Angry Obama Nobel Boob Prize

Update II: We have been discussing the victory of Hillary supporter Martha Coakley in the comments. The Confluence has more news from Massachusetts – including an hypocritical John Kerry quote about the smashing of another “glass ceiling”. It’s too late for Kerry and for the late Ted Kennedy to make up for inflicting Obama on the nation and trashing Hillary and Hillary supporters.

Congratulations to Martha Coakley who we endorsed a while back.

——————————————————————————————————

Update: MoonOnPluto informs us that Marist has the boob at 46% approval.

This is the first time the president has lost majority support on this question since taking office. When Marist last asked this question in October, 53% of voters gave the president high marks.

Also, read about the starfish.

——————————————————————————————————

We’ve taken our own advice and ignored the many, many, many, Obama publicity stunts.

There will be more Obama publicity stunts this week which we will not ignore.

The biggest publicity stunt of the week will be a trip to Copenhagen to grab an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize – as tens of thousands of American troops prepare for trips to Afghanistan. If you think Obama actually deserves the gift of a Peace Prize you are among only 26% of the country and you too are a boob and a fool:

“It’s probably a good thing for President Obama that the time difference from Norway means the Nobel presentation will occur while most Americans are sleeping and might get less coverage in the United States,” Brown added. “Two out of three Americans don’t think he deserves it compared to the quarter who do. Even among Democrats, only 49 percent think he deserves it, compared to 8 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of independent voters. As is the case with many questions related to the President there are wide gender and racial gaps.”

Last warning to boobs: The United States is shedding boobs faster than it is shedding jobs. The Mess-iah is no longer the amazing choirmaster of the celestial choirs leading transformational change powered by hope. No, the boob is increasingly seen as a boob:

Any slight bump in support Obama received coincident with his new Afghanistan policy proved to be very short-lived, as his approval rating returned to below the majority level by the weekend, and slipped further to 47% in Dec. 4-6 polling.

The boob is also an angry boob. Obama is phone calling those who call him a boob. It might be a stealth stimulus plan to get millions of dollars to phone companies if Obama calls everyone who calls him a boob. For now, Obama is mostly phone calling “stop calling me a boob” calls to congressmen who have called him a boob. Obama enabler John Conyers got a call:

According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.

Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left. Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor.

Conyers, the second-longest-serving member of the House, said, “[Obama] called me and told me that he heard that I was demeaning him and I had to explain to him that it wasn’t anything personal, it was an honest difference on the issues. And he said, ‘Well, let’s talk about it.’”

Sitting in the Judiciary Committee’s conference room two days after Obama delivered his speech on Afghanistan, the 23-term lawmaker said he wasn’t in the mood to “chat.”

Thugs do not have a “calm demeanor”, they are just mean. Obama is secretly mean but Big Media pretends he is calm and nice. Big Media is protecting Obama and Americans are not fooled.

Conyers grinned and smirked when Obama stole Hillary delegates at the Rules and By-laws Committee meeting during the primaries. Conyers enabled Obama. Conyers is not happy with the change he hoped for.

“I’ve been saying I don’t agree with him on Afghanistan, I think he screwed up on healthcare reform, on Guantánamo and kicking Greg off,” Conyers said, referring to the departure of former White House counsel Greg Craig.

Conyers and Greg Craig stabbed Hillary in the back to get Obama an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize type job.

Conyers was the first member of the Congressional Black Caucus to endorse Obama over then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president.

Conyers earlier this year noted that he spent most weekends in 2007 and 2008 on the campaign trail trying to get Obama elected.

“I did whatever was necessary to be done to win. I met with ministers, I met with unions, I met with lawyers, I met with community activists, I met with healthcare people,” Conyers explained in early April.

Conyers is now responsible for the boob’s actions. You bought it, now you pay for it:

The Michigan Democrat, a friend of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, said he was “getting tired of saving Obama’s can in the White House,” after progressive Democrats were forced to vote for a healthcare bill that did not call for a “robust public option” and includes language opposed by abortion-rights supporters.

Things are so bad for the boob that Obama better start considering Sarah Palin as a running mate. After Big Media has pimped for their stooge and savaged Sarah Palin – Palin is catching up (Hillary Clinton long ago surpassed). The boob is not doing so well against Sister Sarah:

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy, look what the pollsters just brought in.

A pair of new surveys revealing that President Obama is still declining and has hit a new low in job approval among Americans just 56 weeks after they elected him with a decided margin.

And — wait for it — Republican Sarah Palin is successfully selling a whole lot more than books out there on the road. Even among those not lining up in 10-degree weather to catch a glimpse of pretty much the only political celebrity the GOP has these days.

First, el jefe. Facing double-digit unemployment, rising spending, deficits and Afghan war casualties plus a keystone but stalled healthcare reform effort that caused a rare Sunday presidential visit to Capitol Hill, Obama recently fell below 50% job approval for the first time. [snip]

Obama's new Gallup Poll job approval number is 47%. Last month it was 53%.[snip]

The new CNN/Opinion Research Poll shows Palin now at 46% favorable, just one point below her fellow basketball fan.

Hated by Big Media Sarah Palin is rising and boob Obama, stooge of Big Media is fading. The thugish boob is increasingly seen for what he is:

The very same polarization now holds true for Obama, the fresh fellow from the old Chicago Democratic machine who was supposed to bring hope and change to a nation tired of divisive politics and the harsh partisan tone of Washington.

Fully 83% of Democrats approve of him, but only 14% of Republicans do.

Among independents, who provided the crucial winning boost for the Democratic ticket in November 2008, Obama's support has melted to 42% today, in large part over immense spending and deficit concerns.

And as political veteran Dave Cook points out over on the Vote blog, just since last month 3% of Obama's own Democrats have abandoned his ship, another 4% of Republicans and fully 7% of independents.

Other recent polls have shown Republicans leading for the first time this year on the generic congressional ballot and self-identified Republicans closing the gap with self-identified Democrats.

The boobs is Copenhagen are awarding the head boob a prize applauded by only the 26% of America’s population of current boobs.

But prizes and publicity stunts will not hide the fact that Obama is an angry boob – growing angrier and boobier by the minute.

Share

107 thoughts on “Angry Obama Nobel Boob Prize

  1. Good luck to Martha Coakley in Massachusetts today. Nancy Pelousy endorsed Coakley’s opponent Mike Capuano. Primary election day is today.

  2. Downward slides are hard to fix. His charismatic personality, so evident in the campaign, or should I say fabricated during the campaign, seems to have a one song track, and people are getting bored with the song.

    Michigan should have thought before giving this man the boost of delegates. You don’t give something to someone who has no track record. But then Florida, women, gay’s, and AAs did the same. I am lacking in sympathy.

  3. The Hopium-addled, just as the Bush-enamored did, will close their eyes and shut their ears and defend him to the end. But you don’t win elections with that 30%. And from what I am seeing, all of the independents and moderates who went Dem in 2008 are PISSED OFF.

    My nephew, a 26 year old Independent voter who was thrilled over Obama is now silent and resentful of the boob, and knows he was played by a con-man.

    IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID, and we are far from out of the woods yet. I just saw a report today that despite their “happy talk” of recovery, CEO’s and other Wall Street insiders are SELLING stock, not buying. In the most recent data set, $11.6 million in stock was purchased by insiders, while a whopping $957 million was sold.

    Those with an inside track know the next crash is coming, and are unloading onto Joe Six Pack and his 401K as fast as they can. Guess who will be left holding the hot potato once again when values plummet? I expect the anger at the Boob to grow exponentially over the next year and a half.

    What will the Boob run on in 2012? The hopenchange, let’s all feel good and be HISTORIC by electing an AA president trick only works once. You can’t be HISTORIC twice, and you can’t be CHANGE when you are the one in power. The Boob has boxed himself in by being a one-trick Unicorn. He’ll have to run on actual accomplishments next time, and it won’t be pretty.

  4. An interesting insight into the totalitarian impulses of the ‘true believers’ and those who exploit them.

    Wall Street Journal
    The Totalities of Copenhagen: Global warming and the psychology of true belief.
    Brett Stephens

    ‘I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Is it not obvious that the vision of apocalypse as it was revealed to Saint John of Patmos was, in fact, global warming?
    Here’s a partial rundown of some of the ills seriously attributed to climate change: prostitution in the Philippines (along with greater rates of HIV infection); higher suicide rates in Italy; the 1993 “Black Hawk Down” battle in Somalia; an increase in strokes and heart disease in China; wars in the Middle East; a larger pool of potential recruits to terrorism; harm to indigenous peoples and “biocultural diversity.”
    All this, of course, on top of the Maldives sinking under the waves, millions of climate refugees, a half-dozen Katrina-type events every year and so on and on—a long parade of horrors animating the policy ambitions of the politicians, scientists, climate mandarins and entrepreneurs now gathered at a U.N. summit in Copenhagen. Never mind that none of these scenarios has any basis in some kind of observable reality (sea levels around the Maldives have been stable for decades), or that the chain of causation linking climate change to sundry disasters is usually of a meaningless six-degrees-of-separation variety.
    Still, the really interesting question is less about the facts than it is about the psychology. Last week, I suggested that funding flows had much to do with climate alarmism. But deeper things are at work as well.
    One of those things, I suspect, is what I would call the totalitarian impulse. This is not to say that global warming true believers are closet Stalinists. But their intellectual methods are instructively similar.
    Consider:
    • Revolutionary fervor: There’s a distinct tendency among climate alarmists toward uncompromising radicalism, a hatred of “bourgeois” values, a disgust with democratic practices. So President Obama wants to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% from current levels by 2050, levels not seen since the 1870s—in effect, the Industrial Revolution in reverse. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, insists that “our lifestyles are unsustainable.” Al Gore gets crowds going by insisting that “civil disobedience has a role to play” in strong-arming governments to do his bidding. (This from the man who once sought to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.)
    • Utopianism: In the world as it is, climate alarmists see humanity hurtling toward certain doom. In the world as it might be, humanity has seen the light and changed its patterns of behavior, becoming the green equivalent of the Soviet “new man.” At his disposal are technologies that defy the laws of thermodynamics. The problems now attributed to global warming abate or disappear.
    • Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller “The World Without Us,” environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it’s no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that “no human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral'”—its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself.
    • Intolerance: Why did the scientists at the heart of Climategate go to such lengths to hide or massage the data if truth needs no defense? Why launch campaigns of obstruction and vilification against gadfly Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick if they were such intellectual laughingstocks? It is the unvarying habit of the totalitarian mind to treat any manner of disagreement as prima facie evidence of bad faith and treason.
    • Monocausalism: For the anti-Semite, the problems of the world can invariably be ascribed to the Jews; for the Communist, to the capitalists. And as the list above suggests, global warming has become the fill-in-the-blank explanation for whatever happens to be the problem.
    • Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it’s “global warming” when there’s a heat wave, but it’s “climate change” when there’s a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here?
    • Grandiosity: In “SuperFreakonomics,” Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner give favorable treatment to an idea to cool the earth by pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, something that could be done cheaply and quickly. Maybe it would work, or maybe it wouldn’t. But one suspects that the main reason the chapter was the subject of hysterical criticism is that it didn’t propose to deal with global warming by re-engineering the world economy. The penchant for monumentalism is yet another constant feature of the totalitarian mind.
    Today, of course, the very idea of totalitarianism is considered passé. Yet the course of the 20th century was defined by totalitarian regimes, and it would be dangerous to assume that the habits of mind that sustained them have vanished into the mists. In Copenhagen, they are once again at play—and that, comrades, is no accident.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703558004574581673107794380.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

  5. HillaryForTexas, here’s another Obama “accomplishment”:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0418093920091204

    The U.S. government racked up a gaping shortfall in the first two months of this fiscal year after posting a record budget deficit last year, congressional analysts said on Friday.

    In October and November, the government spent $292 billion more than it took in, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said.

    That was even worse than the same period last year, when the government was on its way to posting a record $1.4 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.

    The federal budget has been battered by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, as tax revenues have plunged and spending on safety-net programs like unemployment insurance have skyrocketed.

    The budget deficit was $176.4 billion in October, according to Treasury Department records, and the CBO estimated the deficit for November will have come in at $115 billion.

    The CBO gave its figures in billions of dollars and said numbers may not add up to the totals because of rounding.

    Receipts totaled $132 billion in November, the CBO estimated, down 9 percent from the same month last year. That was partly due to new legislation that gives increased tax write-offs to corporations.

  6. admin, we spent the weekend with a friend from Poland – a very smart and well-traveled man who has seen the good the bad and the ugly of capitalism, socialism, communism, and all points in between – and has seen the result of corruption and looting and lying elites in EVERY system. He’s not an ideologue, despite having been beaten and arrested during his youth involved in the Solidarity movement in Poland. He’s a cold-eyed realist and practical person, well aware that it’s always The People against the corporate state and their connected cronies, and whether that State is labeled capitalist or socialist makes no difference to the common man. It matters not whether oppression is done in the name of the mythical “collective humanity” or in the name of mythical “free markets” – it boils down to the elites having the power to game the system to their advantage, whatever philosophical gloss they put on it.

    He despises Obama. He says he is the worst of all he’s seen in Eastern Europe, the abuses of both the Left and the Right, all wrapped up in one snake-oil package. I can’t stress enough the contempt he has for this boob, and his alarm at the puppet-masters behind the scenes.

  7. Admin,

    bambi and mimi are sneaking in to get the ’emperor has no clothes’ peace prize and then sneaking back out like the sniffling weasils they are. No press conference, no staying an extra day for the concert…lol…only a royal wave from the balcony.

  8. flixxy.com/best-christmas-lights-display.htm

    h and w stuff. This is the coolest house light display for Christmas I have see. Be sure and listen to the end, as it starts out traditional, and really livens up.

    Enjoy the Holidays all.

  9. While BO is headed for a pick up for his booby prize in Copenhagen his slope is becoming a free-fall into oblivion.Hillary is still working 24/7 and being treated as a non-person by the Fox bloodhounds.This is her schedule for today.

    =
    ====================================================================

    Daily Appointments: Daily Appointments Schedule for December 8, 2009
    Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:46:12 -0600

    Daily Appointments Schedule for December 8, 2009

    Washington, DC

    December 8, 2009

    ——————————————————————————–

    SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON:

    8:10 a.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Working Breakfast with Members of Congress on Climate Change, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    9:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Quartet Representative Tony Blair, at the Department of State.
    (CAMERA SPRAY PRECEDING MEETING IN THE TREATY ROOM)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 8:45 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 9:15 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.

    10:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Remarks to the 2009 Fall Interns, Civil Service Career Entry Professionals and Presidential Management Fellows, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    10:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton hosts the Presentation Of The Award For Outstanding Volunteerism Abroad (SOSA) And The Eleanor Dodson Tragen Award, at the Department of State.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 9:45 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 10:30 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.
    For more information, click here.

    11:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Swearing-In Ceremony for Daniel Yohannes, Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    12:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Working Lunch with Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    2:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on Cyprus Alexander Downer, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    THE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 1:00 P.M.

  10. Mr. Turkey Giblet is pouting again…
    —————–

    Gibbs Rips Gallup, Trashes Daily Tracking Poll That Shows Obama at Historic Low

    Posted By Major Garrett On December 8, 2009

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs slammed Gallup’s daily tracking poll on Tuesday after it showed President Obama’s approval rating had fallen to 47 percent, the lowest approval rating for any president at this stage of his presidency dating back to President Harry S Truman.

    “If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor,” Gibbs said in the morning, off-camera briefing with reporters. “Five days ago there was an eleven-point spread. Now there is a one-point spread. I’m sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that.”

    Gallup’s survey has shown Obama’s approval rating just above or just below 50 percent for most of November. When the president’s rating hit 47 percent, Gallup compared [1]that data with previous presidents at the same stage of their presidency.

    Truman’s rating at this stage of his presidency was 49 percent. Gallup began polling in 1938, five years into Franklin Roosevelt’s administration. At no point did Roosevelt’s approval rating drop below 48 percent in a Gallup poll.

    Obama’s approval rating – buffeted by the recession, the grinding push for health care reform, and lengthy debate over expanding the US combat presence in Afghanistan – is now lower than Presidents Nixon and Ford were at this stage of their presidencies.

    Gibbs reference to an “eleven-point spread” between Obama’s approval and disapproval rating “five days ago” cannot be found in Gallup’s data. In a Nov 30-Dec. 2 survey, Gallup found Obama’s approval at 51 percent and his disapproval at 42 percent. A Nov. 27-29 survey found the ratio to be 51 percent approval to 41 percent disapproval.

    Gallup has tracked the president’s approval throughout the year. [2]

    Despite the scope of Gallup’s data and its reputation for professional political polling, Gibbs dismissed its survey.

    “I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.”

    Other surveys have also pegged Obama’s approval rating below 50 percent, a reliable benchmark in previous presidencies to determine legislative and political clout.

    Rasmussen’s recent survey has Obama’s approval at 47 percent [3]

    CNN/Opinion Research found Obama’s approval rating to be 48 percent [4]

    Fox News/Opinion Dynamics pegged Obama’s approval rating at 46 percent [5]

    The last poll to show Obama above 50 percent approval was conducted in mid-November by CBS News [6]

    http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/12/08/gibbs-rips-gallup-trashes-daily-tracking-poll-that-shows-obama-at-historic-low/print/

  11. Admin, I know you must have seen this article, making the rounds with all the Hillary supporters in the past couple of days:

    O’Connor: King Obama v. Queen Clinton — Check or Checkmate?

    Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-12-07/politics-city-county-government/politics-opinion/oconnor-king-obama-v-queen-clinton-check-or-checkmate#ixzz0Z7ibEHeS

    An excerpt:

    “The Queen has the greatest maneuverability of all the chess pieces. She can be the most lethal.

    The King, by contrast, is often barricaded behind a wall of defenders, with little room to escape-save in a bold and risky fashion.

    The King is dying. Long live the Queen.

    Quietly, and under almost everyone’s radar, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been vanquishing her foes, while President Barack Obama has been multiplying his.

    Furthermore, she has been paying off her debts, while Obama has been multiplying his (and the country’s) I.O.U.s.

    Obama is down in the polls. Clinton is up. He is losing his liberal base and taking heat on health care, the wars, broken promises, gate crashers, the bailouts, and a grand design that leaves his base behind.”

    Waiting for your commentary…

  12. BO caught in his own booby trap of hoof in mouth disease.He is in a downward slide and fading fast as we watch Hillary working 24/7 and winning the respect of so many world leaders.The following is her schedule for today.Records show that she has traveled more than 190,000 miles since becoming SoS.

    ===================================================================

    Daily Appointments Schedule for December 8, 2009

    Washington, DC

    December 8, 2009

    ——————————————————————————–

    SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON:

    8:10 a.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Working Breakfast with Members of Congress on Climate Change, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    9:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Quartet Representative Tony Blair, at the Department of State.
    (CAMERA SPRAY PRECEDING MEETING IN THE TREATY ROOM)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 8:45 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 9:15 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.

    10:15 a.m. Secretary Clinton delivers Remarks to the 2009 Fall Interns, Civil Service Career Entry Professionals and Presidential Management Fellows, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    10:45 a.m. Secretary Clinton hosts the Presentation Of The Award For Outstanding Volunteerism Abroad (SOSA) And The Eleanor Dodson Tragen Award, at the Department of State.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 9:45 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 10:30 a.m. from 23rd Street Entrance.
    For more information, click here.

    11:30 a.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Swearing-In Ceremony for Daniel Yohannes, Chief Executive Officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    12:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton hosts a Working Lunch with Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    2:00 p.m. Secretary Clinton meets with Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on Cyprus Alexander Downer, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    THE DAILY PRESS BRIEFING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 1:00 P.M

  13. DefiantOne, thanks for that article. We take issue with one point: Obama is not a “king” – Obama is a pawn – a Big Media stooge.

  14. Here’s another fun article (from George Will) along the lines of the article DefiantOne posted – funny because it’s true:

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/225791

    An adolescent asked Mozart how to compose symphonies. Mozart said that because the lad was so young, perhaps he should begin composing ballads. “But,” the young man objected, “you wrote symphonies when you were only 10 years old.” Mozart replied: “But I didn’t have to ask how.”

    This week the man who may fancy himself the Mozart of American politics—a prodigy—flies to Oslo to deliver an acceptance speech worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize that he has been awarded in recognition of the magnificence of his speeches. Later Barack Obama will go to Copenhagen, where in October he delivered a speech urging the Olympic Committee to award Chicago the 2016 games.

  15. better update the story Admin, Marist has just come in at 46% approval. Poor bambi – worst President ever.

    htt p://maristpoll.marist.edu/128-obamas-hope-to-unite-falls-short/

  16. Well if Gibbs did that after Gallup dropped bambi to 47 then can’t wait for all the swearing when he gets the Marist poll at 46%

  17. For a long time the question we received the most was “when will people wake up to Obama the fraud?” It’s beginning to happen.

    We believe that the final awakening, the only way, those who used to be our allies (Democrats who became Dimocrats) will wake up will be after a disastrous hell of a night as election returns come in next November.

    Only then will the Obama “situation comedy” coalition of misogynists be overthrown and the winning FDR coalition restored as the unifying principle for a truly Democratic Party. Only after the full destruction of the Dimocratic Party of Obamanation occurs in 2010 will rank and file Dimocrats become Democrats once again and begin to realize that the misogynistic Big Blog Boys have led them astray.

    The awakening is beginning to happen but it will only begin to be realized on Election eve 2010. In the meantime it is up to “Hillary supporter” websites and individuals to continue the fight. The good people at PumaP.A.C. have an excellent story about starfish which should be read by all:

    http://pumapac.org/2009/12/08/cool/#comment-400946

    Fight on!

  18. I mean this is the Marxist, I’m so sorry the Marist poll, so for this to be at 46% approval is very very significant.

  19. Gen McChrystal just handed Obama the get out of Jail free card, what a total muppet, he’s put his own head on the chopblock. Now Obama can put the blame squarely at his door.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6948928.ece

    McChrystal promises to turn Afghanistan tide within year

    The United States’s top commander in Afghanistan today promised to reverse Taleban momentum within a year and to have the insurgency in retreat within 18 months.

    General Stanley McChrystal was making his first appearance before the US Congress since his grim August assessment when he warned that his mission would fail within a year without a troop surge.

    He spoke as defence officials in Britain named the 100th British soldier to die in escalating violence in Afghanistan this year as Lance Corporal Adam Drane, a 23-year-old soldier from Bury St Edmunds who was serving with the 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment.

    General McChrystal’s message was upbeat, applauding President Barack Obama’s pledge last week to deploy 30,000 additional forces, and saying that now he was confident that success could be achieved.

  20. Good luck to Martha Coakley in Massachusetts today. Nancy Pelousy endorsed Coakley’s opponent Mike Capuano. Primary election day is today.
    —————————–
    Amen. I hope Martha wins.

  21. The guy I met with last weekend who returned from meetings in Europe told me the Nobel Prize was pre arranged for Obama before he ever took office. He did not elaborate beyond that. Undoubtedly, Soros was involved.

  22. Gen McChrystal just handed Obama the get out of Jail free card, what a total muppet, he’s put his own head on the chopblock. Now Obama can put the blame squarely at his door.
    ——————————————————–
    It may not be that simple. My sense is that Obama is in a corner. He tried to get out by reiterating that withdrawal would begin in 18 months. It is cast in stone and Gibbs has the chisel. Then a day later Hillary, Gates, and generals appeared on news program and said the only thing firm was that we would take a look at the situation after 18 months and IF the situation on the ground and the preparedness of the Afghan forces to take over in certain areas was as hoped then we can begin withdrawal.

    I foresee a situation where Obama tells the press something stupid, and the people in charge say how great he is and then ignore the advice and do what is necessary to protect the nation. Since he has no interest in governing, and wants only the headline is price is cheap. Praise him to high heaven and then do whatever you want.

  23. “The guy I met with last weekend who returned from meetings in Europe told me the Nobel Prize was pre arranged for Obama before he ever took office. He did not elaborate beyond that. Undoubtedly, Soros was involved.”

    —————

    hmmm…I bet soros and his puppet never once thought they would be ridiculed so badly when the announcement was made. These stupids think they walk on water and never consider that anyone will laugh in their faces.

  24. For example, notice the deal with Conyers. If he was interested in governing he would have led with the policy differences. Instead he lead with the way traitor conyers was demeaning him. Most politicians would have thick skin and would not react that way. They might resent it privately, but they would not give their opponent the satisfaction of knowing he got to him.

  25. The further fact that Conyers would disclose this conversation to the public is further evidence of the degree of the rift. It is quite remarkable. Also, I suspect Conyers is getting heat from constituents in Detroit about no jobs.

  26. I don’t understand, why would anyone give BO a Nobel Peace Prize? Doesn’t make any sense, on any level. How can he even accept it, with two wars going on?

  27. I bet soros and his puppet never once thought they would be ridiculed so badly when the announcement was made. These stupids think they walk on water and never consider that anyone will laugh in their faces.
    ———————————————————————
    Yes, they miscalculated badly on that one. They thought it would give his image a second wind, but all it really did was high light his lack of accomplishments, and the irrationality of his supporters. It made him an object of ridicule and earned him the name Jack Squat/

  28. The Internationally Acclaimed African Children’s Choir®TM Performed for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.S. Global Leadership Coalition!

    WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – Dec. 8, 2009) – The internationally acclaimed African Children’s Choir(R)(TM) performed for Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton last night, at a tribute dinner hosted by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition at The Grand Hyatt Washington in D.C.

    Secretary Clinton shared her vision for a U.S. foreign policy that elevates diplomacy and development to deal with the threats and challenges of the 21st century.

    The Choir was privileged to perform “It Takes A Whole Village” for Secretary Clinton and guests at the dinner and received high praise for their performance from USGLC leaders, senior White House staff and event MC Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent for NBC News.

    About the Choir:

    The African Children’s Choir(R)(TM) was founded in 1984 by humanitarian and Irish-born minister Ray Barnett and has entertained audiences and changed the lives of thousands of African children, their families and their communities.

    Focusing on education, the African Children’s Choir(R)(TM) is currently providing care and education for several thousand underprivileged children throughout Africa. These are children who could have lost all hope but who have overcome their circumstances and are now making a positive difference to society.

    For more information on the African Children’s Choir(R)(TM), please visit our website at http://www.africanchildrenschoir.com or email us at info@africanchildrenschoir.com.

    For more information, please contact

    African Children’s Choir
    Dawna Hodgins
    Toll-free: 1-877-562-8651
    pr@africanchildrenschoir.com
    http://www.africanchildrenschoir.com

  29. Article is wrong on Kennedy endorsement, didn’t endorse until after S.C.,
    (as much as this hurts me to reprint…)

    “BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Jan. 27 — Seeking to build on his landslide win in Saturday’s South Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will receive the endorsement of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) in Washington on Monday, sources close to both men said Sunday night.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/27/ST2008012702331.html?hpid=topnews

    Hope the rest of the piece shows better scholarship…

  30. It will be a “Hosanna” moment for the idiot…

    ——————–
    Dec. 8, 2009, 6:23 a.m. EST · Recommend (1) · Post:

    Reporter’s notebook: Obama visit plan lifts spiritRelated stories

    COPENHAGEN (MarketWatch) — At first, he wasn’t going to come. Or at least we weren’t sure. Then, he was coming — there was that Nobel Peace Prize to collect in Oslo, Norway, on Dec. 9 after all — but at the wrong time.

    Now, not only is President Barack Obama coming, he’s coming at the latest possible moment. In the nick of time, zero hour, last-gasp, do-or-die, high time, the proverbial eleventh. Which is to say, Dec. 18. The summit’s extreme summit.

    A caped climatic crusader squeezing in a record tenth foreign trip before Christmas despite major distractions on the home front — on health care, on Afghanistan, on jobs.

    But will it make a difference? It just might.

    “This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we get a new and better one. If we ever do,” U.N. Climate Change Conference President Connie Hedegaard said at the climate forum’s opening ceremony on Monday.

    And many here — delegates, observers, NGO participants and even some support staff alike — appear inclined to agree with, or at least hope alongside, Hedegaard. And much of this hope currently rests on the feeling that when Obama travels to Copenhagen next week he will do more than just pose for the traditional heads of state family photo. That a deal may, in fact, already have been reached ahead of the two-week conference.

    It’s easily forgotten, but Copenhagen represents two years of cranky negotiations, even if it’s only recently that emissions-pledge breakthroughs have been coming fast and thick — from the U.S, from China and from India.

    “I am tickled pink that President Obama is coming toward the end of the conference,” said Per Christiansen, head of zoology at Denmark’s second largest zoo, in the provincial town of Aalborg. “It means there’s a real chance that a deal will be made.”

    Valida Prentice, a youth delegate with SustainUS, a group that has been pressuring the White House since the fall for Obama to attend in Copenhagen and sends U.S youth to various U.N. conferences, said: “We consider it a victory for us that Obama will come with the rest of the world leaders toward the end of the conference.” “He could come and walk away with mere fluff but that’s not likely now. If he comes on the last day and walks away with nothing it would be a disaster. There’s a fair amount of optimism now.”

    “It would seem logical that he’d [Obama] attend at the end,” said Earl Green, a project manager for CARICOM, a group that represents the Caribbean and Islands of the Pacific on those regions’ response to climate change. “I mean, I don’t have much knowledge about the issue, but even I know that.”

    Laura Ramberg, of Golden Days, one of the companies involved with organizing some of the extra-curricular activities for COP15 participants said: “Now that Obama is coming, and has changed his dates, this is going to be a great event for Copenhagen.”

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reporters-notebook-obama-visit-plan-lifts-spirit-2009-12-08

  31. admin
    December 8th, 2009

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Admin- I read a few hours ago, there is a movement afoot to have Obloody removed by a military takeover. If something doesn’t happen pretty soon to the advantage of US Citizens, then, we are lost.

  32. Public says emphatic ‘no’ to second stimulus
    The president recently spoke at the Bookings Institution, and according to the Financial Times, “Obama unveils second stimulus for jobs.” What was the first stimulus…for

    —Mark Hemingway

    ***************

  33. Since taking office, the only tangible result Obama has achieved is to bury future generations in debt. On problem solving he has a perfect zero in twelve record.

  34. AP is projecting Martha Coakley the winner of today’s primary. http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/21901962/detail.html

    Bill Clinton endorsed her yesterday.

    http://www.marthacoakley.com/news/press_releases/details/2009-12-president-bill-clinton-urges-massachusetts-residents-

    Stating that “you can trust her to get results,” former President Bill Clinton will urge Massachusetts voters to get out and vote for Martha Coakley in Tuesday’s Democratic primary for the United States Senate.

    Clinton has recorded a phone message that will be sent on Monday to more than 500,000 primary voters across the Commonwealth. In the message, Clinton says that “Martha Coakley will go to Washington to fight every day to create good jobs with good benefits and to get health reform with a strong public option.” (The full text of the message is included below.)

    “I am humbled by President Clinton’s support and his help in reminding people to get out and vote on Tuesday,” Coakley said. “President Clinton oversaw one of the great periods of economic expansion in our nation’s history and was one of our staunchest advocates to move our country on a path towards universal health care. As Senator, I will work to carry that torch to pass meaningful health care reform and also help turn our economy around.”

    A full text of the recorded phone message of President Bill Clinton is as follows:

    “Hello, this is President Bill Clinton. I’m calling to remind you to vote tomorrow, Tuesday, December 8. And I hope you will vote for Attorney General Martha Coakley as your next U.S. Senator.

    “Martha Coakley will go to Washington to fight every day to create good jobs with good benefits and to get health reform with a strong public option. You can trust her to get results in the Senate just as she has as your Attorney General.

    “This election is very important to Massachusetts. So don’t forget to vote tomorrow and please vote for Martha Coakley. Thank you.”

  35. Cillizza on Bill Clinton’s endorsement:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/morning-fix-25.html#more

    With less than 24 hours before Massachusetts voters go to the polls to select nominees in the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former president Bill Clinton is wading into the race on behalf of Democratic frontrunner Martha Coakley. In a robocall being piped into the homes of 500,000 Democratic primary voters, Clinton says that Coakley “will go to Washington to fight every day to create good jobs with good benefits and to get health reform with a strong public option.” Clinton’s support is consistent with his recent pattern of rewarding political loyalty — Coakley was an early endorser of then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential bid. Bill Clinton is the most high profile endorser to make his preference known in the special and his support of Coakley may well be aimed at stifling any last minute momentum for Rep. Mike Capuano who was endorsed by former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis and Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey over the past week. Public polling shows Coakley with a comfortable lead, however, and private surveys confirm that tomorrow’s race is hers to lose. Clinton’s involvement is only the latest sign of the active interest he continues to maintain in electoral politics. The former president has held a bevy of fundraisers to benefit the Senate campaign of Florida Rep. Kendrick Meek, endorsed the gubernatorial candidacy of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and recorded robocalls for Scranton (Pa.) Mayor Chris Doherty’s reelection bid earlier this year.

  36. American Thinker
    **************

    December 08, 2009

    Watermelon Marxists

    By John Griffing

    Global warming as a science is defunct. Evidence of scientific dishonesty abounds, and the recent e-mail revelations may be the last nail in the coffin. When all is said and done, temperatures are falling.

    But as a tool for watermelon Marxists — green on the outside and red on the inside — climate change orthodoxy represents an opportunity to achieve age-old dreams of communist wealth redistribution. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to Cass Sunstein, Obama’s new regulatory czar and perhaps the most powerful bureaucrat in America:

    It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.

    He added:

    We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.

    Furthermore, Sunstein thinks that “[i]f we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses.”

    Sunstein is not alone. Sacked environmental czar Van Jones talks of “eco-apartheid.” To a like-minded audience, Van Jones exclaimed, “Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! No justice on stolen land…we owe them a debt.”

    President Obama is presumably on board, having pledged to “bankrupt” the coal industry, among other telling remarks:

    So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

    President Obama is also on record as favoring Supreme Court intervention to “spread the wealth”:

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. …

    There are several things wrong with this statement, but the most chilling expression of President Obama’s anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. …” Somehow, President Obama thinks he is exempt from the oath of office he took to “protect and defend the Constitution.” Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice.

    President Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade bill would reduce U.S. GDP by $9 trillion at a time of severe unemployment. Where is the indignation? Where are the calls for his impeachment?

    The U.N. Climate Change Conference wants to go as far as orchestrating a “planned recession” in order to begin the process. Cass Sunstein agrees.

    But who needs these people when the President of the United States is willing to destroy the American dream by his own hand? President Obama has pledged to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, the biggest transfer of American wealth and sovereignty in U.S. history.

    Few have bothered to read the agreement, which like so many other damaging agreements is excessively verbose. It calls for climate reparations to third-world countries — what the treaty calls “adaptation debt.” This isn’t optional. Clause 33 on page 39 of the agreement says that “by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].” And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply with this theft of resources. The treaty states:

    The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

    (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate. [Emphasis added.]

    World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified. Notice also the use of the words “financial mechanism.” The Copenhagen agreement, for the first time in the history of international legal precedent, proposes giving the U.N. authority to levy a global tax on rich nations to pay for “adaptation debt.” Page 135 of the agreement provides for “[a global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.” Annex I countries are the rich ones.

    What is astonishing about this “climate” treaty is that so little of it actually addresses climate. Emissions pledges remain mere pledges. The real focus of the treaty is the transfer of wealth. The words “climate debt” are used throughout the agreement, giving pseudo-credibility to the premise of wealth redistribution. But just what is “climate debt”? The essence of the concept is that rich countries raped the earth by emitting carbon and simultaneously deprived poor countries of economic opportunity. It would be funny if it weren’t actually the position of the Copenhagen Conference.

    When all is said and done, what happens if we succeed in destroying American wealth and creating a world government to coerce the shift? Wouldn’t world peace be a good thing? But the peace of submission is not a peace worth having, and the perceived economic benefits will be brief, owing to global economic dependence on American consumers.

    Once America is gone, it will be gone forever. Nations will benefit most from the continuing existence of a strong America. Killing the golden goose will not bring balance to the universe. Plundering American wealth will provide only a temporary shot in the arm for poor nations — and then the drug will wear off, ushering in a new dark age on a global scale.

    Right now, President Obama is the most powerful person in the most powerful country on earth. Obama may not have noticed, but we already have world government, and America is king.

    Just like with the man who sells his soul for power, the Devil never delivers as promised. He’s the Devil. And paradoxically, for the world to destroy America, it needs America’s wealth and resources.

    Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.

  37. Martha Coakley Wins Democratic Nomination for Senator from Massachusetts!

    To make the victory even more more sweet, Coakley was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton, and stuck with her right up to the Convention. She fought to have Florida and Michigan’s votes counted. She was the only candidate who ran on her own without invoking Ted Kennedy every five minutes, and she was the only candidate who refused to support the health care “reform” bill if that meant limitations on women’s right to choose when to have a child.

    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/martha-coakley-wins-democratic-nomination-for-senator-from-massachusetts/

  38. This is wonderful news…a Kennedy gone and a Hillary supporter, a female, and a reasonable minded dem to replace him!!!! Teddy must be rolling over in that great sailboat in the sky(or more likely taking driving lessons down below).

  39. Great win for us and Coakley!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    gonzotx
    December 8th, 2009 at 9:18 pm

    This article is the most cohesive comprehensive article I have read in a very long time that explains what is going on under our noses with so little public outcry coming from the rank and file due to the depth and expanse of the strategy in play here. I can’t thank you enough for posting it. It is a must read for everyone informing them what is at stake here as Obama’s poll numbers continue a downward spiral.. this dynamic is going on where so few people can actually see the bigger picture, the demise of America happening before their eyes.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The author, John Griffing, tells it like it is..

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “but the most chilling expression of President Obama’s anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. …” Somehow, President Obama thinks he is exempt from the oath of office he took to “protect and defend the Constitution.” Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice.”

    “President Obama’s proposed cap-and-trade bill would reduce U.S. GDP by $9 trillion at a time of severe unemployment. Where is the indignation? Where are the calls for his impeachment?”

    “The U.N. Climate Change Conference wants to go as far as orchestrating a “planned recession” in order to begin the process. Cass Sunstein agrees.”

    “But who needs these people when the President of the United States is willing to destroy the American dream by his own hand? President Obama has pledged to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, the biggest transfer of American wealth and sovereignty in U.S. history. ”

    Few have bothered to read the agreement, which like so many other damaging agreements is excessively verbose. It calls for climate reparations to third-world countries — what the treaty calls “adaptation debt.” This isn’t optional. Clause 33 on page 39 of the agreement says that “by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year].” And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new U.N. council to compel rich nations to comply with this theft of resources. The treaty states:

    The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

    (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate. [Emphasis added.]

    World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified. Notice also the use of the words “financial mechanism.” The Copenhagen agreement, for the first time in the history of international legal precedent, proposes giving the U.N. authority to levy a global tax on rich nations to pay for “adaptation debt.” Page 135 of the agreement provides for “[a global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties.” Annex I countries are the rich ones.

    What is astonishing about this “climate” treaty is that so little of it actually addresses climate. Emissions pledges remain mere pledges. The real focus of the treaty is the transfer of wealth. The words “climate debt” are used throughout the agreement, giving pseudo-credibility to the premise of wealth redistribution. But just what is “climate debt”? The essence of the concept is that rich countries raped the earth by emitting carbon and simultaneously deprived poor countries of economic opportunity. It would be funny if it weren’t actually the position of the Copenhagen Conference.

    When all is said and done, what happens if we succeed in destroying American wealth and creating a world government to coerce the shift? Wouldn’t world peace be a good thing? But the peace of submission is not a peace worth having, and the perceived economic benefits will be brief, owing to global economic dependence on American consumers.

    Once America is gone, it will be gone forever. Nations will benefit most from the continuing existence of a strong America. Killing the golden goose will not bring balance to the universe. Plundering American wealth will provide only a temporary shot in the arm for poor nations — and then the drug will wear off, ushering in a new dark age on a global scale.

    Right now, President Obama is the most powerful person in the most powerful country on earth. Obama may not have noticed, but we already have world government, and America is king.

    Just like with the man who sells his soul for power, the Devil never delivers as promised. He’s the Devil. And paradoxically, for the world to destroy America, it needs America’s wealth and resources.

    Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.”

  40. Obama administration plays some shrewd political hardball on climate change

    Hardball on Climate Change

    The Financial Times notes that a new ruling issued by the Environmental Protection Agency today finds “that carbon dioxide and five other gases pose a danger to human health clears the way for the agency to regulate emissions from large industrial sources without waiting for legislation from Congress.” (remember, we ALL exhale co2)

    Marc Ambinder: “Having ‘found’ that CO2 is a ‘public danger,’ and having taken the requisite administrative steps, the executive branch now believes it has the power to unilaterally impose carbon and greenhouse gas emissions caps on industry in the United States. This overhanging boot will threaten to drop until and unless Congress acts. It’s a neat executive weapon to have — one that, incidentally, the Bush administration chose not to take out of the locker, and one that the Obama administration decided to unsheathe as the President prepares to travel to Copenhagen.”

    It’s hardball politics. With the threat of regulation hanging over them, many large companies would much prefer a cap-and-trade type system the Obama administration has proposed than have the EPA impose its own rules.

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/12/07/hardball_on_climate_change.html?utm_medium=pwire.us-twitter&utm_source=&utm_content=site-basic

    (my dog exhales co2 as well- will I be forced to pay a carbon tax on his emissions?)

  41. Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.
    —————————————————————————
    What is the punishment for treason? Certainly not four more years.

  42. Yes, she is impressive and the fact that she was an early and ardent Hillary supporter makes it even sweeter. Big Dawg’s endorsement was the cherry on top. Screw you, John Kerry.

  43. Admin: I am sorry to ask but could you please send me the link to that article about Hillarycare? I’m sorry but I just can’t find it. If anyone else has it I would be extremely appreciative.

  44. Latest Politics Videos

    Lessons From the PastDec 08, 2009
    Can FDR’s policies help fix the economy?

    Backing Obama’s Plan?Dec 08, 2009
    Key players in Afghanistan testify

    Second Stimulus?Dec 08, 2009
    President Obama’s new job creation plan

    Untapped Ally?Dec 08, 2009
    India’s role in Afghanistan war

    ‘Endless Campaigning’Dec 08, 2009
    Rove blasts Obama on fixing economy

    Where Are the Voters?Dec 08, 2009
    Democrat primary for Kennedy seat

    The great shrinking Obama. Citizen of the World.

    Real Clear Politics Poll
    Job Approval Approve Disapprove Spread
    Obama 49.0% 46.4% +2.6%
    Congress 27.0% 64.3% -37.3%
    Direction of Country Right Direction Wrong Track Spread
    RCP Average 36.2% 58.6% -22.4%

  45. Puma-SF, we searched your earlier comments and found something which might be what you are referring to. Here is the comment link and the reply to you (is this what you are referring to?):

    ——————————————————————————————–

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/10/30/nancy-pelousy-and-barack-obama-economic-lies/#comment-269131

    Puma-SF, The New Republic has an article on CBO and Hillarycare written n June 2007. The name of the article is “Hillary Was Right“. It is a fascinating article to read especially in light of what is going on now. Hillarycare was smeared and Americans lost out. Sadder, Hillary was denied the ability to try again, with all the lessons learned by her and us. Americans are the ones worse off.

    BTW, our critique of Pelousy and the Public Option is a critique of the Speaker and the flim-flam she and Dimocrats call a “Public Option”. Our critique is not directed towards a “Public Option” of the type which Hillary has proposed. Our critique is directed towards the flim-flam Obama/Pelousy “public option” limited to the sickest and poorest 6 million and the consequent higher premiums of this latest Obama scam.

    Excerpt:

    A different set of concerns came from more thoughtful experts like Ellwood and Enthoven, the fathers of managed competition. Of particular concern to them was a limit on how much insurers could raise premiums from year to year. Government was in no position to set such limits, the argument went, because it couldn’t determine as well as the market what the proper level of medical spending was–or how to allocate it. If, for example, the cap was too low, doctors and hospitals wouldn’t get the money they needed–and would begin cutting back on services.

    From a policy standpoint, these caps were indeed the plan’s most controversial element–and the ones about which questions could most legitimately be raised. But, looking back, even these concerns were probably overblown. The task force had included this cap partly to satisfy the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which, in its official estimates of the program’s cost, wouldn’t assume that having a bunch of insurance plans was likely to save money, as the Clintons insisted it would. Since CBO’s projections would guide the debate, and since political moderates were likely to abandon the plan if it threatened to raise deficit spending or spark new taxes, the task force threw in the cap. But it was entirely possible premiums would not have exceeded the caps, at least not for a while: In fact, over the next few years, premium increases stayed under the limits set by the caps. And that was without a lot of the administrative savings that Hillarycare would have generated. Don’t forget, too, that Congress always had the power to ease the caps if they really threatened to disrupt medical services–although the hope was always that limiting spending would ultimately push the health care system to be even more efficient.

    As we all now know, those objections ended up carrying the day. The fear of rationing played directly into public fears of government incompetence–a fear the press did little to dispel. Harry and Louise and McCaughey may have been talking nonsense, but they spooked a lot of Americans. And, even though many interest groups stood to benefit from the Clinton plan–chief among them, large employers already paying for generous worker benefits–few lifted a finger to help. The plan died, and, just like that, Hillary went from savior to scapegoat.

    But look at everything that has happened since that time. By the end of the ’90s, virtually every American was enrolled in an HMO or some other type of managed-care plan–in other words, precisely the scenario that Harry and Louise, along with McCaughey, had warned would happen if the Clintons got their way. But managed care had evolved in a rather different direction than it might have under Hillarycare. The Clinton plan had proposed to regulate HMOs closely. Not only would the standard benefit package limit the ability of insurers to skimp on necessary care for people who needed it, but the Clinton plan also would have required all insurance plans to collect and publish data about how well their beneficiaries were doing (like, for example, whether they all got recommended tests, how satisfied they were with the service, and so on). This would have bolstered the best managed care organizations, the nonprofit group practices (like Group Health of Puget Sound in Seattle or Harvard Community Health in Boston, both of which had excellent reputations in the ’90s) that really did promote high-quality medicine. There was even a patients’ bill of rights, to make sure that people who thought their insurers had denied treatments improperly could appeal such decisions in a binding legal process.

    Read the whole article, it is very educational:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/hillary-was-right

  46. h/w
    time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html

    In the weeks since the e-mails first became public, many climate scientists and policy experts have looked through them, and they report that the correspondence does not contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, which has been decades in the making. “The content of the stolen e-mails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming,” wrote 25 leading U.S. scientists in a letter to Congress on Dec. 4. “The body of evidence that underlies our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.”

    According to PSU’s Mann, that statistical “trick” that Jones refers to in one e-mail — which has been trumpeted by skeptics — simply referred to the replacing of proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with more accurate data from air temperatures. It’s an analytical technique that has been openly discussed in scientific journals for over a decade — hardly the stuff of conspiracy.

    As for Mann and Jones’ apparent effort to punish the journal Climate Research, the paper that ignited his indignation is a 2003 study that turned out to be underwritten by the American Petroleum Institute. Eventually half the editorial board of the journal quit in protest. And even if CRU’s climate data turns out to have some holes, the group is only one of four major agencies, including NASA, that contribute temperature data to major climate models — and CRU’s data largely matches up with the others’.

  47. More from
    h/w
    time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html

    Ultimately, though, we need to place Climategate/Swifthack in its proper context: amidst a decades-long effort by the fossil-fuel industry and other climate skeptics to undercut global-warming research — often by means that are far more nefarious than anything that appears in the CRU e-mails. George W. Bush’s Administration attempted to censor NASA climatologist James Hansen, while the fossil-fuel industry group the Global Climate Coalition ignored its own scientists as it spread doubt about man-made global warming. That list of wrongdoing goes on. One of the main skeptic groups promoting the e-mail controversy, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, was recently revealed to have links to the energy company Exxon-Mobil, which has long funded climate-change deniers. “This is being used to confuse the public,” says blogger James Hoggan, whose new book Climate Cover-Up details Exxon-Mobil’s campaign. “This is not a legitimate scientific issue.”

  48. With Martha Coakley’s win it goes to show how new blood, new talent, new ideas get squished by having the Kennedys and the Kerrys term after term until they die. Citizens should become more assertive and candidates should come forward more often to challenge these old fools.

    Martha Coakley for president! It seems just yesterday we were thinking there was no woman presidential candidate on the horizon. We have one now and let us build her up.

  49. TD-

    Time and Newsweek are Soros/Obama owned media-

    Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak

    Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol.

    The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.

    The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

    The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as “the circle of commitment” – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

    The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol’s principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

    The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as “a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks”.

    A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

    • Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

    • Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called “the most vulnerable”;

    • Weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance;

    • Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

    Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.

    “It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process,” said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.

    Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: “This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed.”

    Hill continued: “It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks.”

    The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.

    Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

  50. Apparently Fox has discovered that percentages adding up to 100% is just a global conspiracy. 😉

    Aside from the blunders with percents here, the real key is that Rasmussen asked about “SOME” scientists and Fox leaves out the “some”. Of course in any field it’s likely there are SOME who would cheat. Fox here is trying to suggest that ALL scientists (well, all who report Global Warming) are suspected of cheating. If we consider all the “scientists” in the pay of the polluters, then it IS very likely that SOME would cheat.

    h/ no w
    mediamatters.org/blog/200912080002

    [Rasmussen] respondents: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).

    Fox News’ graphics department added together the “very likely” and “somewhat likely” numbers to reach 59 percent, and called that new group “somewhat likely.” Then, for some reason, they threw in the 35 percent “very likely” as their own group, even though they already added that number to the “somewhat likely” percentage. Then they mashed together the “not very likely” and “not likely at all” groups, and threw the 15 percent who were unsure into the waste bin. Voila — 120 percent.

    As such, Fox News’ presentation of the data made it seem as though 94 percent of Americans think it’s at least “somewhat likely” that climate scientists falsify their research data.

    As for the data itself, based on the phrasing of Rasmussen’s question there’s no way to know who the respondents were thinking of when they answered. It’s possible that they could have been thinking of the climate scientists who compile the IPCC reports, it’s also possible that they could have been thinking of the scientists on Exxon Mobil’s payroll.

  51. News of Martha Coakley’s win has made my day. I can only surmise that Massachusetts Democrats, whose 2008 primary vote heavily favored Hillary, remembered “bitterly” that their vote was ignored by their two primary superdelegates, Kennedy and Kerry. Had Kennedy survived till his next election, I think he could have been successfully challenged in the primaries, or in the general election by a decent Republican. As it was, Kerry was challenged too, but the year was Obama’s and Kerry was on the “right” side.

  52. ClimateGate is going viral. The fraud perpetrated is being exposured.

    230 physicists, including a Nobel Laureate, sign petition on Climategate (not Al Gore)

    December 9

    By Clarice Feldman

    On December 6, I wrote that a number of distinguished physics professors, horrified by the revelatations of Climategate have asked the American Physical Society ” to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted [by the work of the East Anglian CRU ]can be determined” It now appears that 230 members of the society, a hardly insignificant number, have joined in this petition, according to Declan McCullagh of the CBS News blog Taking Liberties:

    “In the aftermath of the embarrassing data leaks, however, Princeton’s Happer says that about half of the APS members they’ve contacted now support the petition (which, after all, is only asking for an independent analysis of the science involved).

    Of the signatories so far, Happer says, 77 are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 members of the National Academies, one is a Nobel laureate, and there is a large number of authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research. He adds: “Some have accepted a career risk by signing the petition. The 230 odd signatories can hardly be dismissed as lightweights compared to those who spread the message of impending climate disaster.”

    This has become a common refrain: Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research, calls the climate change axis a “cartel.” A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said the scientists implicated in the e-mails “should be barred” from future United Nations proceedings and warned that “the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.” One estimate from a free-market group says that 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a U.N. global warming report are “up to their necks in ClimateGate.”

    The fact the cbs is reporting this, if even only on its online blog also seems significant to me. It apparently is going viral.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/230_physicists_including_a_nob.html

  53. There has been a debate ongoing over this Kyoto crap. Three things are obvious. First, there has been a fudging of the numbers. Whether that fudging is sufficient to invalidate the entire premise is debatable. However, when one side censors contrary evidence, their credibility is seriously impaired, and whatever they do say must be viewed with great skepticism. Second, this is an attempt to reign in the coming industrialism of the third world in the name of protecting the environment. In that sense it preserves the economic advantage of first world economic elites, not to be confused with ordinary citizens. The third world nations need to understand that, and so do average people. Third, over time, this will destroy our sovereignty and our democracy. How can it be otherwise. The minute you transfer your freedom over energy consumption, and your pocketbook to a bevy of platonic guardians, you deserve what you get, which will be in their interest not ours. For these reasons, I am unalterably opposed to this Copenhagen business, and the loss of constitutional system which it presages.

  54. Good article for you to read Turndown:

    The professional association for physicists is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency.

    When CBSNews.com asked on Monday whether it will rethink the statement calling for immediate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, the American Physical Society said it would not. APS spokeswoman Tawanda Johnson replied with a pre-ClimateGate announcement from November 10 reiterating support for the 2007 statement; neither APS president-elect Curtis Callan nor Johnson would answer other questions on the topic.

    Pressure on this venerable society of physicists, which was founded in 1899 at Columbia University, is coming from members who are squarely in the scientific mainstream and are alarmed at the state of climate science revealed in the leaked e-mail messages and program files from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. (See CBS News’ prior coverage.)

    Those files show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of man-made global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and discussed how to conceal apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law. Internal investigations are now underway at East Anglia, Penn State, and the British government’s weather forecasting unit.

    One APS dissenting member is William Happer, a physicist who runs the Happer Lab at Princeton University. Another is Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A third is Robert Austin, another Princeton physics professor and head of a biophysics research group.

    They’ve been circulating a letter saying: “By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen… We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.”

    Some of the same scientists had asked the APS, pre-ClimateGate, to revise its climate policy statement. To the applause of like-minded bloggers who dubbed the petition “a silly distraction,” the APS shot down that idea on November 10.

    In the aftermath of the embarrassing data leaks, however, Princeton’s Happer says that about half of the APS members they’ve contacted now support the petition (which, after all, is only asking for an independent analysis of the science involved).

    more at link:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml

  55. Princeton University’s Robert Austin:

    “I view it as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day. We as taxpayers pay for that work — we are owed examination of the analysis.

    Princeton University’s William Happer:

    The APS has not responded to our petition. We submitted the petition several weeks ago… Prof. Callan, the president elect of the APS, who works in the same building in Princeton University as Professor Austin and I, has been unable to find time to discuss the petition with us.

    We have independently contacted as many members of the APS as we can to ask for their support of the petition. We are getting about as many supportive as negative responses, so I would judge that about half the membership of the APS agrees with us.

    Those who oppose us usually have little or nothing to say about the science and plenty of things to say about what evil people we are. Those who agree with us are troubled by the lack of scientific support for the current APS statement and the highly political nature of it.

    Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:

    I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.

    So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you — you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

    So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative
    game.

  56. [Rasmussen] respondents: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
    —————————–
    It is witchcraft to run polls on what non scientists believe or have been conditioned to believe over this nonsense. There is politics in everything including science. But surely, some fact based consensus can be reached which we can go forward on to either enact some recommendations, or pursue further studies. It is madness to press forward, where there is evidence of fraud, and the scientific premise such as it is is at best debatable. I do not like where this thing is postured. The other thing I am very keen on is ensuring that whatever is done the economic elites themselves pay dearly for what they wish to impose on the rest of us. I mean their personal bank accounts, and don’t say it will never happen, because whether they realize it or not, they will. They just don’t know it–yet.

  57. Thank you wbb-

    Climategate is one of the most important issues of this century. The scam being perpetrated by the US and the Uk on their people is as malevolent as it gets. Of course crisis presents opportunity. Emanuel said, “never let a crisis go to waste.” And of course, the have (costly, restrictive) plans for us-

    The true reason for the manipulation of numbers is to fool the people into thinking it’s their fault the climate is warming. Thusly, the movers and shakers have arrived at a very lucrative solution benefiting them, not us or the planet: “CAP and TRADE”-

    Here is a simple video illustrating how the scam works:

    http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/

  58. “The fact the cbs is reporting this, if even only on its online blog also seems significant to me. It apparently is going viral.”

    ———————

    I agree. You have to wonder about all the scams that don’t get found out. This one is huge and yet bambi is still in denial. Gore is sucking up to him and hiding behind his coattails, and bambi is still going to the conference.

  59. December 10, 2009

    Senate kills off Obama plans for major healthcare reforms

    BARACK Obama’s ambitious plan for a government-run health insurance scheme to cover millions of uninsured Americans was killed off last night, after a deal in the US Senate to abandon it.

    Legislation to reform US healthcare is expected to be passed, but it will be a much scaled-down version that sees private insurance companies still in charge.

    The dumping of a government-run health scheme to compete with private companies from legislation being considered by the Senate is a serious blow to the US President after he had rated reform of health his No 1 domestic priority.

    While disappointed, the White House is expected to play down the impact of removing a proposed scheme that is common to almost all developed countries but has provoked heated debate across the US.

    Mr Obama will argue that many people previously denied health cover will gain access for the first time under the compromise deal, even if the numbers fall far short of the national scheme he had in mind.

    Under last night’s deal, negotiated by Democrat Senate majority leader Harry Reid when it was clear an impasse involving senators from his and Mr Obama’s party could not be resolved, a proposed government-run scheme will be replaced by a series of national insurance policies administered by private companies.

    These private insurance policies are to be negotiated on behalf of members by the Office of Personnel Management, the Washington authority in charge of overseeing health insurance for many federal public servants.

    In one concession to widening public healthcare, the Medicare scheme that provides govern-ment-supported insurance to the over-65s age group would be expanded to allow people as young as 55 to sign up.

    Last night’s abandonment of government-run insurance will rile many senators on the Left of the Democratic Party who had said they would vote against legislation if it was removed. They are still likely to vent their anger at the deal over the next week, claiming the compromise is weak because it will offer no meaningful competition to the private firms. But their apparent willingness to accept the compromise is a recognition of the political reality that independent senator Joe Lieberman and up to four conservative Democrats would not budge from opposition to the government proposal because of concerns about costs and a watering-down of services.

    Republicans have opposed the Democrats’ health legislation as a bloc, meaning the votes of all Democrats and two independents were needed to pass legislation.

    A bill with a strong government-run insurance scheme was passed in the House of Representatives last month with much fanfare, and Mr Obama made a last-ditch attempt on Sunday to persuade Democrat senators to accept a full-scale reform of health when he paid a rare visit to Capitol Hill.

    After last night’s compromise, the house will have to review its legislation and remove the government insurance plan so any final bill for the President to sign into law is consistent. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is likely to raise strong objections. The model likely to be approved by congress after all the haggling will fall far short of public health schemes operating in Australia, Britain, Canada and most European countries.

    It will leave many millions of Americans who cannot afford coverage without insurance reliant on hospital emergency rooms for care.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/senate-kills-off-obama-plans-for-major-healthcare-reforms/story-e6frg6n6-1225808853684

  60. Support down for Obama’s handling of economy: poll
    (AFP) – 3 hours ago

    WASHINGTON — A growing number of Americans have lost confidence in President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy, despite the apparent beginnings of a recovery, according to a poll out Wednesday.

    A Quinnipiac University survey suggested that 54 percent of respondents disapproved of Obama’s handling of the economy, compared to 41 percent who approved. The finding was Obama’s “worst score ever on this issue,” the pollsters said in a statement. They said it also showed erosion of support even from just a month ago, when public opinion on his handling of the economy earned a 52-43 percent approval rating.

    For his overall job performance, respondents gave Obama a 46 percent approval — also his lowest ever — while 44 percent of those polled disapproved of the president’s performance, the poll showed.

    The president’s job approval “rating continues to slide and it’s evident the deterioration stems from voter unhappiness over domestic policy matters,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

    The biggest change in Obama’s overall approval is among political independents, who disapprove 51-37 percent, a change from 46-43 percent disapproval in the November poll.
    “The decline in Obama’s overall approval in the last month has been small, with the exception of independent voters who went from three points negative to 14 points,” Brown said. “If the trend continues, it won’t be long before he could be in the unenviable position of having more Americans disapprove than approve of his job performance.”

    The December 1-6 poll surveyed 2,313 registered voters nationwide, and has a plus-or-minus two percentage point margin of error.

    The poll comes as Obama this week unveiled a plan to soften the impact of the economic crisis on jobless Americans, with a package of tax breaks, infrastructure investment and spending on energy efficiency, in a bid to lower a US jobless rate which has hit 10 percent.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h6YIy2rsBxg3UE4d3P-aO1uiLhKw

  61. Curiosity has the best of me…the twenty-somethings are STILL talking among themselves and askng the question, where are all the bullets going? They report that the buildings they are guarding that are supposed to hold ammunitions ARE EMPTY.They question why would they be guarding an empty building. I am wondering what the answer to these quesitons are. Are there any clues?

  62. Congress readies huge year-end spending bill

    By ANDREW TAYLOR
    The Associated Press
    Wednesday, December 9, 2009

    WASHINGTON — Congressional negotiators sealed agreement Tuesday night on sweeping spending legislation that boosts housing and heating subsidies but curbs President Barack Obama’s requests for aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The move comes as lawmakers wrapped the budgets of nine Cabinet agencies into a $1.1 trillion spending bill they hope to complete before a stopgap measure expires Dec. 18.

    The measure would combine six of the dozen routine annual appropriations bills for the budget year that began Oct. 1. It combines a huge increase in foreign aid with an 18 percent cut to a program that helps states with the cost of incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants.

    The proposal continues current policy that permits detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center to be transferred to the United States to stand trial but not to be released.

    The bill reflects Democrats’ control of Congress and the White House. A long-standing ban on the funding of abortion by the District of Columbia government would be overturned, as would a ban on that city’s needle exchange programs. It would phase out a Washington, D.C., school voucher program favored by Republicans.

    There’s $2.5 billion for high-speed rail programs, which comes on top of $8 billion approved earlier this year as part of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus program. A program that subsidizes flights to and from rural airports – sometimes at thousands of dollars per ticket – would receive $200 million, a 47 percent increase.

    But while the measure provides a huge boost to foreign aid, Democrats forced a $151 million cut to Obama’s almost $2.8 billion request for economic and security aid to Afghanistan. Obama’s $1.6 billion request for aid to Pakistan would be cut $124 million.

    All told, the measure blends $447 billion for the daily operating budgets of the nine Cabinet departments with more than $600 billion for benefits such as Medicare and Medicaid.

    The measure would also set up an appeals process for the 3,000 car dealerships closed by General Motors and Chrysler earlier this year. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said dealers challenging closure decisions could enter binding arbitration.

    And in a victory for gun rights advocates, Amtrak passengers could carry handguns in their checked baggage. Amtrak riders who give the railroad 24 hours notice could transport firearms that are unloaded and in a securely locked container checked in a baggage car, giving them rights comparable to those enjoyed by airline passengers. The policy would go into place within a year.

    The agreement was sealed at a House-Senate negotiating session Tuesday evening. A House vote could happen as early as Thursday. Summaries were released by the appropriations committees. The measure is generous throughout, especially with foreign aid and State Department accounts, which receive a 33 percent increase to almost $49 billion. A program that delivers heating subsidies for the poor would receive $5.1 billion, almost 40 percent more than Obama requested.

    Veterans medical programs would receive a 10 percent increase over current levels while the State Department would receive a 16 percent increase for diplomatic operations.

    NASA would receive a $942 million boost, to $18.7 billion, and the Census Bureau’s budget would more than double, to $7.3 billion, to conduct next year’s national head count.

    Republicans say Democrats are spending too much as the government runs deficits in the range of $1.4 trillion a year. Still, most are happy to join Democrats in claiming their share of thousands of home-state projects such as community development grants, rural health centers, road projects, and grants to local law enforcement agencies for new equipment.

    For example, no sooner had the session closed than Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., issued press releases claiming credit for so-called earmarks such as $1 million to combat methamphetamine and $500,000 for police communications equipment upgrades for the City of Montgomery and Montgomery County.

    Lawmakers largely rejected budget cuts unveiled by Obama in May. For example, Obama proposed killing the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which helps states with the cost of jailing illegal immigrants charged with crimes, budgeted at $400 million for the current year. The proposal would provide $330 million.

    The budget for the White House drug “czar” to run a national media campaign, however, would be cut more than one-third, reflecting doubts about its effectiveness.

    The bill covers Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs. Five other spending bills covering food and farm programs, the Energy Department and water projects, the environment and homeland security programs have already been passed and signed by the president.

    A $626 billion measure funding the Pentagon would advance later and is likely to carry a variety of wrap-up legislation.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120901174.html

  63. JanH

    Canada’s PM did a very smart thing. He said: Canada wasn’t signing on to any Climate Change agreement until the US does so- China and India have backed out of signing any climate agreements for the time being.

    I also just heard from a good friend, Obama didn’t want to go to the Climate Summit in Copenhagen because of the scandal. Queen Elizabeth II called him personally and either asked him to go or told him he must go to preserve the ‘perception’ of integrity in both countrys. As scandals go, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more coming down the road once they begin to investigate who knew what and when they knew it.

    Climategate is unraveling their plans to once again make the consumer responsible to fix and pay for corporate crimes.

  64. Angry does not even seem to cover Obama’s mood. Here’s an order he has issued for congress:

    The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in way that could hurt business.

    www dot foxnews.com/politics/index.html

    For the manner in which US Senators have been behaving, I wanted to know what they swore to in their Senatorial oath. This is it:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

  65. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
    ———————————-
    Thank you. That is what we need to stamp on the forehead of some of those traitors–like Reid and Pelosi.

  66. “The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn’t move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a “command-and-control” role over the process in way that could hurt business.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~`

    Oh boy- thems fightin’ words. The dictator is busy dictating his terms or else…

  67. I also just heard from a good friend, Obama didn’t want to go to the Climate Summit in Copenhagen because of the scandal. Queen Elizabeth II called him personally and either asked him to go or told him he must go to preserve the ‘perception’ of integrity in both countrys. As scandals go, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more coming down the road once they begin to investigate who knew what and when they knew it.
    —————————————–
    And shortly before that, the Queen appeared at a meeting of Commonwealth Nations, and said Climate Change was the most urgent priority and the treaty must be signed. I believe that meeting was in Trinidad. I have a friend who is building their airport. I could call him, but I will wait until he gets home and see if he has any knowledge of this. But what Mrs. Smith says above is absolutely true. It is not just the two nations but it is also the financial elites of both countries who are pushing this. Soros is their front man. The burden of all this will fall heaviest on the middle class. But it is the world government implications which will be most enduring–and irrevocable.

  68. Huge headline of Drudge with pic of Hillary linking article that says Penns firms received 6 million in stimulus money…

  69. Mrs. Smith,

    Canada is also being swayed heaving by the oilsands and big oil and gas corps (American/Canadian). There is quite a rabid discussion in Canada about greenhouse gases…a very sensitive topic for many years now.

  70. wbboei
    December 9th, 2009 at 11:40 am

    “But it is the world government implications which will be most enduring–and irrevocable.”

    ~~~~~~~

    well said, wbb- well said!

  71. lol…heaving = heavily.

    —————-

    jbstonesfan,

    I read about that. I wonder if they would push the issue if it were one of bambi’s playmates who probably got much more from the stimulus.

  72. Huge headline of Drudge with pic of Hillary linking article that says Penns firms received 6 million in stimulus money…
    ——————————–
    It was on FOX too, as ABM 91 has probably noted. Hillary has no responsibility for what he does after his representation of her terminated. Moreover, she fired him and has not paid his bill. The man is incompetent, opportunistic, and had a deep conflict of interest between her and other clients. In sum, there is no basis in fact to impute his ex post facto actions to her, other than a cheap partisan headline which is absurd on its face. They tried the same thing with two of her fundraisers and the reaction was who cares.

  73. I read about that. I wonder if they would push the issue if it were one of bambi’s playmates who probably got much more from the stimulus.
    ————————-
    Beck will dig into that I am sure. It is a fertile field. Remember Kevin Johnson. There are alot of them, especially in Chicago.

  74. Mark Penn’s two firms got $6 million from stimulus for PR campaign
    By Alexander Bolton – 12/09/09 12:00 AM ET
    Nearly $6 million in stimulus money was paid to two firms run by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster in 2008.

    Federal records show that $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/71353-mark-penn-got-6-million-from-stimulus

  75. George Stephanopoulos Accepts GMA Offer, Will Continue to Host ‘This Week’

    By Chris Ariens on Dec 09, 2009

    George Stephanopoulos will be the next co-anchor of “Good Morning America” after accepting the terms of ABC’s offer. For the time being, Stephanopoulos will also continue hosting “This Week,” ABC’s Sunday morning public affairs show.

    As TVNewser reported Tuesday, Stephanopoulos is not the only new addition to the show. Juju Chang has been named news anchor, replacing Chris Cuomo who is in negotiations to become co-anchor of “20/20.” In addition to news anchor duties that come with a broadcast morning show, Chang will take a larger role in the feature-driven 8am hour. An official announcement is expected tomorrow. The changes take effect Monday. Diane Sawyer’s final day on the broadcast, after 10 years as co-anchor, is this Friday.

    ABC News president David Westin is keeping Stephanopoulos at the helm of “This Week,” as that show, as well as CBS’ “Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer,” continue to chip away at the long-held lead of TV’s #1 Sunday show, NBC’s “Meet the Press with David Gregory.”

    Stephanopoulos, who was a senior adviser to Pres. Bill Clinton, is married to actress Alexandra Wentworth. The couple has two daughters and live in Washington, but are expected to relocate to New York. Stephanopoulos joined ABC News as a political analyst after staying through Clinton’s first administration. He later became a correspondent while making frequent appearances on “This Week.” Stephanopoulos took over the show as host in September 2002.

    http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/abc/george_stephanopoulos_accepts_gma_offer_will_continue_to_host_this_week_145325.asp

  76. This is a smart guy, from a venerable academic institution.

    December 9, 2009
    The Politics of Repeal
    By Charles Kesler

    Everything depends on health care reform. President Obama has made that clear in his 29 (at last count) speeches on the subject and by his administration’s legislative and lobbying priorities. His long-term ambitions to revive the Democrats’ reputation for epochal social reform, to restore his party as America’s majority party, and to elevate himself as one of its immortals-all turn on a breakthrough on health care.

    Success would allow him to fulfill a promise made by Franklin Roosevelt 65 years ago. Failure would make him another Bill Clinton. That’s why Obama can be counted on to fight for the last vote in the Senate as he did in the House of Representatives, whose narrow passage of a bill was a big step forward for the president’s efforts. Though the whole enterprise could still fall apart in the Senate or in conference committee, it’s increasingly likely that something called health care reform eventually will emerge from this heavily Democratic Congress and be signed into law by President Obama.

    Receive news alerts

    Sign Up

    Charles Kesler RealClearPolitics
    Health care

    But contrary to his expectations, that won’t be the end of the fight. Or at least it shouldn’t be. Without letting up on their resistance to the awful health care bills now before them, Republicans and conservatives of all stripes ought to prepare themselves for a possible second phase of the struggle: repeal, of whatever noxious bill the Democrats manage to pass.

    And make no mistake, it will be the Democrats who pass this so-called reform bill. Never before in American history will a major piece of social legislation have been enacted on such a purely partisan basis. The granddaddy of them all, the Social Security Act of 1935, won the support of a majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate. Medicare became law in 1965 with half of House Republicans and 13 of 32 GOP senators voting yea. By contrast, Obamacare (whatever it turns out to be) will pass, if it passes, essentially by Democratic votes alone, even if one or two confused Republicans do wander across the aisle.

    This will be partisan legislation of a very bad sort. In fact, it will be legislation of a very bad sort, degrading health care’s quality, raising taxes and insurance premiums while adding enormously to the deficit, and deliberately expanding Americans’ dependence on the federal government. It will be law that, in poll after poll, most Americans say they do not want. But it will be shoved down our throats anyway, in a vivid example of the bedside manner we can expect from our new national health care system.

    Unless we resist, and continue to resist.

    What alternative do we have? To acquiesce in the new program in hopes of improving it later on would be a pipedream. If entitlement programs could be easily fixed, the U.S. would not after decades of warnings be facing the impending bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. If government bureaucracies could handily be streamlined, the Post Office would not be…the Post Office.

    That leaves refusing to accept the new measure as legitimate, or in other words, beginning to work as soon as it is passed for its repeal. There is nothing un-American or undemocratic or even unrealistic about this. The same legislature that enacts a bill has the right and power to repeal it. It happens all the time. More generally, battles to reverse public policy considered unfair, unwise, and unconstitutional are a storied part of American history, ranging from Thomas Jefferson’s denunciations of the Alien and Sedition Acts, to Andrew Jackson’s war against the Second Bank of the United States, to the repeal of the 18th Amendment, when a thirsty country changed its mind about banning sales of alcoholic beverages. More recently, the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 lasted until 1989, when Congress, under pressure from senior citizens, removed it from the books.

    In the present case, it’s been so hard for Democrats to find a politically palatable way to pay for their reforms that they want to institute their plan’s new taxes at once but delay its benefits until 2013. The gimmick would yield several years of revenues without expenditures, contributing to the illusion that their bill will not bust the budget. Happily, three years of pain but no gain would also provide the perfect opportunity to pursue the politics of repeal.

    Charles R. Kesler is a senior fellow of The Claremont Institute and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. Respond to the author here.

  77. The Democrats have managed to convince themselves that Americans love to be ruled by elitists, and will pay high taxes for the privilege. The Achilles heel of their grand strategy is taxes now, hypothetical benefits years later. The third nail in the coffin will be continued high unemployment, benefit cuts and inflation. In other words, Obama has placed his party on the horns of an unresolvable dilemma, and the day of reckoning will be rough for them. If the Republicans sweep the midterms, it be obvious that he has no down ticket strength and his own party will probably ask him to step down, rather than face a disaster in 2012.

  78. The messiah is gping to run out of places to fly and hide very soon.
    I hope they don’t trash the place when they leave the as many angry tenants do when they are facing repossession.All those czars may go on a rampage when they face unemployment lines.

    Hillary is going about her duties as SoS non-stop.Take a look at todays work load.Where does she get all the energy?

    =================================================================

    Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:59:58 -0600

    Daily Appointments Schedule for December 9, 2009

    Washington, DC

    December 9, 2009

    ——————————————————————————–

    SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON:

    10:00 a.m. Secretary Clinton chairs a Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Board Meeting, at the Department of State.
    (CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

    1:15 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with His Excellency Petro Poroshenko, Foreign Minister of the Ukraine, at the Department of State.
    (PRESS AVAILIBILITY FOLLOWING BILATERAL MEETING AT 1:50 P.M. IN THE TREATY ROOM)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 12:45 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 1:30 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance

    4:20 p.m. Secretary Clinton presents the 11th Annual Awards for Corporate Excellence (ACE), at the Department of State.
    (OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 2:30 p.m. from the 23rd Street entrance
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 3:30 p.m. from the 23rd Street entrance
    For more information, click here.

    4:45 p.m. Secretary Clinton holds a Bilateral Meeting with His Excellency Hugo Martinez, Foreign Minister of El Salvador, at the Department of State.
    (CAMERA SPRAY PRECEDING BILATERAL MEETING IN THE TREATY ROOM)
    Pre-set time for cameras: 4:15 p.m. from the C Street Entrance.
    Final access time for writers and still photographers: 4:30 from the C Street Entrance.

  79. Wbboei, the Kesler article is an echo of what we wrote (on October 13) in The Big Story Is AHIP, Not The Senate Finance Committee Passes A Bill. Kesler misses what we wrote then – that because of AHIP the Republicans will have the resources necessary to fight in 2010:

    http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/10/13/the-big-story-is-ahip-not-the-senate-finance-committee-passes-a-bill/

    Much more interesting is the latest play on the chessboard by the health insurance industry via their lobbying arm AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans) and what that means. To us what it means is that if the health care scam Obama is running actually passes this year, it will become the Big Story for Republicans next year as they try to wrest control of the congress from Dimocrats. More importantly, Republicans and the Obama opposition will have the financial resources not available until now.

  80. In a Political Popularity Contest, Hillary Clinton Wins

    12/9/09

    If there was a political popularity contest, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be the winner right now with President Obama a close runner-up, according to a Bloomberg poll conducted Dec. 3-7.

    Of course, the choices were limited to those whose names Bloomberg included in the poll, but here are some of the results:

    Clinton is seen favorably by 62 percent and unfavorably by 31 percent.

    Obama’s favorable-to-unfavorable margin is 58 percent to 38 percent.

    The Federal Reserve (OK, not a person) is seen favorably by 50 percent to 26 percent, with about a quarter saying they weren’t sure. Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is seen favorably by 33 percent to 26 percent but most (41 percent) are not sure.

    The Democratic Party is seen favorably by 47 percent to 44 percent (the margin of error is 3.1 points), but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is seen unfavorably by 47 percent to 32 percent with 21 percent unsure.

    Daily Show host Jon Stewart vs. former CNN anchor Lou Dobbs? In both cases, about half of those asked were not sure what they thought of either, but those who registered an opinion saw Stewart favorably by 34 percent to 17 percent and Dobbs by 27 percent to 23 percent.

    Vice President Joseph Biden is seen favorably by 44 percent to 37 percent.

    Forty-nine percent see Sarah Palin unfavorably compared to 39 percent who see her favorably.

    The Republican Party is seen unfavorably by 47 percent to 42 percent.

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was seen unfavorably by 33 percent to 26 percent, but with 41 percent answering they were not sure, he isn’t on his way yet to becoming a household name.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/09/in-a-political-popularity-contest-hillary-clinton-wins/

  81. December 09, 2009

    Republicans Demand Audit of Obama’s Stimulus Spending

    Four Republican lawmakers demanded an audit of President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus program on Wednesday following reports of exaggerated or inaccurate accounts of the number of jobs created.

    Reps. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Jack Kingston of Georgia, Mark Souder of Indiana and Jeff Miller of Florida called for the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate the effects of the stimulus bill.

    “It’s time for Congress to demand answers on behalf of the hardworking taxpayers that we represent,” Wilson said. “The misnamed stimulus is one of the largest spending bills in our nation’s history and it is critical that American taxpayers receive adequate answers as to the whereabouts of stimulus funds.”

    Wilson’s bill would create a 10-member panel appointed by the president and congressional leaders that would determine how many jobs have been created and the effectiveness of measures taken to prevent improper payments. Then the commission would recommend what changes could be made to save or create more jobs and prevent mismanagement of the funds.

    The call for an audit came as news broke that a public relations firm headed by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign strategist, received nearly $6 million in stimulus funds to save three jobs — a report Penn’s company called “fundamentally inaccurate.”

    “I cannot fathom how Hillary Clinton’s pollster received $6 million to preserve just three jobs when that could sustain dozens of South Carolina’s families for life,” Wilson said.

    Kingston and Miller took aim at the White House’s recovery.org Web site, which has come under fire for claiming that the stimulus has led to 640,000 jobs, a figure that could be overstated by at least 20,000 according to numerous reviews.

    “What do you get for $18 million? The Obama administration’s Web site that creates phony congressional districts and fishy jobs numbers,” Kingston said. “It’s time to pull back the curtain and get some of that transparency and accountability promised on the campaign trail.”

    Miller said the Web site listed the creation of 98 jobs in two districts that don’t exist.

    “How can the administration expect us to trust their dubious jobs created numbers when they can’t even manage their own Web site?” he said. “We need an audit of this spending immediately.”

    Souder renewed an attack on Obama officials who claimed the stimulus would keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. The rate is currently at 10 percent. “I am pleased to join Congressman Joe Wilson on this important legislation to put an end to this unaccountable stimulus spending spree,” Souder said. “During this time of economic recession, Hoosier taxpayers deserve to know where and how their dollars are being spent.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/gop-demands-accounting-obamas-stimulus-spending/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529&utm_content=My+Yahoo

  82. EXCUSE-MAKER -IN-CHIEF:

    Michael Goodwin of NY Post let “Bam” have it, for doing nothing as a Senator and blame-gaming it as POTUS.

    nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_whiny_blame_game_PURJ6DX8UebOzv0o1t0yQI

    Bam’s whiny blame game
    ======================

    The other day, I wrote that President Obama has “run out of both charm and ideas.” I was too kind.

    To judge from the string of whoppers in his dreary jobs speech yesterday, he’s also run out of facts. And he’s still whining about the problems he inherited and blaming Republicans.

    He might as well be barking at the moon. That’s sort of what he is doing, because the American people are tuning him out at a stunning pace.

    The latest Gallup Poll gives him a record low 47 percent approval. Only 26 percent in another poll say he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Naturally, his press secretary attacks the pollsters, likening them to children with crayons.

    And Obama plunges on with his blame-game act. It’s tired, unpresidential and ineffective, all the more so because he’s banking on a bill of goods to prop himself up.

    The most egregious example came when Obama said yesterday the $700 billion bank-bailout fund, or TARP, was “launched hastily under the last administration” and was “flawed.”

    Here are the facts. George Bush was in the White House, but Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Obama himself, as a senator, voted for the bailout in October 2008.

    No one claims the bill was perfect, but there is no record –zero — of Obama trying to fix it. Remember, it was John McCain who rushed back to Washington after the first version failed and tried to get involved to reshape it.

    McCain flubbed the effort, but Obama made none. He only reluctantly joined a White House conference with McCain and Bush on the bailout after urging Congress “to step up to the plate and get this done.”

    He went on the Senate floor and said there wasn’t time to fiddle with the bill before leaving the details to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said at the time, “No one knows what to do.”

    Fortunately, there were people who knew what to do. Timothy Geithner, then chairman of the New York Federal Reserve and now Obama’s treasury secretary, was deeply involved with Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, in shaping the legislation that helped to avert a financial crash.

    That 2008 vote released half the TARP money, with a second vote coming in January 2009, a week before Obama was inaugurated. He wanted the second installment of $350 billion, and most Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, voted to give it to him.

    The record is clear: The $700 billion bailout was crafted on a bipartisan basis, with Obama’s support and encouragement, and he has controlled most of the money. For him to now claim otherwise is disgraceful.

  83. Obama and Tiger.

    Both to appear together on the cover of a golf mag, coming soon. what a difference a year makes.

    Obama tanking…

    Tiger losing endorsements…

    waaaaah!!!

    Gatorade dumps Tiger drink
    =========================

    nypost.com/p/news/national/gatorade_dumps_tiger_drink_DufuJhzVABLO0bHNqVD2CL

  84. Puma-SF
    December 9th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
    Mark Penn’s two firms got $6 million from stimulus for PR campaign
    By Alexander Bolton – 12/09/09 12:00 AM ET
    Nearly $6 million in stimulus money was paid to two firms run by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster in 2008.

    Federal records show that $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn.
    &&&&&&&&&

    a. Imagine how many real jobs could have been created with $5.97 million…Penn hired 3 people at $2,000,000/yr each??? Or were these “jobs saved”?

    b. Notice how they try to implicate Hillary in this…

  85. New York Magazine article cover story, “Whatever Happened to Barack Obama”, is quite a long piece. To get a taste, here’s the first page of six listed after the link:

    And a money quote:

    “After 300-plus days in office, the president remains, for many of his supporters, a worryingly indistinct figure. One whose pragmatic sensibility is crystal clear but bedrock convictions are still blurry. And whose White House has proved less than fully adept at the marriage of politics and policy, preferring all too often to fall back on their boss’s charm and dazzle to advance the ball upfield.”

    nymag.com/news/politics/62377/

    Obama Lost, Obama Found
    How the president finds his way out of the woods.

    By John Heilemann Published Nov 29, 2009

    The Thursday before last, President Barack Obama came home from his eight-day trip to Asia and received a welcome even frostier than the subfreezing temperatures that had greeted him in Beijing. In the House of Representatives, the populist Democrat Peter DeFazio of Oregon was calling for the heads of Tim Geithner and Larry Summers on a pair of pikes. The Congressional Black Caucus was thwarting the progress of Obama’s financial-reform agenda, on the grounds that the economic policies of the first African-American president were callous toward African-Americans. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, furious about provisions regarding illegal immigrants in the Senate health-care bill, was casting blame on the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. The next morning, the front page of the Washington Post featured a story with the blaring headline “Angry Congress Lashes Out at Obama,” but which might as well have been titled “What a Difference a Year Makes.”

    It hasn’t actually been quite that long, of course, but the memory of Obama’s joyous inauguration seems distant indeed—as the lofty image of a candidate with such potential that he seemed to walk on air has given way to the reality of a president neck-deep in a pile of epochal problems. “Think about what we were handed,” says White House senior adviser and First Friend Valerie Jarrett. “Two wars. A global economic meltdown. The largest deficit in the nation’s history. A health-care crisis. A public-education crisis. An energy crisis. And a crisis in how we’ve been perceived around the world.” Jarrett sighs. “It is what it is.”

    In coping with this grim inheritance, Obama has brought to bear great aplomb and fortitude, and his achievements have been considerable. Together with his team and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, he has helped prevent the economy from tumbling into the abyss. He has changed the tone of America’s relationships abroad and begun the restoration of the country’s global standing. At considerable political cost, he has undertaken the reformation of a health-care system desperately and urgently in need of it. Compared with his predecessor, he is a model of rationality and rigor. Compared with the extant Republican alternatives—the appalling burlesque sideshows that are Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney—he occupies an entirely different rung on the political and moral evolutionary ladder. And yet, for all of that, there’s no denying this fact: You’d have to be stone deaf not to hear the air hissing out of the Obama balloon.

    For the first time in his presidency, Obama’s job-approval ratings have slipped below 50 percent. The American public, with its chronic impatience and a collective attention span measured in angstroms, demands quick fixes—but Obama has none to offer. The Republican right has been feral and effective in painting its foe as an unholy amalgam of Hitler, Stalin, and Cornel West. And the Democratic left, always delusional about the degree to which Obama was a fellow traveler, has been sorely disappointed to discover that he’s not a combination of Ted Kennedy, Norman Thomas, and Chuck D.

    Yet the emerging doubts about Obama among even his most ardent and sensible fans are deeper and more nuanced than that. After 300-plus days in office, the president remains, for many of his supporters, a worryingly indistinct figure. One whose pragmatic sensibility is crystal clear but bedrock convictions are still blurry. And whose White House has proved less than fully adept at the marriage of politics and policy, preferring all too often to fall back on their boss’s charm and dazzle to advance the ball upfield.

    “I have no idea what they believe,” a leading House Democrat and Obama ally told me recently when I asked if he could define the administration’s governing philosophy. “I know that their governing strategy seems to be, ‘Don’t worry, the big guy will make it all right in the end.’ They have the sublime sense that they don’t have to do all that much to plan events, or to come up with the message for what they’re doing, or to line up support, because whenever they need to, they can just put Mike Tyson in the ring. And I think (a) it’s wrong, and (b) it’s a bad way to run a White House.”

    The limits of that approach will be sorely tested in the period now about to unfold before us. Starting this week, Obama will unveil or have forced upon him a series of pivotal decisions—on Afghanistan (with his big speech set for Tuesday night), health care, the economy, and the deficit. The choices entailed will be hard and clarifying, doing more to define his tenure than any he has confronted so far. And he will make them while skating on thinner ice with both his party and the electorate at large than hardly anyone imagined possible on that frigid and fantabulous January day when he was sworn in. The political perils of this period will be immense, but so will the opportunity: for the president finally to erect on the foundation of the Obama brand something more vital—a working vision of Obamaism; for him to right the ship, recapture the magic, reinflate the balloon; and in the process, to reaffirm the reasons why so many of us invested such hope and faith in him in the first place.
    [snip]

  86. Hi, I’m popping in again just to correct admin a little.
    Admin wrote “The boobs is Copenhagen are awarding the head boob a prize applauded by only the 26% of America’s population of current boobs. ”

    Copenhagen is in Denmark, the climate summit will be there, but the Nobel peace prize will be in Norway.(not the same country).

    Not that I am happy to point that out, as find this all to be incredibly embarrassing!
    A poll today said only 36% of Norwegians things the boob deserves it, although that’s 35% too many. Well I am trying to find time to be more active at this great site as I was a year ago, but I just got a new job which requires me to work more than I first thought. Butt I am still an active reader, keep up the good work!

  87. Gorto, many thanks, again. And we still love Norway enough to shift the blame to Denmark (which we also like).

  88. Obama now has 36,000 more troops deployed (counting both Iraq and Afghanistan) than Bush ever did.

    Please spread this around, watch Obot heads explode over their “peace president”. Fairytale war opposition, anyone? Looks like Big Dawg was correct.

  89. It hasn’t actually been quite that long, of course, but the memory of Obama’s joyous inauguration seems distant indeed—as the lofty image of a candidate with such potential that he seemed to walk on air has given way to the reality of a president neck-deep in a pile of epochal problems. “Think about what we were handed,” says White House senior adviser and First Friend Valerie Jarrett. “Two wars. A global economic meltdown. The largest deficit in the nation’s history. A health-care crisis. A public-education crisis. An energy crisis. And a crisis in how we’ve been perceived around the world.” Jarrett sighs. “It is what it is.”
    ——————————————–
    This is a red herring. We know the nature and extent of the problems which existed at the time he took over. So did he, and he made all these vague promises on what he would do to solve them consistent with his mantra of hope and change. He is bound by what he promised.

    The pertinent question is not whether he inherited problems but whether he has made those problems worse or better. We do not expect instant solutions. What we do expect, however, is progress. What we do not expect or excuse is the effort to use those problems as an excuse to implement a radical agenda which is inimical to the interests of the American People and hostile to the Constitution.

    Thus, the plea that he inherited problems is not an affirmative defense. It is an evasion of responsibility–and a pretext for something far worse.

Comments are closed.