You are currently browsing the daily archive for November 21, 2008.

Obama set a record as the earliest date to resign from Senate (in the past such resignations occurred in December and mostly January). Now, he and Jr seem of a like mind of avoiding being bothered with the economic crisis

Analysts: Bush, Obama not taking lead in righting economy

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin said Obama has avoided entering the congressional tussle over whether to bail out the Big Three automakers

And it’s all out of courtesy

“I think that President-elect Obama is being very careful to remind people that we still have a president who still makes the final decision about things being signed into law,” said Durbin, one of Obama’s closest Senate confidantes.

How nice! And how false.

Here’s a better explanation

There’s a lot of risk involved in Obama pushing his economic agenda before he takes office, and it would be unwise to publicly state what the Bush administration should do, said Stephen Hayes, a conservative columnist and CNN contributor.

“Politically, he wants to stay as far away from this as he can,” Hayes said. “I think it’s smart of him to say, ‘We have one president at a time; I have got my four years.’

Another thing Jr and jr.Jr have in common: no matter what they do or fail to do – from My pet Goat to starting wars, there’ll be someone to declare

“it’s smart of him”

Update Nov 22

Here’s how Rahm Emmanuel sees the smarts

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

Which is correctly interpreted as

Based upon what Emanuel is saying, the conclusion one might draw is that the Obama team wants the uncertainty this foments to fester and grow, thereby increasing the gravity of the crisis upon which the Administration then intends to capitalize.



Those who visit seem to think the harshest Obama criticism comes from the blogosphere Herein referred to as ‘hard left”)

The Orange Cheeto provides  most of the quotes

Kos, from the radically left DailyKos, called the decision to keep Lieberman as chairman of his committee “idiotic.” And, in another post, the radical Left’s standard bearer derided the Democratic Party as being “spineless capitulators” for allowing Lieberman to keep his post.

Do they remember the fact that Obama himself asked for this?

Just wondering, as I’ll never go check.

Of course, the next bone of contention is Hillary’s offer for SOS.

Hilariously, the author includes Tweety in this “hard left” category – as if he spittling about the Clintons surprises anyone. And the Cheeto doesn’t either, but the quotes are funny again

It’s very painful for me to watch Obama, the person I was so inspired by, transform himself from a “clean break from the 1990’s” to the Bill Clinton freak show. This is not what I voted for.

I guess he voted for “Reagan had all the good ideas?”

Anyway, the commentary on different bloggers heads exploding is right on the nose:

Oomph, the pain! One could infer from the outrage, if the name Clinton was removed from this blog post, that Obama had considered nominating, say, the outgoing president to be secretary of state, not a liberal New York senator.

The author seems to love Obama for stiffing his base – as he comes closer to his RW politics.

. It’s where we part ways.

But it ends well:

For the Left, what should be their greatest triumph is turning to disappointment. As they realize their beloved candidate might not really share their world view, their bitterness will rise. Whether that will have any political ramifications remains to be seen. But one thing is sure — for the hard Left the honeymoon is over.

Not reading that, my impression was different – from the anti-war groups that feel criticizing would be wrong

“There’s so much Obama hero worship, we’re having to walk this line where we can’t directly criticize him,” he said. “But we are expressing concern.”

So, brave little bloggers, go on. The only thing you left behind is your credibility.

I mean all this stuff

didn’t give you any hint?

One of the few  campaign promises not yet retracted

Obama: I’ll end don’t-ask, don’t-tell

comes to flop:

Obama to delay repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’

President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military’s decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.

I am sure that Sam Nunn, Obama’s BFF must be a happy camper.

“I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.

Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held “informal discussions” with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.

Voting “Present” seems to get harder and harder as one moves up. Seems more people pay attention:

Delaying the congressional vote a year would give the White House time for consultation, but it would also let ban proponents organize and possibly sway public opinion, as they did in 1993.

“Homosexual activists are overconfident because they have not yet seen a counterforce emerge as occurred in 1993,” said Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute at the Media Research Center, an organization that seeks to balance perceived liberal bias in mainstream news coverage.

So, don’t do today what you can do tomorrow. leave it for a day after tomorrow, it may not be needed after all…

This karmic moment was brought to you by Verizon:

In an internal company e-mail obtained by CNN, Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell McAdam disclosed Wednesday that “the personal wireless account of President-elect Barack Obama had been accessed by employees not authorized to do so” in recent months.

Not authorized? But why? Didn’t Obama make sure they were authorized to access all our phones? (Psst: WaPo article carefully omits to mention it – but Hillary voted “NO” on that:

She said the bill had several shortcomings, including insufficient judicial oversight of surveillance and the immunity provision.

“I cannot support this legislation when we know neither the nature of the surveillance activities authorized nor the role played by telecommunications companies granted immunity.”

Aren’t they retroactively given immunity thanks to Obama’s vote now?


.Posted Image

So what am i to make of this:

The CEO also wrote the company has alerted “the appropriate federal law enforcement authorities.”

What enforcement? Is it because he is The One?  Because they sure as hell can access my records with no liability – Obama made sure of it with his vote

I guess he can now test first hand his own rationale for the vote

He said the bill’s target should not be the phone companies’ culpability, but “can we get to the bottom of what’s taking place, and do we have safeguards?”

He seems to have some after the fact ones. But what about the rest of us?

Not Your Sweetie

November 2008
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930