Thursday, July 14, 2011

Obama's No Reagan

"I have reached the point where I say enough," Obama said, according to the aide. "Would Ronald Reagan be sitting here? I've reached my limit. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this."

This is funny, because in the past week, House Majority Leader Boehner was compared to "Reagan at
Reykjavik" in a Reuters blog, when he wouldn't yield on higher taxes. Obama's statement is asinine: Reagan would agree with the GOP position, but Obama seeks to just "transpose" liberal vs. conservative positions as equally valid. He seeks to claim Reagan's "optimism" about the economy, but his policies are the opposite of Reagan's. This quote shows how shameless a political poseur he is, though I suppose every president has to "play the game."

Good luck with that strategy, when they'll be saying "Mourning in America," instead of "Morning in America." Oh, wait, they're already saying that!

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Vile Rhetoric: What Would Rep. Giffords Think of Obama's "Gun to the Head" Comment?

Not to belabor the point, but does President Obama remember his own sentiments after the tragic shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords? Or was it just rhetoric, no different from his accusation that the GOP is "holding a gun to the head" of the nation? No excuses, that's vile hypocrisy, and an insight into our president's POV. It's twisted, yet understood by most Americans. When you don't have a better argument to make, call your opponent "the devil." Once again, the President of the USA has done the opposite of his promise to "elevate the political debate." I am more ashamed of President Obama than any liberal could have been ashamed of Pres. Bush...

Did Weiner's Scandal Hasten Spitzer's Ouster?

CNN canned Eliot Spitzer's "In The Arena" show because of low ratings. That is the bottom line, and I don't intend to say otherwise, here. I want to look at the impact that the Anthony Weiner scandal had on an already failing program. This show was seen as the "rehabilitation" of Eliot Spitzer, and it wasn't going well. I think Spitzer would have been given more time to build an audience, had another prominent NY politician (Weiner) not been caught with his pants down.

Giving Spitzer a show was a gamble, and CNN paired him up with the conservative Kathleen Parker, trying to do the basic "left/right" format. Unfortunately, "Parker-Spizer" had low ratings, and there was some animosity between the two. Parker left the show, and the show was renamed "In the Arena, with Eliot Spitzer." It received even lower ratings.

Along comes the Anthony Weiner scandal, and the inevitable jokes about him joining Spitzer on CNN. I never watched the show, but I'll guess that Spitzer had to discuss the Weiner scandal. This is where the gamble backfired, for CNN. Pols like Spitzer and Weiner are electable because they appeal to liberal voters, but their trademark is slandering conservatives as "rich white men" who hate children, the elderly, all other races, the environment, women, the disabled, the poor, and the "middle class," among others. This plays in places like NYC, where liberal interests are entrenched.

On a national stage, though, pols like these don't fare as well, whether in politics, or media. There's a reason I never watched Spitzer on CNN: I watched all of his press conferences as AG and Governor, and I already knew he was a "blow-hard," who overstated every action he took. (The Sheriff of Wall St? - NOT!) Weiner was following "the pattern" for ambitious NY Dems like Spitzer, and his own mentor, Sen, Charles Schumer. In fact, the Weiner scandal took Schumer down a bit, keeping him from any public microphone for several weeks (That's like not having Twitter or FB, for my tech-addict hurts your "standing" in the community).

Though Spitzer didn't warrant a show on CNN so soon after his disgrace in the first place, Weiner's scandal definitely factored into Spitzer's booting. Weiner has even less chance of re-emerging in the public eye, though I'm sure he'll try, just as Spitzer will. These kind of liberal hacks can't help themselves. Maybe Al Gore and Keith Olbermann will offer them a "Weiner-Spitzer" show on the web? Stranger things have happened, and they'd probably get real media coverage, for a day...

Previous related post: Why Weiner Must Go, But Not Silently!

Saturday, July 02, 2011

Latest Obamacare "Glitch" Is Another Example of Liberal Audacity

Nancy Pelosi famously said that we have to pass Obamacare, to find out what's in it. Well, they did pass it, and we're still not done finding out what's in this law. The latest "glitch" is a provision that expands Medicaid coverage to retired people who are considered "middle class." From AP:

"Up to 3 million more people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility. It might be compared to allowing middle-class people to qualify for food stamps."

I found the food stamp comparison interesting, because many middle class people already qualify for food stamps, in this economy. They used to have ads touting "you may not know you qualify for food stamps." I can imagine an ad, after Obama's re-election, saying the same thing to people who didn't know they qualified for Medicaid under Obamacare. By then, it would be too late to oppose, because they kept it "under the radar" long enough...

AP's story explains that this was a "anomaly" that really bothered the administration, but it seems more like a "hand in the cookie jar" moment. Someone wrote this legislation, and that person(s?) is acting out the liberal agenda of expanding dependency on government assistance. Since it became public knowledge, this "glitch" in Obamacare's effect on Medicaid will get "fixed." Color me skeptical: I think the Obamacare will be overturned entirely before this "glitch" is acted on.

Obama had 2 years of complete Dem control of all three branches of government. He came into office after a financial crisis that rivaled the crash that preceded the Great Depression. He spent a few months dealing with it, pasing two liberal "stimulus" laws that helped few that weren't employed by, or dependent on the government. He abruptly moved on to expanding government dependence by "mandating" individuals to buy health insurance.

Obamacare was a costly political move, that only a progressive liberal would make. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, in the independent voter's mind. If the economy was in a crisis when Obama took office, why did he spend all that political capital passing Obamacare, but settle for less than liberal economists wanted from his economic "stimulus" packages?

American liberals are trying to expand what the government "gives out," but they are hitting the wall of what taxpayers can provide. It seems that at the same time several government entitlement programs are projected to bankrupt the economy, Obama has thrust a new bureaucratic monstrosity on us. I don't think Obamacare will stand, but as long as it does, it will be hanging around the Dems' necks, and twisting the liberal media into knots, as we keep finding out "what's in it."