Mirabile dictu, the Yahoo main page displays a headline of "What If Bush Had Done That?" with a link to the story on Politico.
The story's lead:
"A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.
Snubbing the Dalai Lama.
Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.
Freezing out a TV network.
Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.
President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.
What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda."
Yahoo has been an ardent anti-Bush, anti-Republican, pro-Obama website for a long time. The MSM may finally be coming to grips with the idea that they bought a pig in a poke when they backed (and covered for) Obama for president. We can only hope.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Bought and Paid For
From the Associated Press: GOP's Snowe Will Vote for Democratic Health Bill "WASHINGTON – Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe broke with her party Tuesday and said she will vote for a Democratic health care bill, handing President Barack Obama a much-sought boost in his quest to expand access to medical coverage to all Americans...."
Note: The Democrat legislation will still leave 20+ million Americans without insurance coverage. Sounds like Snowe held out for a better price.
Note: The Democrat legislation will still leave 20+ million Americans without insurance coverage. Sounds like Snowe held out for a better price.
Mr. Gore Doesn't Like Questions...
...at least questions that challenge him. Note his deft use of the political two-step to avoid answering the question.
Gore and others like him (i.e., Democrats and other Liberals) who make claims such as he makes should have to answer for their methods before any debate over the details of their argument. Why is Gore unwilling to engage in a real debate on the subject? (The answer, of course, is that his argument is weak, and demagoguing the issue is the only way he can influence legislation and continue to profit from his fear-mongering.) As I've written before, Al Gore and others intend to profit from global warning alarmism. It always helps to track the money trail.
By the way, Gore's claim that the court ruled in his favor is pretty exaggerated. The British court ruled that the film "violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom" and could only be "shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's 'one-sided' views."
Gore and others like him (i.e., Democrats and other Liberals) who make claims such as he makes should have to answer for their methods before any debate over the details of their argument. Why is Gore unwilling to engage in a real debate on the subject? (The answer, of course, is that his argument is weak, and demagoguing the issue is the only way he can influence legislation and continue to profit from his fear-mongering.) As I've written before, Al Gore and others intend to profit from global warning alarmism. It always helps to track the money trail.
By the way, Gore's claim that the court ruled in his favor is pretty exaggerated. The British court ruled that the film "violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom" and could only be "shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's 'one-sided' views."
Monday, October 12, 2009
Disgust Set In
Yeah, I know it's been three weeks since my last post. I've tried to find a place to stop and comment about all of the political shenanigans Obama, Reid, Pelosi et al have been up to, but it didn't stop long enough for me to take inventory. Due to popular demand, I figured I'd better put something in.
This morning I inflicted a rant on the missiz, and realized halfway through that the reason I started this blog was to keep from doing that. This morning's rant was about the completely deceitful tactics the Democrats have been using, and my complete mystification that they have any credibility left.
Consider: All of the to-do about the urgency for "healthcare reform" would lead you to believe that, if passed, it will immediately go into effect. Not so. The current legislation being bandied about won't go into effect until 2013 -- after the next presidential election. Clearly they don't want the conditions that most experts predict -- long lines, rationing, increaed government debt, etc. -- to affect Obama's chances at reelection. (Nor that of Democrat congressmen also up for reelection that year.)
Consider: Republicans have proposed amendments to the Democrat plan. One would insert language that expressly prhibits using government funds for abortions. The Democrats refused. Nonetheless they loudly proclaim that abortions are not covered by their plan. Yet abortions are not prohibited in the proposed legislation. They will be covered by default. Similarly, Democrats swear that illegal aliens will not be able to receive the proposed benefits, and show language saying so. Yet when Republicans proposed language requiring proof of citizenship for coverage, Democrats rejected it. There is no mechanism to identify the citizenship status of applicants for the proposed benefits.
Consider: The White House has begun attacking Fox News in the official White House blog. The taxpayer-funded White House blog. In case you don't remember civics from high school, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits governmental infringements of the freedom of the press. Singling out a particular news organization seems to come pretty close. And we're paying for it.
Consider: The so-called "savings" that Democrats claim will happen under their proposed healthcare legislation depends in large part on dumping more responsibility on individual state Medicaid plans. The states will simply have to pay more in coverage. (And each state's citizens, of course.) All of the states except Nevada, that is -- Senate Majority Leader and Democrat Senator from Nevada Harry Reid inserted an exemption for his home state. So the Democrats' definition of savings means that they dump their liabilities on someone else and taxpayers still pick up the tab.
When the politicians are this blatantly deceitful, yet still hold power -- well, the disgust just overpowers me sometimes. Too disgusted to blog about it, but I'll try to do better.
This morning I inflicted a rant on the missiz, and realized halfway through that the reason I started this blog was to keep from doing that. This morning's rant was about the completely deceitful tactics the Democrats have been using, and my complete mystification that they have any credibility left.
Consider: All of the to-do about the urgency for "healthcare reform" would lead you to believe that, if passed, it will immediately go into effect. Not so. The current legislation being bandied about won't go into effect until 2013 -- after the next presidential election. Clearly they don't want the conditions that most experts predict -- long lines, rationing, increaed government debt, etc. -- to affect Obama's chances at reelection. (Nor that of Democrat congressmen also up for reelection that year.)
Consider: Republicans have proposed amendments to the Democrat plan. One would insert language that expressly prhibits using government funds for abortions. The Democrats refused. Nonetheless they loudly proclaim that abortions are not covered by their plan. Yet abortions are not prohibited in the proposed legislation. They will be covered by default. Similarly, Democrats swear that illegal aliens will not be able to receive the proposed benefits, and show language saying so. Yet when Republicans proposed language requiring proof of citizenship for coverage, Democrats rejected it. There is no mechanism to identify the citizenship status of applicants for the proposed benefits.
Consider: The White House has begun attacking Fox News in the official White House blog. The taxpayer-funded White House blog. In case you don't remember civics from high school, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits governmental infringements of the freedom of the press. Singling out a particular news organization seems to come pretty close. And we're paying for it.
Consider: The so-called "savings" that Democrats claim will happen under their proposed healthcare legislation depends in large part on dumping more responsibility on individual state Medicaid plans. The states will simply have to pay more in coverage. (And each state's citizens, of course.) All of the states except Nevada, that is -- Senate Majority Leader and Democrat Senator from Nevada Harry Reid inserted an exemption for his home state. So the Democrats' definition of savings means that they dump their liabilities on someone else and taxpayers still pick up the tab.
When the politicians are this blatantly deceitful, yet still hold power -- well, the disgust just overpowers me sometimes. Too disgusted to blog about it, but I'll try to do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)