in the State House rotunda a "holiday tree" instead of a "Christmas tree" spilled over to Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" program on Dec. 6.

During a segment on the “Tree Fighting Ceremony” that focused on Fox News' assertion that there is a culture war against Christmas, Stewart said, "Perhaps you'd prefer to celebrate Christmas the way our Founding Fathers did."

Then he cut to a video clip from a documentary from the History channel cable network that stated: "On Dec. 25, 1789, the United States Congress sat in session and continued to stay open on Christmas Day for most of the next 67 years."…

… The web page "Dates of Sessions of the Congress, 1789-present" says that the last session of 1789 for both the House and the Senate was Sept. 29. By the time Christmas came around, Congress had been out of session for nearly three months. Both bodies reconvened on the first Monday in January 1790.

The web page also shows that there were three years from 1789 to 1857 when Congress had a formal recess that extended over Christmas Day. But that doesn't mean they were on the job on Dec. 25 during all the remaining years.

To find out, we went through the journals that were the predecessors of The Congressional Record.

So how many times did the House and Senate meet on Christmas Day during the first 68 years of Congress?

Once each….

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2011/dec/09/jon-stewart/comic-jon-stewart-says-early-congress-met-most-chr/

9.   19 Everyday Victories that you can Enjoy

1.      Whenever I’m waiting for the bus and it stops so that the door is right in front of me.

2.      Getting that popcorn kernel unstuck from in between my gum and tooth.

3.      Go to public bathroom and it’s empty!

4.      When I’m approaching a red light and don’t have to brake before it turns green again…

http://cavemancircus.com/2011/12/07/19-minor-everyday-victories-that-are-way-enjoyable/

What’s your favorite?  Keep reading there are 15 more.

The End of Obama

Barack and Jimmy

In a polarized nation, on the eve of another divisive contest for the White House, those seeking a unified America are not without hope. For amid the partisan bickering, there remains one principle on which all Americans are agreed: ANY COMPARISON TO JIMMY CARTER IS ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE A PUT-DOWN.

Given Mr. Carter's Democratic affiliation, IT'S MOSTLY REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES WHO TRAFFIC IN JIMMY CARTER ALLUSIONS. That makes for something of a yawn, as Mitt Romney is finding out with his claim that the community organizer from Chicago is worse than the peanut farmer from Georgia. MORE IN THE MAN-BITES-DOG CATEGORY IS WHEN ONE OF MR. OBAMA'S OWN STICKS THE CARTER TAG ON HIM.

So it must have stung when the New York Times's MAUREEN DOWD RECENTLY QUOTED AN UNNAMED DEMOCRATIC SENATOR MOANING THAT "WE ARE WATCHING HIM TURN INTO JIMMY CARTER RIGHT BEFORE OUR EYES."

She was not alone. Eric Alterman earlier this year weighed in with a column in U.S. News whose headline declares, "OBAMA'S AWFUL '70S SHOW ECHOES JIMMY CARTER." The unkindest cut of all comes from ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI—Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and one of the first to hop aboard the Obama bandwagon—who on MSNBC last month brought up the word most associated with Mr. Carter, though he never actually said it: "malaise."…

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576496461072142314.html

When the left turns on him, it's over. 

How Bright is Obama?

WE'VE LONG BEEN AWARE THAT THE ONE IS NOT QUITE THE SUPERIOR INTELLECT HE WAS SOLD AS. Obama, we were told, was the rare possessor of a mind with the profundity of a Socrates, the breadth of a Goethe, and the penetration of a Newton. An intellect unrivaled on the current American political scene, and possibly without equal in this country's politics since the beginning.

Events have certainly demolished that little trope. Within weeks of the inauguration, sometime between "I won" and the Air Force One trip to New York for a single night's outing with Michelle, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE AMERICAN SOLOMON WAS NO BETTER THAN AVERAGE. And in the immortal words of Harvey Pekar, "Average is dumb."…

… WHAT KIND OF MENTALITY DELIBERATELY ARRANGES A BRAWL OVER GOVERNMENT FINANCES IN THE MIDST OF A SENSITIVE AND FRAGILE RECOVERY? Obama was obviously out to steal an issue from the GOP and wreck their 2012 campaign plans. But at what cost? Wrecking the national economy? This isn't thinking of any description -- it's the mentality of a street punk who spots somebody in another gang and decides to take him down at no matter what happens to passersby or himself.

THE S&P DOWNGRADE WAS SOMETHING HE WAS WARNED ABOUT, WHICH HE KNEW WAS COMING, AND WHICH WAS NOT ALL THAT DIFFICULT TO AVOID. BUT HE DID NOTHING TO AVOID IT. His response was that of a dull-normal -- it never happened before, so it can't happen now. Quite apart from the economic cost, it's embarrassing and humiliating. From here on in, Obama is and always will be the president who wrecked America's credit rating. He can put that right next to his Nobel citation.

Then to top it off, we have the strange incident -- the latest of many strange incidents -- on Friday, August 5th, when OBAMA, ABOUT TO GIVE A SPEECH, STOOD STARING FOR A FULL MINUTE WHILE EVIDENTLY WAITING FOR THE TELEPROMPTER TO SWITCH ON. Under such circumstances, the normal politician will joke, will tell a yarn or two, tease the audience, do anything but what OBAMA DID: STARE OFF INTO SPACE AFTER ANNOUNCING, "WE'RE WAITING."…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/how_stupid_is_obama.html

I think that may be an epitaph for his presidency, “We’re waiting.” Actually we are waiting for the end of his presidency.



Is Obama Smart?

….When it comes to piloting, Barack Obama seems to think he's the political equivalent of Charles Lindbergh, Chuck Yeager and—in a "Fly Me to the Moon" sort of way—Nat King Cole rolled into one. "I THINK I'M A BETTER SPEECH WRITER THAN MY SPEECH WRITERS," HE REPORTEDLY TOLD AN AIDE IN 2008. "I KNOW MORE ABOUT POLICIES ON ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE THAN MY POLICY DIRECTORS. AND I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT I'M . . . A BETTER POLITICAL DIRECTOR THAN MY POLITICAL DIRECTOR."

On another occasion—at the 2004 Democratic convention—Mr. Obama explained to a Chicago Tribune reporter that "I'm LeBron, baby. I can play at this level. I got game."

Of course, it's tempting to be immodest when your admirers are so immodest about you. How many times have we heard it said that Mr. Obama is the smartest president ever? Even when he's criticized, his failures are usually chalked up to his supposed brilliance. Liberals say he's too cerebral for the Beltway rough-and-tumble; conservatives often seem to think his blunders, foreign and domestic, are all part of a cunning scheme to turn the U.S. into a combination of Finland, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

I don't buy it. I JUST THINK THE PRESIDENT ISN'T VERY BRIGHT.

SOCRATES TAUGHT THAT WISDOM BEGINS IN THE RECOGNITION OF HOW LITTLE WE KNOW. Mr. Obama is perpetually intent on telling us how much he knows. Aristotle wrote that the type of intelligence most needed in politics is prudence, which in turn requires experience. MR. OBAMA CAME TO OFFICE WITH NO EXPERIENCE. Plutarch warned that FLATTERY "MAKES ITSELF AN OBSTACLE AND PESTILENCE TO GREAT HOUSES AND GREAT AFFAIRS." Today's White House, more so than any in memory, is stuffed with flatterers….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904140604576495932704234052.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

Even with sycophants all around Obama, you can see he is losing it. As more criticism grows he becomes more petulant and angry.

Obama’s horrifyingly bad speech

HE WAS A HALF HOUR LATE. HIS HEAD TURNED FROM SIDE TO SIDE AS IF HE WERE ATTENDING A TENNIS MATCH. HE PRACTICALLY NEVER LOOKED IN THE CAMERA, as if he were averting our gaze. AND THOSE WERE THE STRONG PARTS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S DISASTROUS SPEECH.

It was a bit like a slow-motion car crash. After a while, one stopped listening to the blather and simply watched the stock ticker go down and down. And down some more.

OBAMA HAD ALL WEEKEND AND THE BEST HE COULD COME UP WITH was a reiteration of his plea for a “balanced” approach to deficit control….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-horrifyingly-bad-speech/2011/03/29/gIQAvN7p2I_blog.html?wprss=right-turn

Obama is going back to do the things that got him to the big dance. The problem is he only knows one dance and people are tired of it.

Krauthammer on Obama’s Speech

On Monday’s “Special Report” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer criticized Obama for doing just that — not portraying the right image or speaking the right words to allay market jitters. ACCORDING TO KRAUTHAMMER, HE PLAYED THE BLAME GAME INSTEAD.

“LOOK, HE IS ACCUSING THE TEA PARTY BECAUSE IT THREATENED DEFAULT, for causing this,” Krauthammer said. “HE HIMSELF SAID OPENLY HE WOULD VETO ANY DEBT CEILING EXTENSION THAT WASN’T LONG ENOUGH TO GET HIM INTO 2013. He was going to veto it over the length, which incidentally turns out to be, as you point out, irrelevant. He got what he wanted on length and we still got the downgrade.”

http://nation.foxnews.com/us-credit-rating-downgrade/2011/08/09/krauthammer-completely-stunned-obama-speech

Obama is toast.

It’s Pretty Well Over for Obama and the Progressives’ Agenda

At first, President Obama had no public events on his schedule Monday. Then, after markets opened down sharply, THE WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCED OBAMA WOULD SPEAK AT 1 PM. THEN 1:30. THEN HE FINALLY EMERGED AT 1:52. By that time, the market had dropped 410 points. OBAMA THEN SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW. He attacked S&P’s downgrade decision, something his aides had already done. He blamed Republicans for the downgrade, something his surrogates had already done. And he called for extending unemployment benefits, extending the payroll tax cut, more infrastructure spending, and higher taxes; all policies he has been pushing for months.

Later, the White House press corps pressed spokesman Jay Carney on whether Obama would be unveiling a deficit reduction plan “in a form of being scoreble by the Congressional Budget Office.” When Carney demurred, POLITICO’S GLENN THRUSH ASKED: “YOU SAID HE WILL BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROCESS, TALKING ABOUT THE SUPER COMMITTEE, BUT HE WON’T BE LEADING IT. HE IS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD. WHY ISN’T HE LEADING THIS PROCESS?” Carney responded: “Glenn. Look, this President, his leadership on these issues is quite established.”

Quite established to whom? AFTER OBAMA’S STATEMENT, THE MARKETS FELL ANOTHER 210 POINTS.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/morning-examiner-obama-headlights

Actually I think Carney’s statement is absolutely true. “This President, his leadership on these issues is quite established.” It’s established as nonexistent.

Wait a Minute? What about his focus on JOBS?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwn4dJcl08

Does anyone think Obama still has any credibility?

Cohen turns Cold to Mr. Cool

…THIS QUALITY OF OBAMA’S, THIS INABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WHAT MANY OF US THINK HE MUST BE FEELING, HAS LATELY COST MANY TREES THEIR DEAR LIVES — reams of essays and op-ed pieces. One of the more interesting ones, by Drew Westen, a psychology professor at Emory University, ran in Sunday’s New York Times. It cited Obama’s frequent inability or unwillingness to explain himself or to appear empathetic. All this is true. But Westen’s most salient point was contained in the title: “WHAT HAPPENED TO OBAMA?” THE ANSWER: NOTHING.

Obama has always been the man he is today. HE IS THE VERY PERSONIFICATION OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE — THE GAP BETWEEN WHAT WE (ESPECIALLY LIBERALS) EXPECTED OF THE FIRST SERIOUS AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AND THE MAN HE IN FACT IS. He has next to none of the rhetorical qualities of the old-time black politicians. He would eschew the cliche, but he feels little of their pain. In this sense, he has been patronized by liberals who looked at a man and saw black and has been reviled by those who looked at a black man and saw “other.” …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-cool-turns-cold/2011/08/08/gIQAoZlI3I_story.html

The liberal press is starting to turn. It’s going to be a long 15 months for the Democrats.


The liberal press would never vote for Bachmann, but…

…It turned out that Hoover, who had not decided whom to support in the GOP race, had not come to query Bachmann on the ISSUES BUT TO COMPLAIN THAT HE HAD RECEIVED FIVE AUTOMATED CALLS FROM HER CAMPAIGN IN THE PAST WEEK. He was on a no-call list, ...

….Then Bachmann seemed to catch herself. She walked over to Hoover, leaned down, locked her eyes onto his, shook his hand and didn't let go for the longest time. "I thank you, and I would ask you to come to Ames on August 13, this Saturday, and I'll tell you why," she began.

"I WANT YOU TO COME, AND I WANT YOU TO GIVE ME YOUR VOTE BECAUSE WE HAVE GOT TO TURN THE COUNTRY AROUND," Bachmann said. "You get to choose. There are people all across the United States who wish they were in your shoes. People wish they were an Iowan because you get to make that down payment on Saturday for taking the country back."

BACHMANN WAS STILL HOLDING HOOVER'S HAND AND LOOKING STRAIGHT INTO HIS EYES; at that moment, every ounce of her considerable energy was devoted to making this one particular sale. "I'M 100 PERCENT PRO-LIFE, I'M 100 PERCENT PRO-MARRIAGE, PRO-FAMILY, I'M 100 PERCENT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT," she told Hoover. "Let's get 'er done right now, let's make a decision right now. What do I need to do to convince you?
Hoover still wouldn't commit…

…"The things that she told me, personally standing there with her, that she was pro-life, and Second Amendment, and cutting spending -- ALL OF THIS I BELIEVE," HOOVER SAID. "SHE LOOKED ME IN THE EYE, HELD MY HAND AND TOLD ME, 'THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE.' "

If the rally did nothing else, it proved that one man, all by his lonesome, didn't stand a chance when faced with the Full Bachmann.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/bachmanns-high-beams-turn-doubter-fan#ixzz1UXddkX5M

Obama's “I didn’t say change in a week or a month” line won’t play well in the America he has helped to create. We are looking for someone we can trust and Obama has proven we can’t trust him.