Monthly Archives: January 2010

Obama Puts His Policies in Coakley's Hands

Obama and Coakley

President Obama stumps for Coakley

“Understand what’s at stake here, Massachusetts. It’s whether we’re going forward or going backwards,’’ the President told 1,500 Coakley supporters. Obama has made several similar statements lately that display how unpopular his policies have become and how increasingly desperate his administration is getting.

For the first time in decades, the Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by Senator Kennedy is set to go to Conservatives. Independents are abandoning the President in droves and tomorrow’s New England vote could signal the trouble ahead for other Congressional seats – and not just the closely contested ones.

Cap and trade has all but died on the Senate floor, the green jobs initiative is strangely invisible, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not over, new taxes are coming, and health care reform is hanging by a vote, a single vote. If Coakley loses to Brown, Congress will have to either pass the Senate bill as it is or start over – and Obama is well aware of the damage that his policies are doing to his party and his own re-election chances. If the health care debate continues much further into 2010 the amount of change the President is bringing to Washington could be dramatic: a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

Current polls show Brown up by anywhere from 6-10% and the current curve has him increasing that lead daily. The revolt against liberal policy is larger than just the Massachusetts race. In an AP article, sentiments by Obama followers display how his own base is either disengaging or being driven away entirely.  The article discusses the outright political conversion of a Kansas woman:

But she became disillusioned with Obama and his promises, disgusted by the bank bailouts, the wars, the health care debate, and what she considers the lack of any political interest in education.

And so, the 22-year-old English student stopped at a fair booth run by Republican Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty.” A year earlier, Hartz would have dismissed such a group as “a bunch of crazy libertarians with unrealistic ideas and a lot of talk about grass-roots revolution.”

On this day, she listened. And she liked their message of limited government and more individual responsibility.

One person is by no means a ground swell of change.  It simply indicates that the seas are changing and the next wave of hope is in the air.

Double-Standard or Outright Dishonesty?

The “double-standard” has been thrown around lately as pundits and analysts consider moves by the present White House to put their policies in place.  A double-standard just implies unfairness, and life just isn’t fair.

Sure, taxing the full-featured health plans that workers with dangerous jobs often choose seems ok at first.  The double-standard part of it is that now the White House has pushed for an exemption for those that work for the government or are in unions – and they got it.  So employees in high-risk jobs in right-to-work states will now be carrying the burdon for all those union and government employees the President just gave a financial pardon to.  Friends first, America second.

It would be easy to point out that while Obama wants all his money back from financial institutions that got federal dollars, he doesn’t seem to want it back from GM or Chrysler.  Wait for it… the auto makers are heavily unioinized, banks aren’t.  Friends vs. Citizens.

Where are the taxes on bonuses for GM, fees for auto loans from Chrysler or outrage at those huge salaries?  Friends: 3 – Us: 0.

At first glance, these are just more instances of double-standards or a lack of fairness.  That shouldn’t be a reason to be upset, things are rarely fair, especially when the government gets involved.  The reason this is disturbing is that it’s dishonest – and openly so.

The administration and Congress are daring us to think ill of these moves.  They are doing these things with total disrespect for the public and are not being honest with the American people.

Let’s take the announcement today that the President’s Council of Economic Advisors has found that Obama’s stimulus plan has created or saved at least two million jobs.  This council is chosen by the President and serves at his pleasure.  When we look at comments from non-White House appointees on the stimulus, we hear that it had no discernible affect on unemployment.  Because the lie came from the White House, the majority of Americans choose that version of reality over the private economists – the experts that have nothing to gain by presenting their findings.

Last week’s unemployment numbers took a turn for the worst and December retail numbers came in much bleaker than expected.  Somehow, the economy is still improving according to the government.  The White House points at numbers that show that people still collecting unemployment are down.  We have to actually go across the Atlantic to get accurate reporting on the jobs situation in America.  This British newspaper article states the facts that no media outlet in America wants to bother with – more are unemployed and not being counted.  That’s just dishonest.

As a final note, you have got to watch this video.  Here, we see the absolute dishonesty prevalent within the administration.  Even in the whole “green jobs” part.

The media has stopped questioning the President.  If he, or his staff, say something it must be true.