I have never posted a comment on their blog (well, until today), but enjoy their bantering back and forth and reading up on the evils of conservatism--(the target of the moment is Ann Coulter as Helen is currently reading Ann's book, "Guilty.") They really are HILARIOUS.
While reading Helen's current review of Ann's book I came across this statement, "It appears that Obama doesn’t walk on water. He actually admitted that he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary. Can you believe that? A President who admits he made a mistake when he makes it rather than years later when he is leaving office and trying to fabricate a legacy. It gives me hope that whoever classified Ann’s books as nonfiction will one day also admit their mistake."
I'm going to go ahead and break this down a little bit.
It appears that Obama doesn’t walk on water: wow. That was a shock.
He actually admitted that he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary.: Ok, let's set the record straight. Obama said he "screwed up" on Tuesday night AFTER Daschle withdrew his nomination. He didn't say it Monday or Sunday or Saturday or in December or January...he said it AFTER it was brought to America's attention that Daschle believed he didn't best fit the job at hand because of his prior mistakes.
A President who admits he made a mistake when he makes it rather than years later when he is leaving office and trying to fabricate a legacy. Obama has yet to take credit for any of the crap we've seen come through these past TWO weeks (because it has only taken two weeks to see what criminals "We The People" have elected into office). He won't even take full credit for the Stimulus Bill (you know, because those pesky House Repubs don't like it). To date, 11 lobbyists (that lobbied in the past year for companies that hold special interests in the same governmental department they will now be working)...check out Zelda's comment on Blonde Sagacity for reference. Three people (possibly more, but I don't feel like doing research at the moment) that have been nominated (by Mr. President himself) for positions in either the White House staff or Cabinet have failed to pay taxes at some point in their lives. One of the three is now the Big Guy at the IRS. Explain that one, Mr. President.
Oh sweet, deluded women. When will you see this man for what he is? A Chicago politician (or better known as Chicago Criminal), that has no problem looking the other way...or hiring criminals because "he owes them." I like how Moogie P summed it up in her recent post.
And with that, I'll finish this post with an Obama quote:
Tuesday, 2/3/09: "Ultimately, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics," Obama said. "And I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards -- one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes."
But Mr. President, you already sent us the message of double standards. Or need I remind you that the guy you made BOSS of the IRS had back taxes, too??? Or of the lobbyists you said you would not hire. Or of the other people you have appointed (Killefer withdrew as well) that seem to have a problem with paying taxes...
Spare me the bull shit, Mr. President.
4 comments:
I find the young president's choice of words interesting.
One source, Charles Babington of the ASSociated Press (identified in his by-line as simply a "writer," but I would characterize his article as op-ed. Maybe journalism school ethics classes distinguish between "reporting" and "writing" now.) quotes him as desiring not to suggest differing standards for "prominent people" and "ordinary folks." Now SG quotes him classifying Americans as "powerful people" and "ordinary folks." The word "powerful" isn't nearly as condescending as "prominent." I wonder who got whom to spin the word ever so slightly.
Ah, what the future holds for wordsmithing! I smell the amusing ol' days of Clinton-speak!
I visited their site quite a while ago, disagreed and left a comment. I lost the link but will now go back.
On a related note, he is finding that walking on water is difficult, if it includes getting 8 or 10 Republican votes for his package. Yesterday he showed a bit of frustration, saying:
"In the past two days, I have heard criticisms of this plan that, frankly, echo the very same failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis in the first place," Obama said, before signing a children's health insurance bill. [I should add, the failed theories he is talking about don't include government intervention in the mortgage markets, which is the primary reason we are where we are. And the bill he was signing is the same garbage Bush vetoed, which effectively replaces middle income families' private insurance with public coverage, at taxpayer's expense.]
He took aim at the "notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems" and warned against the idea that the economic crisis could be tackled with "half steps, and piecemeal measures and tinkering around the edges." [I agree - tax cuts/rebates won't fix this mess - they are simply the best direct and immediate stimulus, and will allow small businesses to retain capital for expansion and job creation. Piecemeal approaches won't work, but they needn't be $500 million of pork, either. If we are going to be Keynesian, let's try it, but that requires central PLANNING, and careful assessment of the impact of every expenditure, not helter-skelter creation/expansion of some 50+ government programs with no relationship to economic stimulus]
Obama also faulted unnamed opponents he said believe "that we can ignore the fundamental challenges like the high cost of healthcare and still expect our economy and country to thrive." [Again, he fails to mention that a substantial part of the rampant increases in healthcare costs are directly related to the government's massive intervention in this arena, through Medicare/Medicaid. Once government became the largest payor, it has allowed the cost of uncompensated care and overinvestment to be borne by private payors out of proportion to their economic benefit. Only the most careful and well-structured plans and programs can avoid the uncharacteristic inflation in this market - our company plans actually experienced a cost increase of only 2% this year, compared to the 11-14% increase in the general market. So, let's not ignore it, but let's address it with something other than a huge, expensive government bureaucracy that can only control costs by limiting access - rationing.]
"I reject these theories, and by the way so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change," the president said [In other words, I told a half-truth, these suckers believed it, and now they want me to deliver, so By God I will! Without sufficient data, I can only speculate, but my guess is maybe 1 in 10 voters who supported "hope and change" actually had any formal training in economics. Again, just a guess.]
So, do you think the good President is more than a little teed off that he can't just dictate legislation because it's "change"?
I meant $500 Billion, not million, of pork. Sorry, but I am having a hard time adjusting to the new math on capitol hill (lower case intended). As Dirksen once said, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up!"
Post a Comment