You are currently browsing the daily archive for January 8, 2009.

Surprisingly, Obama’s plans to cut taxes to rally the GOP, reminded a few Dem senators who they were supposed to stand for

Democrats criticize Obama’s proposed tax cuts

But Democratic senators emerging from a private meeting of the Senate Finance Committee criticized business and individual tax cuts in Obama’s stimulus plan.

Most shocking of all, one of those rebels is …John-Florida voters don’t count- Kerry

Sen John Kerry, D-Mass., said, “I’d rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job.”

Big words – but considering who spoke them, and this being the Senate, i don’t expect anyone to stand by them. To quote Max Baucus

He added that it is too early to pass judgment on any aspect of Obama’s plan.

I would start an office pool: how long till Kerry apologizes?

also, h/t to annienyc – Michelle Obama – rightfully – said W’s stimulus was bogus

“You’re getting $600,” she told an audience of mostly African-American women here. “What can you do with that? Not to be ungrateful or anything. But maybe it pays down a bill, but it doesn’t pay down every bill every month.”

“Barack’s approach is that the short-term quick fix kinda stuff sounds good,” she continued. “And it may even feel good that first month when you get that check. And then you go out and you buy a pair of earrings,”

We obviously shop at different jewelry stores, but she was basically right then.

As I have been challenged vy Woman Voter:

.Update

from the NYT article Tom harkin sees the Reagan print

“I am a little concerned by the way that Mr. Summers and others are going at this in that, to me, it still looks like a little more of this trickle-down, if we just put it in at the top, it’s going to trickle down

Advertisements

Occasionally, someone seemingly comments on the media sycophantic treatment of Obama and this is a particularly funny way of doing it: listing how many “first mistakes” Obama made. it’s a very long list of which I sample for entertainment and relevance values both:

On Nov. 7 — just three days after the election — Los Angeles’ KNBC said Obama’s flubbed joke about Nancy Reagan and séances was his “first misstep.”

and an attack on Hillary

And on Nov. 19, Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News said Obama’s secretary of state dealings with Hillary Clinton might just have been “his first big mistake.”

then a lot of “firsts on this one:

The “first mistake” stories kept trickling in until the week before Christmas, when Obama decided to ask Pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. Everyone from the Washington Blade to Fox News piled on with versions of the first-big-blunder story.

You’d think that would have exhausted the ‘first” but

While the Blagojevich scandal prompted a few more “first mistake” rumblings, the press seemed to have decided that the president-elect’s first mistake had come and gone — until Monday, when NBC gave Team Obama another mulligan. (on Richarson – another first)

However, my very  understanding that this list was media criticism was also a mistake – and this being commoner little me – not my first. It is instead, a justification – or rather a list of ones.

It appears that the reason the press has such a short attention span memory is because Teh One has such a brilliant way of dealing with mistakes

Team Obama is also highly skilled at passing out the marshmallows when small fires do break out.
The Obama approach, says Lockhart, is often simply to say: “We messed that up. Next.”

And which other team, still in town used to do that? Which POTUS asked if he made any mistakes froze up :

“I am sure an answer will pop up in my mind… here…during this press conference”

But  the list of justifications goes on

One motive for the repeated false starts may be pure self-interest on the part of the media, says Rosenstiel. “The first misstep is a bigger story than the second misstep,” he points out.

or the more accurate

In addition, once the media’s master narrative has been set, it is hard to change it — and in this case, the transition had been declared “breathtakingly, historically, spectacularly successful” by mid-December, says Rosenstiel. Mistake stories, he explains, haven’t gained traction because they “don’t seem to fit with the declared verdict about this transition.”

In other words, we will not report the facts because this would make our previous fawning ridiculous and a lie.

So, who are we to change “the narrative” because of some pesky facts? No Drama it is!

In the end, it all translates to the old : none of your business asking this, plebes!

We lie because we already decided how this should be reported and we stick to it. And occasionally, we stop and amuse ourselves with how much can we get away with, you schmucks!

https://i1.wp.com/i3.photoblog.com/photos7/16929-1219408707-4-l.jpg

And finally, that promissed second coming of Reagan is in the works!

In his book, Obama told us – page 32

“That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was government at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Reagan may have exaggerated the sins of the welfare state, and certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined.

Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster.”

and on page 156

“The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan’s central insight–that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie–contained a good deal of truth.”

As the Boston Boomer at the Confluence is pointing out

Barack “Gipper II” Obama is planning to do the same thing to the U.S. that he did to Chicago. Lots of government money gets funneled to his supporters and pals, infrastructure programs get funded and somehow all that money ends up in somebody’s pockets–or in their offshore bank accounts.

It’s not like he didn’t warn us when he said what republican ideas he admired

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the ’60s and ’70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command and control, we’re going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And he goes on explaining how poluters can self-regulate themselves – because we know how much good came from that particular deregulation.

The point is, the one billion candidate will now dance with those who brung him.

The ones he’s rallying by cutting taxes. The ones who hunger to gamble our “entitlements” (which us commoners paid for) on the stock market

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

We needed an FDR, but the greedy speculators made sure she wouldn’t come. They paid for Ronnie II instead. And the gullible activists bought him.

I am sure Krugman will have something I’ll quote later in the day – he’s been speaking up on all this throughout the elections and before about the bogus Social security crisis.

What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis?

and during the elections

All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign. It’s a bad omen; it suggests that he is still, despite all that has happened, desperately seeking approval from Beltway insiders.

for which he was blacklisted by the B0bots

Not Your Sweetie