Barack Obama

I recall that candidate Obama insisted that closing Gitmo was essential to restoring America to being held in high esteem in Europe/

Hmmm, maybe not.  

I am delighted to hear that I am not the only person in this country who thinks that the €430,000 per year which will be spent on protecting the Guantanamo Bay suspects in Ireland is an absolute disgrace, as per Neil McGonigle (Letters, July 31).

Once again, it is an indication of a Government worried about its international reputation instead of unemployment levels and the fact that it is going broke

Note to President Obama and the Left. Sure Europe likes to complain about U.S. foreign policy. But what in Wicca's name made you think they wanted to do anything about the problem here themselves?

Hey, it's not like the Irish don't have their own problems to deal with these days

Question to the foreign policy brain trust. Name me one country where we were able to relocate Gitmo detainees where the local government wasn;t excoriated by its own populace for signing on?

Maybe we should blame Bush for the fact that the rest of the world sorta covertly likes a unilateral America that mops up the world's messes by itself, while allowing everyone else to complain about the janitor. Bottom line to the "reality based community". No one else wants to pick up a mop. 

Apparently, multiple "Jornalists" in the State Run Media attended a focus group on President Obama the other night.

Both Dan Balz of the Washington Post and Gloria Borger of CNN were there.

The message we're supposed to take away from this focus group: Republicans (and to a lesser degree Conservatives) shouldn't read too much into President Obama's cratering poll ratings.  Independants still want President Obama to "succeed."  Even the "Independants" who voted for McCain are emotionally invested in President Obama.

Balderdash.

President Obama's poll ratings are tanking because he ran the most dishonest Presidential campain of my lifetime.  When you run as a moderate centrist (with a HARD CORE left wing legislative record in both the Illinois State and US Senate) no one should be surprised the public has a massive negative reaction when you govern as a hardcore leftist; this is infinitely more true when your most "moderate" position is MORE bailouts.

(OK, admittedly, President Obama's only genuinely moderate position is continuting George W. Bush's successful Iraq policy.  That's also been his most successful move.)

Here's what I find hilarious: back in 2005, no reporter in the then Drive-By, now State controlled, media offered any similar words of caution to Democrats when George W. Bush's political standing was in peril.

In 2005, no then drive-by, now state-run, media reporter advised Democrats not to go for the kill against George W. Bush.

In 2005, the dominant storyline was when Americans would rise against an "out of control" President.

Contrast 2009 vs. 2005 in the media narrative.

In 2005, American Citizens who undermined our troops were considered patiots.  In 2009, genuine Patriots are called "Teabaggers."

In 2005, dissent was Patriotic.  In 2009, dissent is un-American.

Gotta go to Bed Soon; Here's My Point:

Right Now is the Time to (figuratively) go for Obama's jugular.  Jim DeMint was right...we can destroy the Presidency of the most dangerous person to hold this office of my lifetime over the next few months.  We shouldn't be afraid.

In 2005, Democrats were confronted with a Popular President; they did everything within their power to destroy him politically and personally.

Turnabout is fair play.

I hope this helps.

Cahnman out.

I am a strong proponent of the idea that candidate recruitment is the ultimate futures market of elections. Collectively, the decisions made by candidates on both sides tell a lot about where politicos on the ground see the political environment headed in the next year to 18 months. It was not surprising that in 2006 and especially in 2008, candidate recruitment on our side sucked wind. Only one Senate race -- Louisiana -- was even remotely considered a Republican pickup opportunity in '08.

For 2010, the story is different. We are by and large getting our top-tier recruits in Senate races, and in more and more House races. And the White House is not getting theirs. The bumper crop of good candidates we had in the 2002 and 2004 cycles appears to have returned. 

Though it's early -- I don't think people thought 1994 could be a really big year until at least February of that year -- I do think we have to prepare for the idea that 2010 could be a big, big year that could put us back within striking distance in both the Senate and the House. Normally, I wouldn't want to raise expectations -- but going back to that candidate recruitment futures thing: if you are remotely thinking of running for office in the next few years, 2010 could be your best shot, and here's why:

• The horrendous 2006 and 2008 cycles have depressed Republican totals in Congress to far below the historical mean. Though the fact that there were two successive 20+ seat losses in the House and 5+ seat losses in the Senate in the House is historically unique,  collectively they equal one 1980 or 1994-style wipeout -- after which Democrats finally began to recover.
• The unique confluence of youth and African American turnout for Obama padded vote totals for Congressional Democrats by about 4 points -- and in a midterm -- I'm sorry -- those votes won't be there. We saw this pretty clearly in the Georgia Senate runoff. In 2012, however, those voters might be back -- making 2010 an opportune moment for a promising Congressional challenger to gain a foothold.
• The Democrats are now clearly responsible for everything, and trying to blame Bush and the GOP wears thinner and thinner by the day. Even if the economy recovers somewhat, and with massive job losses still on the horizon, I don't see people feeling that recovery, let's remember that the economy was in a clear recovery by 1994 but that didn't help Clinton and Democrats.

On a micro-tactical level, Obama may be taking great pains to avoid Clinton's fate on health care, as Ezra Klein details in Sunday's Washington Post, but the broader optics are starting to converge for Obama and Clinton: young, energetic change agents who are being proven ineffective, overexposed, and prone to ADD (Clinton held 38 press conferences his first year, drawing this comparison to Obama's first few days in office).

In many ways, the proving ground for this hypothesis won't be Congress, but the states. There we have 50 distinct political cultures than run in parallel to Washington. And, as Michael Barone notes, the mood there seems to point in the direction of belt-tightening and more humble government, not grandiose new infrastructure or health care schemes.

See what I say say 57 seconds into this video.

(Make sure you click on the video report to the left of the text report.)

Cahnman out.

There really aren't many ways to improve on Mark Steyn's take of Gates -Gate, so enjoy. 

I just thought I'd throw in the literacy "flourishes" ala Judge Sotomayor.

Now I'm sure if one of my friends got pinched for yelling at a cop --at his own house--I'd be inclined to take his side. But I'm not President of the United States and I'm not holding national news conferences. You know, sometimes what a guy says are more than "just words"

Amazingly, the President prepared for this news conference and still decided to call the Cambridge police a bunch of dunces. And this is sadly, its just Obama being Obama.

A more circumspect man might have said "I think this was a mistake" or "it seems like an overreaction". Statements which might imply honest error. Nope, despite all efforts to "calibrate" the statement the President simply decided to impugn and insult the intellect and judgment of the officers involved...with a "Fonzie" style "apology" days later.  

And maybe its just that simple--we are going to have to get used to the President  doing his "Obama being Obama" stunt as it relates to ordinary working people.

After all, we can't drive our SUV's, or keep our homes at 72 degrees. We can't "cling" to religion or guns, we're just "bitter".. We can't control our own health care, lest an unnecessary tonsillectomy occur. In the world of the "Ivy-ocracy", the rest of us are just witless drones who need to be subjected to perpetual "teachable moments" and be subjected to an agenda of behavior modification

You see, the likes of Barack Obama were too good to get on that commuter train in New Rochelle every morning and make an honest living. He had to do something more important, even if that meant that even by his mid 30's he was overdrawn on his credit cards.

The things that the President thinks are so momentous don't motivate most people.  In the midst of the worst unemployment in a generation, what seems to really focus our President is a single disorderly conduct arrest in Massachusetts.

The President wants to have the good sergeant and Professor Gates over to the White House for a beer.  That's OK.  Better than insults I suppose.

But how about the President spending more time worrying about Bill Gates than Henry Gates?  Hmm, it's not like the economy stopped being an issue, dude

(P.S. on that note. please tell Rep. McCotter to get back to work)

(P.P.S.; Any one @ 1600 worried about THIS hate crime?)

Powerline tonight had the latest of a multitude of blog posts all to the effect that the Barack Obama health care plan is focused on the concept of telling senior citizens to drop dead. The Powerline post cites the Wall Street Journal article authored by former NY LT. Gov Betsy McCaughey,(who is a better policy wonk than political candidate) 

McCaughey argues persuasively that the legislation currently being pushed in Congress would "reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years

RedState has also opined furiously on the "end of life" provisions in the various Obamacare proposals.

Hello, why is anyone surprised?  This is exactly how a bunch of Cook County political hacks operate.

The point is Barack Obama is President in spite of America's seniors. Therefore, politically, he owes them nothing.

51% of voters 60 and over voted for John McCain....the least supportive age group in America for Barack Obama....and for House Democrats

and, guess what, seniors weren't always a GOP base group---the last Democrat elected President, Bill Clinton, found they were his best voter group in 1992.  

So, guess what. Seniors demand a lot of medical services and deliver few Democratic votes---especially seniors in rural areas and Red States...so ...hmmm...let's look to cut their stuff first.

Now  we know some other groups were more supportive of the Obama election. And how are they liable to fare?

The President tells Katie Couric his plan won't cover illegal immigrants.   Other observers beg to differ.

The plan includes some provisions aimed at "diversity." Evidently the import of the Ricci v. DeStefano decision is lost on Capitol Hill policy wonks.

And we know that taxpayer funded abortion will be the law in all 50 states if Obamacare passes.

So we know that the folks promoting various groups of color and the abortion lobby will get what they want out of the Obama bill. And why not.  The exit polls show that the black, brown and pro-choice all voted for Obama. Putting their stuff in the bill is the Chicago way.

It appears that the "Blue Dog" Democrats have figured out their constituents are going to be on the short end of this stick.  Perhaps they understand the dynamics of their districts a little better than city dweller Nate Silver does.

(Note to Nate: I actually worked for a swing district Congressman. The last thing we ever wanted was to have the President raise controversial issues that would incite the opposition base in our district. This is what you learn actually doing two-party politics)

As for the Blue Dogs, They are probably afraid to have outbursts like this following them around their districts next autumm.  See the Blue Dogs are like the Obama camp. They both want to reward their supporters at the expense of everyone else.

The problem the Obama brain trust now faces is the same people who voted for McCain keep the Blue Dogs in office.  Forgot that little detail, eh guys? 

But, once again. If you begin with the premise that Barack Obama and his allies only want to run the government for the benefit of their political supporters, it makes figuring out the details of their policies, much, much. easier. 

President Obama, last night: "I haven't seen alternatives from Republicans. I've been frustrated by the misinformation coming from Republicans, but that has to do with, as you know, politics."

President Obama, last night: "And even in those committees where you didn't see Republican votes, we've seen Republican ideas. So, for example, in the HELP Committee in the Senate, 160 Republican amendments were adopted into that bill because they've got good ideas to contribute."

Emphasis mine.  So which is it, Mr. President?

And while we're at it, what mountaintop do Republicans have to yell from to convince Democrats we also want healthcare reform - just not your version of it? 

President Obama, last night: "But my hope is -- and I'm confident that, when people look at the cost of doing nothing, they're going to say, 'We can make this happen.'"

President Obama, last night: "And that argument, I think, has been used effectively by people who don't want to change health care to suggest that somehow this is one more government program."

Arg!  Are there any Republicans out there running "I love the healthcare status quo!" commercials?  Who does he imagine is saying this stuff?  This is why I stopped watching these press conferences; they drive me completely insane.  Now, if I could stay away from the transcript...

I think the National Review Editors put it well this morning:

"President Obama’s press conference Wednesday night offered an ideal encapsulation of the Democrats’ case for their health-care-reform proposals: outlandish promises about benefits and patently dishonest denials of the costs. He said essentially all of the uninsured would be covered, the insured could keep their existing coverage and would be guaranteed to keep it if they lost or changed jobs, the quality of care would rise, waste and fraud would be slashed, the deficit would decline, and no one would have to pay a price for all this except a few millionaires. Oh, and by the way, the plan would also “keep government out of health-care decisions.”

 If the president can persuade the American public of all that, then maybe we don’t even need medical care — we can just have him tell us all we’re perfectly healthy and we’ll go on our way." 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGMwNmRmNmFlMTNiNjVlYjc0MTRjYTM0YTNjYTM0ZGI=

Also, the AP did a little fact-checking on Obama's claims - worth a read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2009/Jul/23/fact_check__obama_s_health_care_claims_adrift_.html

Am I the only one out there who seems troubled the President of the United States seems better informed about a disorderly conduct arrest in MA than the details of the most important policy initiative of his administration?

Who needs to be familiar with the details of something that affects our family's lives every day. Hurry up, just pass a bill. Now, What does it say? Who cares.  So what if one of the top guys wants our loved ones to be cut off if they aren;t "participating citizens". It's all a matter of taking the red pill instead of the blue pill. We'll figure it all out for you later.

For his next act is the President going to say he can see Walter  Reed Hospital from the White House window?...therefore just trust him. ,,,,he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night. That means he's qualified to decide when your kid needs his tonsils out.

C'mon trolls, Defend this. 

From the Top Newspaper in Baghdadi:

Thank You America – And Damn You, You Bastards By Jabr Al Jabouri Al-Bayyna Al-Jadida [Baghdad] July 1, 2009

America chose to save us from the most evil party, and the most despicable President in the universe [Saddam]. Meanwhile, the Arab powers stood firmly against the American project. They used all means to thwart them, but Allah’s will had another say in this matter. America turned the Ba’athists into the world’s laughing stock by showing them fleeing in their underwear on live television. Meanwhile, the Arab powers turned those cowards into national heroes on their satellite channels.

America gave the lives of 4,000 of its people to Iraq’s land to instill security and democracy, while the Arabs sent us their filthy mercenaries who mercilessly murdered, bombed, and slaughtered the Iraqi people.

America came bearing democracy for Iraq, while the Arabs brought us the new religion of the Wahhabis and Salafists. This religion aims to destroy Iraq and return it to the days of minority rule.

America canceled all of our debts and urged the rest of the world to do so, while the Arabs refused to do so and they even demanded payment for every Iraqi citizen living in their countries.

America allowed Shias to practice their religion while the Arabs bombed the Askari shrine. America proposed that the Iraqi President be Kurdish – so that we can prove to the world that Iraq has entered an age of freedom and respect for ethnic minorities. Yet, the Arabs have “removed Iraq from the Arab map,” pointing to the fact that the President is a non-Arab. America urged all honorable Sunnis to take part in the political process, while the Arabs issued a fatwa to kill every Sunni Iraqi who works with the government.

America opened the world to us, while the Arabs slammed their doors in our faces. America urged the world’s countries to open embassies in Iraq. Thus far, the Arabs have not opened embassies… or even acknowledged Iraq’s new democratic regime. America is carrying the burden of removing Iraq from Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, while the Arabs – led by Saudi Arabia – are doing their best to obstruct these efforts.

America urged the Gulf States to allow Iraq to return to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), while the Arabs refused to allow Iraq to join the GCC. The Americans sponsored Iraq membership in international, political, and cultural organizations, while the Arabs expelled the Iraqi Authors and Writers Union from the Arab Writers Union.

America decided to withdraw from Iraq cities and hand these cities over to the Iraq forces on June 30 in preparation for the final withdrawal from Iraq. The Arabs decided to hinder the withdrawal so that their excuse for fighting the occupier and killing the Iraq people can remain. America signed the Strategic Framework Agreement with Iraq, which includes all political, cultural, military, and technological fields. The Arabs issued a decision stating that Iraq is “officially occupied” because we signed the security agreement. Never mind that all these Arab countries have agreements with America. The Arabs decided that every American soldier in Iraq is an occupier that must be killed, while if an American soldier was to be in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, or Egypt he would be considered as a friendly ally that must be treated with respect. The Arabs decided to consider every Iraqi living in America to be a traitor and spy, even though Iraqi people living in America are fewer in numbers than all other Arab nationalities. The Arabs consider every Iraqi who works as a translator for the American forces to be a traitor…

This is how Arabs are, and this is just a drop in a vast ocean. All this is what the Arabs do in public. What they do behind the walls is another matter entirely.

According to American news sources, Saudi Arabia has been trying hard to convince America to return the Ba’athists to power in Iraq. However, the American Administration does not care about what Saudi Arabia thinks or wants in this country.

Today, our American friends are true to their word. They have handed over security responsibilities to the Iraq forces, and they decided to withdraw from the Iraqi cities.

I wonder when the American forces in Saudi Arabia – estimated at 80,000 troops – are going to withdraw. When are the 30,000 U.S. soldiers in Kuwait going to withdraw? When are the American bases in Qatar, Egypt, Oman, Yemen, and all other Arab countries that live off American aid going to be shut down?

The geographically close, but, in humanitarian terms, distant Arab Nation does not deserve any political, cultural and commercial ties with us. Nations that are completely different from and unrelated to us are racing to assist us.

After six years of liberation, we now know who our friend is and who our foe is. We should not give a chance to those idiots who claim that Iraq is part of the Arab Nation. These idiots should understand that Iraq is part the federal, free and democratic world.

Translated from www.albayyna-new.com/

h/t. Weekly Standard