Time for AP to clean house

The following story was published by AP at 3:22pm EST talking alternatively in the past, present and future tenses about a speech that did not occur until after 9:00pm EST.

At least the media is being honest that what Obama said was not important, they were going to report what they wanted to.

If AP doesn't feel the need to jettison their partisan hack shills for President Hopenchange I'll buy that, I don't believe anything with an AP byline anymore anyway. But my 8 year old niece can write better and doesn't change tenses in the same paragraph.

Note I left the AP disclaimer intact warning against distributing this story... can't blame them, I'd be pretty freaking embarrassed myself.
via Breitbart.

Obama aims for sober honesty, optimism in address

Feb 24 03:22 PM US/EasternBy JENNIFER LOVENAP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) - Standing before a nation on an economic precipice, President Barack Obama aimed to balance candor with can-do Tuesday night in his first address to a joint sessionof Congress. Millions more anxious Americans were tuning in on TV.

Obama was arguing that his still-unfolding economic revival plan has room for—even demands—a broader agenda including dramatic increases in health care coverage and wiser, "greener" fuel use. He was addressing an ebullient Democratic congressional majority and an embattled but reinvigorated GOP minority as well as worried viewers at home.

Just five weeks after his inauguration, Obama wasn't charged with producing a formal State of the Union status report. But for all intents and purposes, that's what it was: a night forthe president to sketch out his priorities in a setting unmatched the rest of the year.

He enters the chamber to lawmakers of both parties hanging into the aisle for a chance to shake his hand or exchange a word. The gallery is filled, including a special section hosted by first lady Michelle Obama in which guests are selected to serve as living symbols of the president's goals. Cramming the floor are the leaders of the federal government: Supreme Court justices, all but one Cabinet member—held away in case disaster strikes—and nearlyevery member of Congress.
Pre-speech, the White House blitzed the airwaves, talking up Obama's plans but tampingdown any expectations of high-flying rhetoric, splashy headlines or fancy new initiatives.
Wall Street was in a better mood than it had been in for days: Stocks were up after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the recession might end this year.

Comments on Obama's address came in early from Republicans, many hours before he had uttered a word.

"House Republicans stand united in willingness to work with this president to try and tackle the very tough economic situation that is facing our families, to try and make some of the tough decisions together," said House GOP Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. But Republicans would stickto their principles, he said: "One is that Washington shouldn't be spending money that we don't have. And two, we shouldn't be raising taxes on businesses and families that can't afford to pay them."

The young, charismatic governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, was chosen to deliver the televised GOP response to the Democratic president. Considered a likely presidentialcontender in 2012, Jindal has been an outspoken critic of what many Republicans call the wasteful spending in Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package, even raisingthe possibility of rejecting some of the money designated for his state. But he also has praised Obama for reaching out to his party.
In contrast to many State of the Union addresses by George W. Bush, Obama was not expected to emphasize foreign policy.

He planned to touch on his intention to chart new strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan and toforge a new image for the U.S. around the world even as he keeps up the fight againstterrorism.
But with the economy in a recession that already has lasted longer than any other in a quarter-century, that was the dominant topic.

The president aimed to drive home several points:
—He inherited the mess, and a quick turnaround is unlikely. Not only did the recession emerge on Bush's watch, the Bush approach wasn't the right one.
—He's tackling the situation on multiple fronts. Already done: the massive stimulus plan,an overhaul of the separate $700 billion bailout for the financial sector, and a $275 billionrescue for struggling homeowners. On the way: decisions about limping U.S. automakers,a move to broadly rewrite financial industry regulations and perhaps more money aimed at propping up banks.
—Thinking short-term won't do the trick. Focusing even amid the crisis on longer-term goalssuch as helping the millions without health insurance and switching the U.S. to greater dependence on alternative energy sources is crucial to the nation's economic well-being.

Also crucial is bringing down the estimated $1.3 trillion budget deficit that is ballooning as Washington pours money into the economic recovery. Obama was to declare that the budget request he sends to Congress on Thursday will slash the deficit by at least half by the end of his term in 2013, in large part by ending U.S. combat in Iraq and eliminating some of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

He was also expected to talk of a continuing need to reach across ideological boundaries,and for him to connect with the everyday Americans dealing with hard times. Obama hopedto hit just the right note with this address: grim enough to be honest but optimistic enough to be inspiring.
New polls showed how the political climate can be as precarious as the economic one.

While a new Washington Post-ABC News survey found 68 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance, a Gallup poll also out Tuesday showed his approval rating fallingto 59 percent.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A request for my friends

I am asking my friends to please say a prayer for brother Bill as he passed away quite unexpectedly.

Irony

Keith Olbermann is a one trick pony... unfortunately for him his current gig is not it.. After his sports casting career tanked he found a new career as a shill for liberals. The problem is that being a sports caster is what he was good at, he had a phenomenal ability to know (not simply read) stats and had a passion for it.

As a political analyst he sucks. And I don't mean solely because he has chosen to spin everything from his left of socialism viewpoints... he is just not good.

He has no grasp for politics, no idea what is happening, or has happened, in Washington, and is clueless on social and economic matters.

You see when it came to sports he learned the facts that were pertinent. He understood the history of the sports, he knew the players and the teams and when he spoke he did so from a position of authority. But more although all talking head news readers sound vacuous and a hit hollow Olbermann takes it to an art level.

If he merely spun reality through the narrow prism of his leftist beliefs he would be tolerable as people can unspin his take on things... but he is guilty of not just adding a spin to events, he allows his view to blind him to everything other than his belief of what is, or should be.
You see everything that he did to build his career as a sports caster is everything he is not an a news reader/political analyst.

Which brings me to the irony... you see Olbermann in his somewhat crazed BDS mode recently decided Cheney should just leave the country. And what did Cheney do to make Olbermann announce to his ever shrinking audience that the former vice-president should leave his country? It seems Cheney had a mild criticism of the Obama administration.

And Olbermann in full-blown MSNBC Obamalation declared Cheney persona non grata. Olbermann who spent the past half decade criticising the government unilaterally decided that anyone else who does the same should leave the country.

You see, in Olbermann's leftcentric world free speech is permissible only if it concurs with his narrow-minded, ignorant views. If you engage in independent, reasoned speech the left invites you to leave your country... or finds other ways to silence you.

Irony.

You cannot spend your way out of a recession

As the Senate reached a "compromise" and made "huge" cuts lowering the Porkulus plan to a "mere" $780 billion. While that seems significant when compared to Friday afternoon when the bill stood $938 billion, it is only 39 billion dollars less than when H.R. 1 passed the House.

Porkulus has been tried before. The New Deal took a deep recession and turned it into a depression after the sock market crashed. (The stock market dropped for a record high of about 2000 to zero, and rebounded within about 6 months... the subsequent 12 years of misery were designed by the government, not the free market system.) In the 1970's Carter teamed with congress to take a mild recession on the heels of run away inflation and mired in stagnation and watched as interest rates reached 22%, unemployment reached 12%, and protectionism drained our GDP (then referred to as the GNP).

Porkulus (which I am defining as unfettered government spending) has also been tried to fix the economies of Japan, USSR, western European countries and cold war eastern European countries. It failed every time.

Now I am a student of history. But I began getting into economic theory when it became evident the schism between the left and right on the economy had to be more than ideology.

It became rapidly apparent that it was. There is plenty of historical data proving that you cannot spend your way out of an economic downturn. A true stimulus package, the traditional tax breaks on small business and the investor and middle classes along with targeted spending on shovel ready jobs can work to jump start a hesitant economy and drop unemployment a bit. And when mixed with demand side stimulus programs can help by jump starting consumer confidence.

Consumer confidence is a key component of our economy, it is a primary driving factor. The key to the economic booms of Reagan and Bush 43 were consumer confidence. Congressional liberals understood this which is why they downplayed the effects of supply side economics as they prefer demand side economics because they can buy more votes by directly giving people handouts rather than indirectly giving people jobs.

In the 30s, like the 70s, people had little confidence based, in part, upon the government talking down the economy and positioning itself as the sole savior for the people. Since 2006 we heard how bad the economy was despite the overwhelming evidence that it was not at all, to the contrary 2006 was the fourth year of America's longest period of economic growth without a correction. And now after 2 years of trying to lower consumer confidence the Democrats, now in charge of the legislative and executive branches of government, are still dragging down the economy by keeping consumer confidence low.

Why do that? To better position themselves by claiming the only way to end this problem is through government spending and unbridled expansion of the federal government. And this despite the knowledge that government expansion and spending has NEVER made an economy better, but instead made it worse every time.

But demand side (Keynesian) policies are loved by the electorate because it puts money right into their pocket. So the big government statists support them even though demand side stimulus programs work only when the economy is on an upswing to jolt consumer confidence, or on the down swing, to keep consumer confidence from plummeting. They don't, and can't, have an effect on a stagnant economy, just as they have no effect on a good economy.

Demand side economics combined with government austerity programs can and do stimulate the economy. But because they don't directly buy votes (they provide the jobs people have and the tax revenues the government needs but don't pander to anyone) they are knocked by the political left who described them as "Voodoo Economics" when Reagan instituted his supply side economic theory that dominated US policy for 25 years.

Which brings me to the roughly $400B in waste left in the package. This is comprised of big government spending packages and earmarks. If the government were facing such dire economic times why would Obama not step up and demand that Pelosi and Reid bring him a bill that is free of earmarks and fat. For one it would support his claims of bringing change to Washington, and two, it would allow him to acknowledge that Washington is tightening their belts too, as they realize the money they spend is coming from the pockets of the people.

Instead at Thursday's Democrat retreat in Williamsburg Obama tried to ridicule Republicans by saying, "of course there are earmarks in this legislation". And then asked rhetorically, "When have you ever seen a spending bill this size with no earmarks?" Which meant that two weeks and two days into the job he was acknowledging that he was not a leader and that he is not able to effect change at a time when these qualities are most important.

At retreat, Obama goes on the offensive

At retreat, Obama goes on the offensive
WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — A fired-up Barack Obama ditched his TelePrompter to rally House Democrats and rip Republican opponents of his recovery package Thursday night – at one point openly mocking the GOP for failing to follow through on promises of bipartisanship.
In what was the most pointedly partisan speech of his young presidency, Obama rejected Republican arguments that massive spending in the $819 billion stimulus bill that passed the House should be replaced by a new round of massive tax cuts.

Pelosi introduced Porkulus with allowing no alternatives be consider with a child-like gloat of "We won."

Obama should have told Pelosi and Reid to allow GOP input to ensure Porkulus to go through. instead, with two years of the most politically polar congress since Tip O'Neill was speaker, he allowed Pelosi and Reid to play politics while he tried to sit above the fray.

Calling himself "post-partisan" especially with the second most partisan voting record in the 109th and 110th congresses was disingenuous at best and more aptly could be described as a bold faced lie.

Obama, Pelosi and Reid screwed the pooch on this. And no matter how he tries to spin it only the most partisan Democrats will see it as anything but what it is... typical partisan politics.

Every knew Pelosi and Reid are die hard partisans. Obama promised he was above that, and considering how he appeared to handle the DNC during the primaries it looked possible he could continue to do so as POTUS. But the more he scrambles and tries to incorrectly place blame on the GOP when the problem so clearly lies with the Democrat congressional "leaders" it becomes more obvious it was the Democrat party that handle Obama and not he other way around.

Fact check: 63% of the population do not support with Porkulus, it is not the GOP but the American people that don't want this bill to pass. As a matter of fact 50% believe it will harm, and not help the economy.

But the will of the people doesn't matter to Democrats... after all "they won." The people won't matter to them until the next election.

More media Obamania

MSM reality check. Today AFP gives us our "WTH?" media moment.

Obama takes first ride on 'spiffy' Air Force One
NEWPORT NEWS, Virginia (AFP) – Barack Obama on Thursday took his debut flight as president on his new "spiffy ride" -- the iconic blue and white Boeing 747 which serves as Air Force One.
Obama also took his first trip aboard "Marine One," the famous green helicopter which ferries the president around on shorter trips -- this time from the White House to Andrews air force base outside Washington.
The president walked to the press cabin at the back of his new plane before taking off on the short hop to Virginia, where he was due to speak to Democratic members of the House of Representatives who were holding a retreat.

Fact: Washington DC borders Virginia

Fact: Williamsburg is a 2.5 hour drive from Washington DC, about 160 miles.

Fact: By air the trip from Andrews to Williamsburg is about 120 miles.

Fact: Had President Obama flown to Williamsburg aboard Marine One it would have taken less time than flying Marine One to Andrews and then flying Air Force One to Williamsburg.

Fact: Had President Obama flown to Williamsburg in Marine One and every other person aboard Air Force One drove H-2s to Williamsburg they would have used less fossil fuels and emitted a mere fraction of the green house gases.

Fact: Air Force One has a maximum cruising speed of 570 mph. Unless the plane made a H-U-G-E circle over the Atlantuc the plane would never have begin it's initial decent prior to pulling out of the ascent.

Instead of the media pointing out the waste of flying so short a distance when Marine One would have been a more sensible alternative they are marveling over Obama marveling over his jacket. This was a huge, pointless, taxpayer funded joy ride.

And a classic example of all branches of government spending money as though we are not in an economic crisis with a huge federal deficit.

I don't mean to sound petty... and I don't deny him use of Air Force One... after all, it's his to use. But this was an absolutely ridiculous waste of money. The type of waste a responsible adult would stop in order to lead by example.

Another sign of Obama's out of touch elitism. And the media's adoration of the man.

They honor MLK but don't heed his advice

On this, the fifth day of Black History Month 2009, AP is reporting that a school in Hemstead, NY has officially changed it's name to Barack Obama Elementary School.

There is a reason for not naming schools, buildings, roads, and other projects for living, or at least still in office, politicians. And that is if it is discovered that they did something criminal, wrong, or just plain stupid, the location won't have to be renamed. And if his first few weeks in office are any indication of what is to come they mind find themselves changing the school's name before the paint dries.

In this case the school was renamed in his honor when the only feat he has accomplished is to be elected President... 43 other men have achieved that honor and while most have facilities named after them the honor was bestowed after accomplishing more than winning the election, and the vast majority were awarded after the President left office.

School officials credit the students with the idea of renaming the school. Which is alarming in and of itself that the school officials abdicated control and went along with such a dubious idea. They had an excellent chance to teach the children that such honors should be reserved for those who accomplish something.

Yet I fear that the school officials, like this student, believe he has accomplished something:
Nine-year-old Emily Philbert, who dreams of becoming a doctor, says her classmates felt it was important to honor Obama "because now we finally have our first African-American president. Since I'm an African-American girl myself, that's a huge honor."

19 days ago the country commemorated the birthday of Martin Luther King, who was a person worthy of the honors that have been bestowed upon him. One of his most memorable quotes spoke to judging men by their accomplishments, not their skin color.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation
where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of
their character."
- Martin Luther King

And yet a scant 2 and a half weeks after MLK's birthday, and in the first week of Black History Month, when the lessons of Martin Luther King should be remembered the most, a school was renamed to honor a man solely because of the color of his skin.

Martin Luther King never wanted to be remembered as a black man, just a man. Frank Robinson was proud of his accomplishments as a baseball player, not as a black baseball player. Jesse Owens was proud of his Olympic medals, earned not because he was black, but because he was a great athlete.

The school had a real opportunity to teach a tangible lesson to their students, look at a person, not at their skin. Instead they taught the children it is acceptable to define people by their skin color.

Like the Lernaean Hydra, for each billion you cut off, two grow back

The modern equivalent of the Greek mythological Lernaean Hydra is the current allocation bill making it's way through the Senate.

The bill was proposed as a $825 billion dollar stimulus package. And as people learned about it and objected a token $6B was shaved from the proposal. When it finally passed the House on January 28 and made it to the Senate floor January 29 one of the first acts was to pare a modest $25B from the proposed spending bill. Between the time the bill passed the House and was introduced into the Senate, and throughout the following weekend, the President's office stopped referring to it as a stimulus package but rightfully began calling it a spending bill, since 2/3s is not directly related to stimulating the economy, but rather an unbridled excess of pork programs.

And on February 3, two days after cutting 25B and a week after cutting 6B, the cost of the proposed spending plan, now known as Porkulus grew to an estimated 900 BILLION DOLLARS.

They cut off $31B and $75B grew back in it's place.

The vote tally to the addition: 71 - 26.

So it looks like Porkulus, as was the mythological Hydra, is going to remain undefeated, for no mere mortal will be able to defeat it. Will there be a modern Hercules to stop this beast?

Obama: "absolutely" standing by Daschle

Obama: "absolutely" standing by Daschle

APWASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says he "absolutely" stands by Tom Daschle's nomination for secretary of health and human services.
The president gave the one word answer Monday about the matter during a meeting with Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas on the economic stimulus plan making its way through Congress.
Specifically, Obama was asked whether he still backed Daschle in light of the disclosure that the former Senate majority leader failed to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.
Daschle is Obama's second Cabinet choice to face tax problems.

President Hopenchange is standing by Daschel despite saying he will not appoint lobbyists to his cabinet. Daschel is a partisan hack, not an expert in anything concerning HHS. Why Obama would put himself on a limb to defend (yet another) tax cheat is amazing.

Perhaps because of all the lobbyists getting desks in this administration Daschel is the only cabinet level position and Obama prefers the attention be on Daschel's dubious ethics and feloneous tax evasion and not that he was an unregistered lobbyist married to a registered lobbyist.

While the "right" is concerned about ethics, the "left" is concerned about lobbyists. Although not too concerned because the administration is full of registered and unregistered lobbyists.

"Change you can deceive in"