The below article kind of makes me think, “are they ALREADY out of ideas?” While I completely agree that Bush policy certainly contributed to this mess we are in, there is no excuse for the Obama administration to consider this an effective means of resolving the overall economic crisis we are in. Playing the blame game does not produce jobs, raise confidence in the market place, or get banks to make loans.
The issue is many of the liberal democrats who blamed Bush for every wrong doing imaginable, they are still trying to feed their Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) addiction. The withdrawal must be very painful for them, so they need to scrape every little bit left that they can get. To explain BDS, Wikipedia states it as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush.”
While Reagan blamed Carter for many of the problems that he inherited, I don't think that it was the policy of his administration to blame Carter if their policy decisions failed.
What is utterly laughable about Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon calling blaming Bush an effective strategy, Joseph Curl brings up a good refutation of her use of approval ratings. What strikes me is Liz Chadderdon's blatant arrogance in stating voters have short memories. There is no distinction between some or all. So basically me, a voter, cannot remember anything, and it's up to the liberal politicians to tell me what to think because I won't remember it based on assumption. She's wrong about "Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07." It has been going on since claims that Bush stole the election in 2000, since day one. If "why not use it [Bush Bashing]" is the best strategy that the Democratic Party representatives come up with, they ARE the party of fail. I think that Liz Chadderdon should consider something more serious, such as work towards resolution of these serious economic issues given her skill set as a strategist.
Obama still cashing in on Bush's failings
Joseph Curl
Facing the first real rough patch of his presidency, President Obama and his supporters are once again resorting to a tried-and-true tactic: attacking George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
In his White House press conference last week, Mr. Obama referred to the Bush era at least nine times, three times lamenting that he "inherited" a $1.3 trillion debt that has set back his administration's efforts to fix the economy.
With the former president lying low in Dallas, largely focused on crafting his memoirs, Mr. Obama has increasingly attempted to exploit Mr. Bush when discussing the weak economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the difficulty closing the military prison at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
As he took power, Mr. Obama promised a "new era of responsibility" that would transcend partisan politics.
"For a guy who campaigned on taking responsibility and looking forward, he spends an awful lot of time pointing fingers and looking backward," said former Bush deputy press secretary Tony Fratto, who has begun defending the previous administration.
But Democrats think Mr. Obama would be remiss if he did not point out what he inherited.
"I'm not convinced that Obama and his supporters are bashing Bush as much as they are quite rightfully reminding people that our current economic mess and the wars were inherited from the Bush administration," said Democratic strategist Bud Jackson. "It's important to remind people of this because Republicans are now criticizing the Obama administration as if they had no role in how we got here."
Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon said the strategy of blaming the previous team has been effective.
"I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it?" she said. "Voters have short memories. The administration needs to remind people that things were way worse over the last four years than in the last six months."
Mixed feelings among voters about health care reform have shaken the president's approval ratings from the high poll numbers when he took office. Six months into his term, 30 percent of the nation's voters "strongly approve" of Mr. Obama's job performance, according to a survey released Monday by the Rasmussen polling organization.
The poll showed that 40 percent "strongly disapprove" of the president's performance, marking the first time the disparity has reached double digits.
Since taking office, Mr. Obama has implemented a $787 billion stimulus package that has failed to produce a quick economic turnaround and the U.S. economy has shed more than 2.5 million jobs.
Mr. Obama hardly ever refers to Mr. Bush by name. In fact, his Web site, whitehouse.gov, recently scrubbed the name of the former president out of a reference to Hurricane Katrina, which once read: "President Obama will keep the broken promises made by President Bush to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast."
Now, the "President Bush" is gone.
Although Mr. Obama's effort is subtle, his rhetoric is clear. On his first trip overseas, Mr. Obama referred to Mr. Bush's foreign policy and said the United States has "shown arrogance" and been "dismissive, even derisive." He said decisions of the past had "lowered our standing in the world."
"There are some mornings I read the news and feel like it's January 2009 -- there are so many stories making the front page about things that President Bush thought about and didn't do," said former White House press secretary Dana Perino. "I find it hard to believe that there aren't more interesting stories affecting Americans in the here and now that can garner that kind of space. But the obsession continues unabated."
Even when asserting his responsibility for addressing the nation's problems, Mr. Obama manages to highlight that he was left to deal with others' missteps.
At a town-hall meeting this month in Michigan -- the state with the nation's highest jobless rate -- Mr. Obama said that fixing the economy is "a job I gladly accept."
But he added, "I love these folks who helped get us in this mess. And then suddenly say, 'Oh, this is Obama's economy.'"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/29/obama-still-cashing-in-on-bushs-economic-failings/print/
7/29/2009
7/20/2009
Congressmen Who Vote for Government-Run Health Care Agency Should Be Its First Customers
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) introduced a bill Monday that urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others.
The bill, H. Res. 615, says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should become the inaugural customers of government-run health-care.
“That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option,” the resolution reads.
Fleming said he offered the non-binding resolution after he found out that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress and other federal government employees will not have to participate in the planned health insurance exchanges for at least five years.
After five years, they still do not have to participate in the exchanges if they do not want to, while every other American must have a plan that conforms to the government’s rules, Fleming added.
“It’ll be at least five years after passage until a congressperson can – at least – opt in to the [government] system, and then it doesn’t force them to do that – it just allows them to do that,” Fleming told CNSNews.com.
“I think that the job of a congressman is to represent his people,” he said. “How can you honestly represent your people when you’re not dealing with the same problems and issues and decision-making that others do?”
Fleming said his bill would address the public perception that Congress doesn’t like to play by its own rules, exempting itself from the downsides of the “reforms” it says we all need.
“I think there is a very deep sense in the electorate, which I think is accurate, that Congress tends to exempt itself from the very policies that it creates,” said Fleming. “You have to believe that if Congress exempts itself or has an option that doesn’t force members into the same kind of plans [the public is required to have], then it’s, again, ‘What’s good for the goose is not necessarily what’s good for the gander’.”
Fleming said that if a public option does come to the floor, he plans to offer an amendment that would require, rather than simply encourage, members of Congress to enroll in the government plan.
“When the bill actually comes to floor – if it contains a single-payer option – then we plan to add an amendment that says that, there being a single-payer option, members of Congress will forgo their ability to opt into the federal program and that they will take the same single-payer option that most Americans will end up with,” said Fleming.
The “federal program” Fleming referred to is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which is available to all federal government employees, including members of Congress and their staffs.
It is essentially a health insurance pool that offers hundreds of different private insurance plans that conform to limited rules. Because all federal agencies and both houses of Congress participate in the pool, the benefits are quite good, better than those offered under many private plans because health care costs do not affect the government’s bottom line.
Fleming, a physician, said that private insurance is not without its problems and he agrees that the market needs to be reformed, but he also said that a government-run health system would make the problems worse.
“Already, we’re in a tremendous bureaucracy, red tape like we’ve never seen before both for Medicare and Medicaid and for private insurance,” he said. “Private insurance uses Medicare as kind of a template for what it does, so even private insurance as it exists today has a lot of red tape and issues. It’s not as bad as the government system, and it can be improved.
“We definitely need reform,” said Fleming. “What we need to do is have insurance reform by bringing in younger people and giving them incentives to opt in to the system. We need to reform insurance laws and do away with pre-existing illness [limitations], which is keeping a lot of people out of coverage.
“We need to provide subsidies to those who have marginal incomes,” Fleming continued. “They need portability, they need to be able to buy the insurance directly without the employer, and it all needs to be tax-deductible.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50756
The bill, H. Res. 615, says members of Congress who vote for a government-run health care bureau should become the inaugural customers of government-run health-care.
“That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option,” the resolution reads.
Fleming said he offered the non-binding resolution after he found out that under both the House and Senate proposals, members of Congress and other federal government employees will not have to participate in the planned health insurance exchanges for at least five years.
After five years, they still do not have to participate in the exchanges if they do not want to, while every other American must have a plan that conforms to the government’s rules, Fleming added.
“It’ll be at least five years after passage until a congressperson can – at least – opt in to the [government] system, and then it doesn’t force them to do that – it just allows them to do that,” Fleming told CNSNews.com.
“I think that the job of a congressman is to represent his people,” he said. “How can you honestly represent your people when you’re not dealing with the same problems and issues and decision-making that others do?”
Fleming said his bill would address the public perception that Congress doesn’t like to play by its own rules, exempting itself from the downsides of the “reforms” it says we all need.
“I think there is a very deep sense in the electorate, which I think is accurate, that Congress tends to exempt itself from the very policies that it creates,” said Fleming. “You have to believe that if Congress exempts itself or has an option that doesn’t force members into the same kind of plans [the public is required to have], then it’s, again, ‘What’s good for the goose is not necessarily what’s good for the gander’.”
Fleming said that if a public option does come to the floor, he plans to offer an amendment that would require, rather than simply encourage, members of Congress to enroll in the government plan.
“When the bill actually comes to floor – if it contains a single-payer option – then we plan to add an amendment that says that, there being a single-payer option, members of Congress will forgo their ability to opt into the federal program and that they will take the same single-payer option that most Americans will end up with,” said Fleming.
The “federal program” Fleming referred to is the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, which is available to all federal government employees, including members of Congress and their staffs.
It is essentially a health insurance pool that offers hundreds of different private insurance plans that conform to limited rules. Because all federal agencies and both houses of Congress participate in the pool, the benefits are quite good, better than those offered under many private plans because health care costs do not affect the government’s bottom line.
Fleming, a physician, said that private insurance is not without its problems and he agrees that the market needs to be reformed, but he also said that a government-run health system would make the problems worse.
“Already, we’re in a tremendous bureaucracy, red tape like we’ve never seen before both for Medicare and Medicaid and for private insurance,” he said. “Private insurance uses Medicare as kind of a template for what it does, so even private insurance as it exists today has a lot of red tape and issues. It’s not as bad as the government system, and it can be improved.
“We definitely need reform,” said Fleming. “What we need to do is have insurance reform by bringing in younger people and giving them incentives to opt in to the system. We need to reform insurance laws and do away with pre-existing illness [limitations], which is keeping a lot of people out of coverage.
“We need to provide subsidies to those who have marginal incomes,” Fleming continued. “They need portability, they need to be able to buy the insurance directly without the employer, and it all needs to be tax-deductible.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50756
7/16/2009
Cloward/Piven and the radical left
I found this article rather interesting, describing how this theory is being applied to the insane spending that the democrats are doing in the name of economic recovery. What is cause for concern is the fundamentals of Cloward/Piven derive from 60s radical left ideology, and is seemingly embraced by the liberals in government.
How it applies today:
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html
CHANDLER: The Cloward-Piven strategy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/the-cloward-piven-strategy/
Some Basis:
Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
http://cloward-piven.com/
How it applies today:
The Cloward/Piven Strategy of Economic Recovery
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/the_clowardpiven_strategy_of_e.html
CHANDLER: The Cloward-Piven strategy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/the-cloward-piven-strategy/
Some Basis:
Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
http://cloward-piven.com/
7/15/2009
African journalist makes CNN Obama cheerleader look really, really stupid
For a Monday morning snort-starter, check out the video via Newsbusters of African journalist Nkepile Mabuse fact-checking anchor Don Lemon over the weekend. Aptly named. Lemon certainly looked like he had swallowed something sour after Mabuse rejected his obsequious suggestion that President Obama’s warm welcome was somehow “unprecedented.”
All info thanks to Michelle Malkin's website. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/13/african-journalist-makes-cnn-obama-cheerleader-look-really-really-stupid/
7/13/2009
Obama fluffer Chris Matthews is at it again!
The Obama fluffer idea comes from this bit of news coverage:
Chris Matthews love affair with everything to do about Obama and damn anyone who opposes him makes him an Obama fluffer. Fluffer? What's that? According to wikipedia a fluffer is a hired member of the crew of a pornographic movie whose role on the set is to sexually arouse the male participants prior to the filming of scenes requiring erections.[1] Today, many adult film stars[who?] maintain that fluffers are a thing of the past, needed in the 1970s and 1980s when the crew, shooting on celluloid, needed much more time to prepare a shot. Erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra have also played a part in replacing fluffers.
A fluffer also has the duty of keeping adult film stars "cleaned up" in between takes or during photo shoot set-ups, so that the actors or models do not have to move from their positions. These duties are considered part of the makeup department. After setting up the desired angle, the director asks the actors to hold position and calls for the fluffer to "fluff" the actors for the shot.
So Chris Matthews is an Obama Fluffer, though I might need to change that to something more in the general, maybe a liberal fluffer? In this latest video he has that chill again. Nice objectivity Chris Matthews, you douche.
Why is he such a douche? He is a partisan talking head who pretends to not have an agenda to push. I know everyone has an agenda, but Chris Matthews needs to do some research on ethical journalism and Edward R. Murrow's career. Partisan hacks are boring to watch on TV.
Matthews: My ‘Job’ Is To Make Obama Presidency A Success
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673
Chris Matthews love affair with everything to do about Obama and damn anyone who opposes him makes him an Obama fluffer. Fluffer? What's that? According to wikipedia a fluffer is a hired member of the crew of a pornographic movie whose role on the set is to sexually arouse the male participants prior to the filming of scenes requiring erections.[1] Today, many adult film stars[who?] maintain that fluffers are a thing of the past, needed in the 1970s and 1980s when the crew, shooting on celluloid, needed much more time to prepare a shot. Erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra have also played a part in replacing fluffers.
A fluffer also has the duty of keeping adult film stars "cleaned up" in between takes or during photo shoot set-ups, so that the actors or models do not have to move from their positions. These duties are considered part of the makeup department. After setting up the desired angle, the director asks the actors to hold position and calls for the fluffer to "fluff" the actors for the shot.
So Chris Matthews is an Obama Fluffer, though I might need to change that to something more in the general, maybe a liberal fluffer? In this latest video he has that chill again. Nice objectivity Chris Matthews, you douche.
Why is he such a douche? He is a partisan talking head who pretends to not have an agenda to push. I know everyone has an agenda, but Chris Matthews needs to do some research on ethical journalism and Edward R. Murrow's career. Partisan hacks are boring to watch on TV.
Matthews: My ‘Job’ Is To Make Obama Presidency A Success
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=214673
Independence Day
I heard on a radio show when a woman called in talking about being on a DNC or Obama campaign mailing list. She was talking about receiving about 6 e-mails a week requesting $5 or $10 contributions to their organization. I get a decent enough mail from all political organizations asking for $5 or $10 as well, so that's not too big a deal.
The interesting thing is that the woman mentions that she received no e-mail from this "Obama mailing list" wishing the recipient (her in this case) a happy 4th or July or Independence Day. I thought this was a little seedy. I did a little checking and found this:
http://www.truthout.org/070409Z
So I just think that the organization was closed or might not have been an "official" aspect of the Obama administration, different from the Obama campaign. All I know is I get a lot of mail for various causes, I will sign a petition or two and send it back with my stamp, but I rarely contribute money. Online, though, I might contribute some cash from time to time. They have made things very easy to do so. I don't mind the letters in the mail, but it certainly adds to my recycle bin.
The interesting thing is that the woman mentions that she received no e-mail from this "Obama mailing list" wishing the recipient (her in this case) a happy 4th or July or Independence Day. I thought this was a little seedy. I did a little checking and found this:
http://www.truthout.org/070409Z
So I just think that the organization was closed or might not have been an "official" aspect of the Obama administration, different from the Obama campaign. All I know is I get a lot of mail for various causes, I will sign a petition or two and send it back with my stamp, but I rarely contribute money. Online, though, I might contribute some cash from time to time. They have made things very easy to do so. I don't mind the letters in the mail, but it certainly adds to my recycle bin.
Interesting Sarah Palin story
Seeing how we have a Democratic majority in the branches of Government, the Democrats are certainly the status quo now. I was wondering why there is story after story focusing on Palin with such contempt to anything that she does from the lib-tard press. Here are a few good examples:
Republican pundits open fire on Sarah Palin
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-palin-gop13-2009jul13,0,2642211.story
Missteps, ignored advice on Palin’s route to exit
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31886324/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
This is an interesting story on the matter, that does well to explain it.
Sarah Palin Terrifies the Left & The Emperor Has No Clothes
Vanity Fair is the latest media hit on Gov. Palin – in an article that is full of unsubstantiated accusations, innuendo, bald faced lies, un-nameable “sources,” secret informers, etc etc etc – in other words, it was a “hit piece,” meant to savage the Governor through the implication that she is nothing short of an unstable Satan.
Why is the left obsesessed with Palin? She is demonized by the left regularly – she is a lightening rod for their hatred, and we all know the left is consumed with hatred – hatred for opposing viewpoints (Carrie Prejean as a case in point), hatred for what they consider to be stupid people – and under that heading falls anyone with whom they disagree, plus people of faith, people who have values of honesty, humility, truth, compassion, etc.
The left does not value anything, it seems, but arrogance, hubris, elitist smugness, their version of intelligence, etc. God offends the left. Christian principles offend the left. People of faith offend the left. Gun owners offend the left. And you know an attractive, gun-owning, Christian, conservative female INFURIATES the left because they are quite threatened by her. So they mock her constantly. That is their weapon – mock, viciously and personally attack, silence anyone, particularly a genuine threat to their agenda. Their hatred and their tactics are sickening.
Sarah Palin has, undoubtedly, some growing to do – but give the left credit for recognizing the tremendous potential of the woman to seize the national stage, turn DC on its ear, and launch a true Second Reagan Revolution. She has all the raw materials, and the left knows that after refinement, Governor Palin will be an unstoppable locomotive that will come crashing through their phony facade, capture the imagination and the adoration of the American people and, by comparison to Obama, make the people realize that the Emperor has no clothes.
This is why the crazy left is still going crazy on Sarah Palin. Senator McCain’s biggest accomplishment and contribution to his country may well turn out to be his pick of Governor Palin as his running mate in 2008. The crazy left is terrified of this woman. And when they’re terrified, they get even more despicable in their attacks.
The National Organization for Women is of course silent on all of the personal, beyond the pale, vicious attacks on Palin – because she is not a LIBERAL woman. NOW is actually NOFLWO – National Organization for Liberal Women Only – the hypocrisy of NOFLWO is so self evident with their deafening silence on the Palin attacks.
Certainly the loon eruptions from the left will continue – until and unless they succeed in marginalizing her – as long as their attacks continue, we know they still fear her. And how sweet it is to wield that power over these nuts from the left.
http://www.secondreaganrevolution.com/2009/07/sarah-palin-terrifies-the-left-the-emporer-has-no-clothes/
Republican pundits open fire on Sarah Palin
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-palin-gop13-2009jul13,0,2642211.story
Missteps, ignored advice on Palin’s route to exit
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31886324/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
This is an interesting story on the matter, that does well to explain it.
Sarah Palin Terrifies the Left & The Emperor Has No Clothes
Vanity Fair is the latest media hit on Gov. Palin – in an article that is full of unsubstantiated accusations, innuendo, bald faced lies, un-nameable “sources,” secret informers, etc etc etc – in other words, it was a “hit piece,” meant to savage the Governor through the implication that she is nothing short of an unstable Satan.
Why is the left obsesessed with Palin? She is demonized by the left regularly – she is a lightening rod for their hatred, and we all know the left is consumed with hatred – hatred for opposing viewpoints (Carrie Prejean as a case in point), hatred for what they consider to be stupid people – and under that heading falls anyone with whom they disagree, plus people of faith, people who have values of honesty, humility, truth, compassion, etc.
The left does not value anything, it seems, but arrogance, hubris, elitist smugness, their version of intelligence, etc. God offends the left. Christian principles offend the left. People of faith offend the left. Gun owners offend the left. And you know an attractive, gun-owning, Christian, conservative female INFURIATES the left because they are quite threatened by her. So they mock her constantly. That is their weapon – mock, viciously and personally attack, silence anyone, particularly a genuine threat to their agenda. Their hatred and their tactics are sickening.
Sarah Palin has, undoubtedly, some growing to do – but give the left credit for recognizing the tremendous potential of the woman to seize the national stage, turn DC on its ear, and launch a true Second Reagan Revolution. She has all the raw materials, and the left knows that after refinement, Governor Palin will be an unstoppable locomotive that will come crashing through their phony facade, capture the imagination and the adoration of the American people and, by comparison to Obama, make the people realize that the Emperor has no clothes.
This is why the crazy left is still going crazy on Sarah Palin. Senator McCain’s biggest accomplishment and contribution to his country may well turn out to be his pick of Governor Palin as his running mate in 2008. The crazy left is terrified of this woman. And when they’re terrified, they get even more despicable in their attacks.
The National Organization for Women is of course silent on all of the personal, beyond the pale, vicious attacks on Palin – because she is not a LIBERAL woman. NOW is actually NOFLWO – National Organization for Liberal Women Only – the hypocrisy of NOFLWO is so self evident with their deafening silence on the Palin attacks.
Certainly the loon eruptions from the left will continue – until and unless they succeed in marginalizing her – as long as their attacks continue, we know they still fear her. And how sweet it is to wield that power over these nuts from the left.
http://www.secondreaganrevolution.com/2009/07/sarah-palin-terrifies-the-left-the-emporer-has-no-clothes/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)