If President Obama loses his bid for reelection next year it will be because of the poor economy. If the election was this November he would be toast, but there’s still a year to go. I don’t expect much to change in the next year, but some positive movement would help Obama’s chances. To get an idea of how bad Obama’s prospects for reelection are just check out this Washington Post poll.
New Post-ABC numbers show Obama leading five of six potential Republican presidential rivals tested in the poll. But he is in a dead heat with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week, making jobs and the economy the central issues in his campaign.
Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.
Romney is up 3 points in survey of registered voters? Ouch! That means a poll of likely voters would be even worse for Obama. Imagine of Obama was up against a candidate that people actually liked? I know, I know, that may never happen, but one can dream.
It’s still a long way out, but Obama needs a lot to go right between now and November 2012. People said the same thing in June, 2007 and he became president. Last year the economy was showing signs of recovery and it really hasn’t happened yet. The President really can’t do much to jump start things at this point. Plus, all the pointless “stimulus” spending has only masked the problems. There’s an even a chance things could be worse next year. If that happens, Obama could face electoral disaster. Time will tell.
The United States Constitution is a wonderful document. Part of the reason it’s been so successful over the past two centuries is because it’s easy to understand. Well, it’s easy for some people. On the left it’s a little more difficult to understand because they want the Constitution to mean different things. The right to privacy is a great example. Another good example is the Establishment Clause, which the left still doesn’t understand and continues to refer to as the “separation of church and state,” though it clearly does not say that.
Ezra Klein took to the Washington Post today to do what every good liberal does… call Republicans stupid.
In reality, the tea party — like most everyone else — is less interested in living by the Constitution than in deciding what it means to live by the Constitution. When the constitutional disclaimers at the bottom of bills suit them, they’ll respect them. When they don’t — as we’ve seen in the case of the individual mandate — they won’t.
This is part of Klein’s reaction to the future of ObamaCare. Wouldn’t his time be better spent discussing how the President of the United States sold his bill. While Obama was trying to pass his colossal Heath Care overhaul he took to the airwaves and said that the mandate wasn’t a tax. Now that the mandate is tied up in courts for Constitutional reasons, the Obama administration is arguing that the mandate is a tax. The President and his cronies are hypocrites of the highest order, but all Klein can whine about is the confusing Constitution. He also took his cringe-inducing argument to the echo chamber over at MSNBC. The Right Scoop has all the details, but here’s an excerpt of what Klein had to say on MSNBC:
The issue with the Constitution is not that people don’t read the text and think they’re following it. The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago.
This issue here isn’t that the right is stupid; it’s that the left doesn’t get it. The Constitution is a protection from the government. The Constitution wasn’t created to be a Toys R’ Us of guaranteed benefits (I don’t want to grow up, etc., etc.). Free speech is a right that was given to us by our Creator, not by some bureaucrat. Having a place to eat and sleep is important as well, but those are the responsibilities of the people, not the state. What we have now is a government that increasingly takes care of everything. That’s not in the Constitution, and the left wants to blame stupid Republicans and the Constitution for being too old.
There was a darn good reason the Founders didn’t want the state to take care of every one of life’s inconveniences. Their wisdom about the dangers of an ever-growing and intrusive centralized federal government, clearly communicated in the Constitution, are being borne out in places like Greece and California.
One of the fascinating aspects about the whole Global Warming debate is the fact that no one talks about adapting to change. The alarmists never tell anyone that, according to their models, the entire world would have to return to a pre-industrial stone age to un-change the climate.
How come progressives who believe wholeheartedly in evolution and adaptation don’t believe mankind can adapt to climate change? Have the earth’s species adapted to a constantly changing climate in past eras? Or, was that whole adaptation thing an illusion? Bjorn Lomborg has an op-ed in the Washington Post that discusses some common sense ideas to reduce the urban heat effect and how mankind has adapted to change in the past.
Since 1930, excessive groundwater withdrawal has caused Tokyo to subside by as much as 15 feet. Similar subsidence has occurred over the past century in numerous cities, including Tianjin, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok and Jakarta. And in each case, the city has managed to protect itself from such large relative sea-level rises without much difficulty.
The process is called adaptation, and it’s something we humans are very good at. That isn’t surprising, since we’ve been doing it for millennia.
Lomborg’s argument is reasonable, but no one in the Global Warmongering industry is interested in common sense reforms. The billion-dollar industry is all about taxing and controlling the public. That’s what the state wants and that’s the inevitable conclusion of every leftist organization. It’s also the goal of fascism, socialism, Islamic fundamentalism and any other ism that has produced great human suffering.
I predicted yesterday that progressives would blame the evil insurance companies for the end of child-only health insurance. Thanks to the Washington Post, blaming insurance companies just got easier. The article entitled, “Major health insurers to stop offering new child-only policies” spends eight paragraphs piling on the outrage.
“We’re just days away from a new era when insurance companies must stop denying coverage to kids just because they are sick, and now some of the biggest changed their minds,” Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, an advocacy group, said in a statement. “[It] is immoral, and to blame their appalling behavior on the new law is patently dishonest.”
This is how progressives roll. It’s patently dishonest to force companies to lose money. The rank stupidity of Ethan Rome is infuriating. The Washington Post spends most of the article reinforcing the liberal line on ObamaCare before throwing this bone:
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for AHIP, noted that insurers will be accepting children with preexisting conditions in other types of plans.
But, he said, extending such coverage in child-only policies “provides a very powerful incentive for a parent to wait until their child becomes very sick before purchasing coverage.”
It appears that basic economics and phrases like “powerful incentive” are way over the head of progressives. It’s appalling that the press just can’t report this issue in an informed manner. Insurance companies are in business to make money. They’re not providing charity. If liberals are so concerned about this problem they should contribute to their own fund to pay for it themselves.
Robinson is physical proof that winning a Pulitzer Prize doesn't require intelligence.
A couple of weeks ago Eugene Robinson was dreaming of the good old days of President Bush. Now he’s hard at work pushing a liberal meme as old as time itself. I’ve mentioned this before but anytime the GOP wins an election the press have to explain it as an angry emotional outburst by voters. Or in this case Robinson’s article is aptly titled “The spoiled-brat American electorate.”
This is not, I repeat not, a partisan argument. My own political leanings are well-known, but the refusal of Americans to look seriously at the nation’s situation — and its prospects — is an equal-opportunity scourge. Republicans got the back of the electorate’s hand in 2006 and 2008; Democrats will feel the sting this November. By 2012, it will probably be the GOP’s turn to get slapped around again.
The nation demands the impossible: quick, painless solutions to long-term, structural problems. While they’re running for office, politicians of both parties encourage this kind of magical thinking.
Where was Robinson when President Bush called for a long-term solution to the structural problems of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Social Security? Where was Robinson’s outrage about the quick and painless solutions in Iraq? Jackasses like Robinson can’t see their own hypocrisy. Have no fear, Robinson isn’t just going to call Americans spoiled brats, he’s going to offer policy advice.
The richest Americans need to pay higher taxes — not because they’re bad people who deserve to be punished but because they earn a much bigger share of the nation’s income and hold a bigger share of its overall wealth. If they don’t pay more, there won’t be enough revenue to maintain, much less improve, the kind of infrastructure that fosters economic growth. Think of what the interstate highway system has meant to this country. Now imagine trying to build it today.
Personally I hope the owners of the Washington Post are taxed first and they’re forced to layoff Eugene Robinson. Why are liberals incapable of reducing the size of the federal government? When has raising taxes during economic hardship ever helped the economy?
Liberal members of the press spent eight years during the Bush administration complaining about every problem with the federal government. Now we’re supposed to believe the federal government is the solution to every problem. Their hypocrisy has no bounds.
President Lincoln was often described as an "extremist" while he was alive.
I’ve never been quiet about my feelings for Glenn Beck. He just annoys me for a variety of different reasons. Evidently, Beck and others are doing a rally at Lincoln Memorial this weekend. Instead of covering the event the Washington Post wants to spin the rally as a plus for Democrats.
But with just a few days before the Beck rally, basic questions linger, including how big it will be and whether the event, which Beck says is nonpolitical, will help or hurt Republicans in November. Also unanswered is whether Beck can pull off the connection to King without creating offense – or confrontation with another event the same day led by the Rev. Al Sharpton.
I have other questions. Will the media manufacture another racism claim? Will the nonpolitical event help or hurt Democrats in November? Also unanswered is whether Sharpton can pull off the connection to Beck without creating offense – or confrontation with another event the same day led by Glenn Beck. One thing is for certain: the Post is hoping for some kind of game-changing headline to cripple the GOP.
The Washington Post article loves to talk about how extreme Glenn Beck is, but what about Al Sharpton? The man is a complete reprobate. The fact the media presents Sharpton as some kind of leader for African Americans is insulting to every flavor, stripe and color of mankind, especially blacks.
Of course the main rhetorical point from an event like this is, “How big is the crowd?” It doesn’t matter how large the crowd is because it doesn’t mean anything. It’s been two years since the ObamaMania tour and what has changed? Almost twice as many Republicans voted in the Florida primary than Democrats. Those large crying crowds are just a memory now. They symbolize the nature of crowds. They are like a vapor, much like mainstream press coverage.
David Weigel is all out of apologies. Wow, he must have crossed the wrong liberal because more damaging personal information leaked out today and he’s resigning his post with the Washington Post. Today’s damning leaks came from The Daily Caller. It’s fairly obvious the Weigel is a rather disgusting journalist. I don’t really care that’s he’s liberal. That’s nothing new. I don’t care that he calls Republicans names like ratf**ker. That’s not new either. The issue I have is this:
After Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, threatening to kill the health care legislation by his presence, Weigel stressed how important it was for reporters to highlight what a terrible candidate his opponent Martha Coakley had been.
“I think pointing out Coakley’s awfulness is vital, because it’s 1) true and 2) unreasonable panic about it is doing more damage to the Democrats,” Weigel wrote.
Weigel isn’t covering the news, he’s trying to shape it in the least damaging way imaginable to advance his agenda. This is “hiding the decline.” This is “fake but accurate.” Liberals like to mock conservatives for our mainstream press paranoia but there are countless examples of this type of sinister behavior.
Let the progressive martyrdom commence for Weigel. Alex Pareene at Salon is already trying to spin this story.
Weigel isn’t a “conservative blogger” — he’s a journalist covering the conservative movement. Weigel is a libertarian. He voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. Many conservatives, for some reason, took umbrage at mere existence of a reporter dedicated to explaining their movement to outsiders, as if it either wasn’t fair or legitimate to have a reporter who wasn’t part of the movement cover it.
What can I say about Alex Pareene? He’s so blinded by political bias he’s unable to be honest. Weigel isn’t a libertarian. It doesn’t matter if he voted for Ron Paul. A libertarian wouldn’t be shaping news to pass ObamaCare. Why can’t people just be honest? Weigel is a liberal, plain and simple. The only thing Pareene is upset about is the fact that another liberal journalist has been outed while masquerading as an objective reporter.
June hasn’t been kind to the Washington Post’s David Weigel. Last week Weigel described the Rep Etheridge fiasco as a “hug.” At the time I wondered why the Washington Post has a liberal covering conservatives. Just in case anyone is concerned about Weigel’s “liberal credentials” he’s a member of JournoList, a controversial members-only forum devoted to liberal bloggers and journalists.
It’s only there that these progressives feel comfortable enough to be honest. They can discuss “hiding the decline” and “fake but accurate” news stories secure in the belief they’re intellectually and morally superior to those right wing neanderthals. The secret handshakes all went wrong this week as someone has leaked some of his comments from JournoList:
Weigel’s Words:
•”This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire.”
•”Follow-up to one hell of a day: Apparently, the Washington Examiner thought it would be fun to write up an item about my dancing at the wedding of Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman. Said item included the name and job of my girlfriend, who was not even there — nor in DC at all.”
•”I’d politely encourage everyone to think twice about rewarding the Examiner with any traffic or links for a while. I know the temptation is high to follow up hot hot Byron York scoops, but please resist it.”
•”It’s all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn’t get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV.”
The only thing more predictable than finding out a journalist is liberal is discovering a journalist who has to apologize. When I say apologize what I really mean is justify. That’s all an apology is these days. “I’m sorry you find my behavior offensive, but I’m you’ll understand after I justify it.” Instead of wishing Matt Drudge would set himself on fire perhaps he should just hug out his differences. Why is this guy covering Republicans?
Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina brought new meaning to the idea of hands-on governance last week. The video below has been making the rounds today and the excuses have begun. Democrat Rep Etheridge offered an apology… sort of. Etherige blamed “intrusive and partisan” politics for his “intrusive and partisan” behavior.
I love the Democrats. They complain a lot about not being “tough enough,” but they always rally around their politicians. David Weigel, who writes about conservatives for the Washington Post, is already leading the defense. How this falls under the umbrella of “conservative coverage” is beside the point. What Weigel really wants everyone to know is that Etheridge hugged the young man. This wasn’t an aggressive overreaction, it was a loving embrace.
There’s a great deal of dissatisfied voters in American, but dissatisfaction isn’t anger. There’s nothing I can do to stop this political myth. It’s like the youth vote of 2008. Who’s really dissatisfied? It looks to me it’s politicians in swing districts. Below is the unedited version of the Etheridge encounter.
I don’t like Governor Charlie Crist. He represents the worst thing about Republicans. Crist is not interested in taking a principled stand on any issue. He would rather do whatever it takes to remain popular to advance his political career. Unless there’s some kind of political upheaval in the next few weeks Crist’s political career is over.
It should also be noted that Crist helped McCain get the GOP nomination. In the 2008 Florida Primary, Crist’s endorsement helped push McCain past Romney. At the time that was Crist’s high water mark for political relevence. Now he’s being bashed by everyone, even George Will. Will has an op-ed in The Washington Post discussing how rare it is to find a politician who is honest about our entitlement crisis. Governor Crist is cited as an example.
A recent debate on “Fox News Sunday” illustrated the differences between the few politicians who are, and the many who are not, willing to face facts. Marco Rubio, the former speaker of Florida’s House of Representatives who is challenging Gov. Charles Crist for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination, made news by stating the obvious.
Asked how the nation might address the projected $17.5 trillion in unfunded Social Security liabilities, Rubio said that we should consider two changes for people 10 or more years from retirement. One would raise the retirement age. The other would alter the calculation of benefits: Indexing them to inflation rather than wage increases would substantially reduce the system’s unfunded liabilities.
Neither idea startles any serious person. But Crist, with the reflex of the unreflective, rejected both and said that he would fix Social Security by eliminating “waste” and “fraud,” of which there is little. The system’s problems are the result not of incompetent administration but of improvident promises made by Congress.
Synthetic indignation being the first refuge of political featherweights, Crist’s campaign announced that he believes Rubio’s suggestions are “cruel, unusual and unfair to seniors living on a fixed income.” They are indeed unusual, because flinching from the facts of the coming entitlements crisis is the default position of all but a responsible few, such as Wisconsin’s Rep. Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Rubio. What is ultimately cruel is Crist’s unserious pretense that America faces only palatable choices and that improvident promises can be fully funded with money currently lost to waste and fraud.
There’s not much to add to Will’s point. Crist’s rhetoric and other politicians who mimic it are a disgrace. The nation has no hope of tackling difficult issues as long as there are politicians like Crist around. I’m not sure Rubio will be any better, but it’s difficult to believe he’s worse than Crist. I expect this stuff from all politicians (especially Democrats), but if the Republicans ever want to be considered a serious alternative this stuff has to end.
Recent Comments