Wednesday, 31 March 2010

JOYLESS BEHAR'S GLENNDETTA

Ken Berwitz

Joy Behar cannot get enough of Glenn Beck.

Few people on TV have spent more air time telling us that they don't care about the person they keep talking about than Behar, when talking about Beck.

Here is the latest example, from Jeff Poor of www.newsbusters.org:

Joy Behar in Leno Appearance to Glenn Beck: 'I Dont Give a Flying [Expletive] About You'

 

By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
Wed, 03/31/2010 - 07:08 ET

 

"The View" co-host Joy Behar isn't known for being the most graceful person, but for whatever reason she has managed to land her own cable news show and is now a sought after personality for shows like NBC's "Tonight Show with Jay Leno."

 

In a March 30 appearance on "The Tonight Show", Leno asked Behar about her feud with Fox News and talk radio host Glenn Beck. Beck recently suggested there is an "I Hate Glenn Beck" club and that Behar was a member. Behar denied she hated Beck.

 

"Oh yeah, Glenn Beck - I can't take a man who cries," Behar said. "I mean, it's enough on my wedding night I had to watch that. You know what I mean? I can't, but -- he does. He talks about me. I'm on his list of I Hate Glenn Beck.' It's like being on Nixon's enemies list. I loved it. But I don't hate him. I don't hate him."

 

Behar told Leno she would have Beck on her HLN program, even though Beck's program draws roughly four times the audience at 5 p.m. ET that Behar's 9 p.m. ET prime time HLN program draws, with the caveat he is "neutered and spayed."

 

"It's showbiz," Behar said. "But you know what, if I could take the opportunity to tell Glenn -- which is my camera -- because I'd like to say I don't hate him and I want him to know that. Where is it? Glenn, listen, I don't hate you. Sincerely, Glenn Beck, from the bottom of my heart, I don't hate you. I don't give a flying [expletive] about you."

 

Behar's statement is a tad curious because on her HLN show, the topic of Beck has come up time and time and time again. But despite that, Behar said she would have Beck on, who once had a show on Behar's network, but said she wouldn't go on his and he likely wouldn't go on hers.

Ironically, Ms. Behar and I do, to some degree, share a feeling of disdain for Beck.  I've written several times about Mr. Beck here;  mostly that he is over-the-top, often ridiculous and an embarrassment to Fox News Channel.

But I also think he is often right on target regarding political issues and makes a lot of good points.  (I doubt Joy Behar would agree with me about that.)

And, by contrast, I think that Ms. Behar is a ridiculous loudmouth, usually unknowledgeable and unprepared when she argues (which is pretty much all she does), and entirely reliant on a sympathetic audience (The View) or network (HNN's parent company is CNN) to forgive and ignore her deficiencies.  (I doubt Joy Behar would agree with me on that as well.)

I'm glad both are on TV, because I am against censorship and want all voices heard, even if they are sometimes shrill, obnoxious and ignorant.

But, however many problems I have with Glenn Beck, I would watch his show 100 times out of 100 if my alternative were Joy Behar.  He may be annoying, contrived and over the top.  But she is all those things, plus loud, ignorant and stupid.


TEA-PARTIERS VERSUS CONGRESS: NO CONTEST

Ken Berwitz

Who understands more about what is going on in this country?  The Tea Party people or the congress?

As you consider your answer (which I have a feeling you've already come to) it might be interesting to read what the Rasmussen Poll found in its national study:

Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress

Sunday, March 28, 2010

 

In official Washington, some consider the Tea Party movement a fringe element in society, but voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress. Only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of the key issues facing the nation.

 

When it comes to those issues, 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress.

 

Finally, 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical.

 

As you would expect, there is a wide divide between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed.

 

By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.

 

The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century, Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, says in his new book, In Search of Self-Governance. If we had to rely on politicians to fix these problems, the outlook for the nation would be bleak indeed. Fortunately, in America, the politicians arent nearly as important as they think they are.

 

Earlier polling found that just 16% of voters nationwide consider themselves part of the Tea Party Movement. However, just 11% believe Congress is doing a good or an excellent job.

 

Seventy-six percent (76%) think most members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than in helping people.

 

On all questions, Republicans overwhelming prefer the Tea Party. Unaffiliated voters also prefer the Tea Party by wide margins, but Congress fares a bit better with unaffiliateds than they do with Republicans.

 

Democrats, perhaps not surprisingly since their party currently controls both the House and Senate, are more evenly divided. Forty-five percent (45%) of those in Nancy Pelosis party say that their views are closer to the average member of Congress. However, 28% of Democrats say their views are closer to the average member of the Tea Party.

 

Men are more likely to align with the Tea Party than women, but a plurality of women prefer the Tea Party over Congress on every question in the survey.

 

If the Tea Party was organized as a political party, 34% of voters would prefer a Democrat in a three-way congressional race. In that hypothetical match-up, the Republican gets 27% of the vote with the Tea Party hopeful in third at 21%.

 

However, if only the Democrat or Republican had a real chance to win, most of the Tea Party supporters would vote for the Republican.

 

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans had a favorable view of the so-called tea party protests just after they were held on Tax Day, April 15, last year. It was those events around the country that gelled into the Tea Party movement, a protest largely against what are viewed as the big government policies of both major political parties.

Interesting. 

If these data are accurate, they tell a story that politicians (outside of those in safe Democratic districts) and media elite would do well to think long and hard about. 

Earlier this morning I put up data showing Fox News in a dominant position over the other cable news networks (I'll show this even more clearly later on).  I think it would be reasonably safe to conclude that these data are a good indication of why. 


BEHAR VS. BECK: THE NUMBERS

Ken Berwitz

 Having posted the previous blog, I thought it would be a good idea to show you how viewing audiences feel about Joy Behar and Glenn Beck.

Here are the latest Neilsen data, by the key 25-54 age group and in total, as compiled at www.mediabistro.com:

 

The Scoreboard: Monday, Mar. 29

By Chris Ariens on Mar 30, 2010 04:35 PM

25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 415 | CNN: 129 | MSNBC: 145 | HLN: 146

Prime: FNC: 699 | CNN: 173 | MSNBC: 331 | HLN: 159

 

5p:

6p:

7p:

8p:

9p:

10p:

11p:

FNC

Beck:

Baier:

Shep:

O'Reilly:

Hannity:

Greta:

O'Reilly:

 

562

464

458

906

582

590

459

CNN

Blitzer:

Blitzer:

KingUSA:

Brown:

King:

Cooper:

Cooper:

 

139

117

125

135

183

201

124

MSNBC

Matthews:

EdShow:

Matthews:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

 

111

175

227

414

347

232

135

HLN

Showbiz:

Prime:

Issues:

Grace:

Behar:

Grace:

Showbiz:

 

87

131

163

213

115

156

190



Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.


Total Viewers: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 1466 | CNN: 492 | MSNBC: 518 | HLN: 316

Prime: FNC: 2538 | CNN: 614 | MSNBC: 1154 | HLN: 453

 

5p:

6p:

7p:

8p:

9p:

10p:

11p:

FNC

Beck:

Baier:

Shep:

O'Reilly:

Hannity:

Greta:

O'Reilly:

 

2155

2137

1799

3379

2101

2112

1490

CNN

Blitzer:

Blitzer:

KingUSA:

Brown:

King:

Cooper:

Cooper:

 

551

530

524

469

560

812

448

MSNBC

Matthews:

EdShow:

Matthews:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

Olbermann:

Maddow:

 

527

742

742

1400

1325

736

508

HLN

Showbiz:

Prime:

Issues:

Grace:

Behar:

Grace:

Showbiz:

 

206

264

404

627

395

360

378



Data by Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data.

Notice a slight difference in viewer acceptance?

Beck utterly dominates his time slot, with about 4 times the viewership of any other cable news show.  Heck, if you combined the rest of his competition, their total wouldn't even be close to Beck's.

By contrast, Behar is dead last in her time slot.  Rachel Maddow, as snarky and contrived as she is, triples Behar's numbers.  Even what's left of Larry King blows her away.

Point made.


MICHELLE MALKIN RIPS HENRY WAXMAN A NEW HENRY WAXMAN

Ken Berwitz

Michelle Malkin has a fiery new column in which she rips Henry Waxman a new body part - which is not easy to do, since Waxman so often acts as though his entire being is that body part.

Other than the references to tobacco executives (whom I don't have a lot of regard for), she is dead-on target.

Here is the column, without any further comment from me:

Henry Waxman: The Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill

by Michelle Malkin

been a time when 18-term liberal Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman's nostrils weren't flaring indignantly at corporate executives and entrepreneurs? The man wields his gavel over the free market like a Damoclean sword. He throws the weight of his congressional chairmanship around like a sumo wrestler walking across hot stones. For more than 35 years, Waxman has made it his taxpayer-funded business to use the power of government to undermine private business.

No one should be surprised by his latest thuggish efforts to silence companies speaking out about the cost implications and financial burdens of Demcare -- least of all, those companies.

This is the Eliot Ness-wannabe who serves proudly as the left's chief inquisitor. This is the Capitol Hill haranguer who herded tobacco company CEOs in front of the cameras, made them raise their right hands and cackled as he forced them to testify under oath about the evils of their products. Waxman's demagoguery then was so over the top that it prompted Washington Post columnist William Raspberry to write that the "Capitol Hill inquisition masquerading as legislative hearings reminds me of nothing so much as a witch-hunting Joe McCarthy."

Last month, Waxman stacked the deck at the Toyota inquisition hearing with auto industry-bashing Naderites. In 2007, he held court over the Valerie Plame show trial. And in February 2008, he wasted four hours on a nationally televised interrogation of baseball legend Roger Clemens and his trainer. Republicans called Waxman out on his Captain Queeg-ish vendetta against Clemens. The debacle was dubbed a "Roman Circus." After squandering public resources on congressional showboating over steroid use, Waxman himself confessed that he "didn't think it was a hearing that needed to be held."

 

When he isn't abusing the deliberative process to add to his press-clipping collection and serve up red meat (er, blue meat) for the TV airwaves, he's short-circuiting hearings to ram through political power grabs masquerading as "reform." Waxman pushed massively expensive, complicated cap-and-tax legislation through the House last year by leapfrogging over subcommittee debate. He also staved off Republican efforts to slow down and scrutinize the behemoth bill by hiring a "speed reader" to plow through the 900-page bill during mark-up.

Waxman himself couldn't be bothered to familiarize himself with the trillion-dollar regulatory tyranny stuffed into his own bill. When a GOP colleague on his committee asked him whether he knew a specific provision had been embedded in the proposal with his name on it, Waxman snorted: "You're asking me?"

The indignant interrogator then went on to question the patriotism of anyone who dared ask questions about the climate change tax scheme -- and accused conservatives of "rooting against the country."

Now, Waxman is targeting the heads of Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and AT&T with "invitations" they can't refuse to testify at an April 21 hearing on their public statements regarding Demcare-caused writedowns. Waxman's fishing expedition letters sent out last week "asked" the company heads to produce copious documentation.

Business execs are damned if they do disclose how the costs of the new federal health care taxes will hit their bottom line and damned if they don't. If they stay silent, they'll be violating Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure requirements passed by Congress after the Enron scandal. If they talk, they'll be paraded in front of the camera like those poor tobacco heads Waxman waxed more than 15 years ago.

Who's next? On Monday, Prudential said it would take a $100 million charge in the first quarter thanks to Demcare. In Colorado, the Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp. said the health care law will cost $2 million a year starting in 2014. AK Steel Corp., 3M and Valero Energy have all announced similar writedowns. At this rate, if Waxman insists on hauling up every last truth-teller in the marketplace, he'll be holding an inquisition-a-thon a day.

And that would suit the Witch Hunter of Capitol Hill just fine. If he isn't meddling, he isn't working. And if he isn't using his powers to bully, bulldoze or bankrupt his enemies, he is failing the gods of progressivism. 


AL SHARPTON: A LYING BUFFOON -- AS ALWAYS

Ken Berwitz

Al Sharpton has for years provided us about as blatant an example of media bias as there is.  Sharpton has spent much of his adult life securing personal benefit by acting as a racial huckster, a liar, an inciter of racial violence, and a shameless self-caricature.  

Frankly speaking, if the Republican party treated someone like this as a valuable asset, it would - rightly - be excoriated every day by our media.  But Al Sharpton has become an important national Democrat, someone presidential candidates have to pass muster with, and the same media seems almost entirely unconcerned.

Here, from Scott Johnson, is the latest example of what a lying buffoon Sharpton is - and has been for many years:

Al Sharpton plies his trade

March 30, 2010 Posted by Scott at 6:21 AM

When Don Imus sought absolution for his characteristic display of poor taste, he bent his knee to Pope Al Sharpton. How is it that Al Sharpton has become the arbiter elegantiae for matters pertaining to race and etiquette? Though he is accorded an absurdly respected role in the Democratic Party, he is easily one of the most vile men active in American public life.

Jay Nordlinger reviewed Sharpton's record as of early 2000 in his brilliant National Review feature article "Power Dem." Jay updated his take on Sharpton in his Impromptus column "Words from Pope Al."

From his promotion of Tawana Brawley's hoax and his defamation of Steven Pagones and Robert Abrams, to his defense of the Central Park "wilding" rapists, to his role in the pogroms leading to the murders of Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights and eight victims in Freddy's Fashion Mart in Harlem, Sharpton has compiled a record that should result in his excommunication by decent people from civil society. Here is Pope Al on the accidental death of Gavin Cato in Crown Heights in August 1991:

The world will tell us that [Gavin Cato] was killed by accident....What type of city do we have that would allow politics to rise above the blood of innocent babies?...Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights....All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise. Pay for your deeds....It's no accident that we know we should not be run over. We are the royal family on the planet. We are the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy....We will win because we are right. God is on our side.

Writing in the Village Voice in December 2004, Wayne Barrett proclaimed Sharpton to have hit "a new low." And Sharpton of course contributed to the miscarriage of justice represented by the dismissed rape charges brought against the three Duke lacrosse players. In an April 2006 interview with Bill O'Reilly, Sharpton said (among other things): "This case parallels Abner Louima, who was raped and sodomized in a bathroom like this girl has alleged she was. That's the case and just like the Louima case, you have people saying she fabricated it. They said he fabricated it -- two guys in jail right now for that."

Last week Peter Wallsten reported in the Wall Street Journal that Sharpton has emerged as a key ally of President Obama. It turns out that President Obama is just about as post-racial as he is post-partisan.

Jim Hoft points out that Sharpton appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show last night peddling the Democratic Party's line tarring opponents of Obamacare and Obama's program of national socialism as racists. Sharpton told O'Reilly that he had seen the (non-existent) tape showing Tea Party protesters abusing black congressmen with racial epithets.

CLICK HERE TO SEE VIDEO

In the video above, O'Reilly calls Sharpton on his bald-faced lie. Let's just say that this particular tiger has not changed his stripes.

There's our wonderful "neutral" media in action.  Looking the other way when this lying buffoon puts on his circus show.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


THE HUTAREE MILITIA

Ken Berwitz

The "Hutaree militia" is a group of "people" who consider themselves Christian warriors, preparing to fight the anti-Christ.

"People" like these send a cold chill up and down my spine.

Here are excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article on this lunatic (not lunatic fringe, but flat-out lunatic) brigade:

Militia Chief's Mistrust Festered, Friends Say

Portrait Emerges of Man Who Despised Authority; Undercover Agent Played a Role in Probe

 

By ALEX P. KELLOGG, LAUREN ETTER, KEITH JOHNSON and TIMOTHY W. MARTIN

 

The leader of a Michigan militia group charged this week with conspiring to kill law-enforcement officers was described Tuesday as a private, family-oriented man who nurtured a festering mistrust of governmental authority, according to people close to the family.

 

"On the inside of this man's brain, something evil lurks, and until you get to know him, you don't know it," said Andrea Harsh, who was engaged to David Brian Stone Sr. until the couple broke up last year.

 

She described Mr. Stone, a trim 45-year-old man who wears his whitish hair cropped short over spectacles and a bushy gray mustache, as having a "bubbly personality." But he became consumed by the Hutaree, she said, a southeastern Michigan militia group that described its members as "Christian warriors."

 

In an indictment Monday, federal authorities named Mr. Stone as leader of the Hutaree and accused him and eight members with plotting to spark an uprising against the U.S. government by killing police. Along with Mr. Stone, seven other men and one woman from Michigan, Ohio and Indiana are in being held without bond on weapons and sedition charges.

 

The indictment said Hutaree had practiced attacks and other military maneuvers for more than a year, and had planned to kill a law-enforcement officer, then use homemade bombs to attack officers who attended the funeral.

Those charged in the case included Mr. Stone's current wife, Tina Mae Stone, 44; as well as two sons, David Brian Stone Jr., 19; and Joshua Matthew Stone 21. Attorneys for Ms. Stone, David Jr. and Joshua declined to comment Tuesday; the senior Mr. Stone had no attorney as of late Tuesday.

 

Family members and acquaintances said Mr. Stone doesn't curse, smoke or drink alcohol and was a strict disciplinarian with his sons, whom he home-schooled from a young age. While he rarely attended church, he studied the Bible nightly, memorizing long passages, said Ms. Harsh, his ex-fiance. Several scripture passages appear on the Hutaree Web site.

 

Ms. Harsh, 40, said she began dating Mr. Stone in 2008 after meeting him at a plastics recycling factory where they worked. Mr. Stone showed her a Hutaree business card when they met, but otherwise said little about the group while they dated for several months.

 

After they moved in together, Ms. Harsh said, he spent hours on the computer, building the group's Web site and searching online for weapons. "His life was pretty much consumed by the Hutaree," she said.

 

Mr. Stone despised authority, Ms. Harsh said, particularly "anyone with a badge." She said his temper finally drove her away last year. Mr. Stone remarried a few months later.

 

Over the past couple of years, Mr. Stone attracted more Hutaree members, Ms. Harsh said: "His goal was to have all of the states have at least one group of Hutaree."

 

But he scared off some potential recruits. Jon Killman said he visited Mr. Stone and his sons in December because he was interested in joining a militia to practice survival skills.

 

He said Mr. Stone was a gracious host and offered him coffee. But soon Mr. Killman "got a bad vibe" as the Stones started joking about police officers who'd been shot in a coffee shop in Washington state.

 

The family's dining room table was strewn with shotgun shells, Mr. Killman recalled. The elder Mr. Stone said the shells would be filled with gunpowder and tied to trip wires to simulate landmines.

 

At first "they just seemed like a down-to-earth hillbilly family," he said. "After 20 minutes into the meeting, I realized these guys are not dealing with a full deck."

I myself am not Christian.  But if I were, I would cringe at the thought that these "people" had co-opted the name of my religion for their lunacy.

We can only guess how many more such groups there are just like them.  And we can only hope that, eventually, the number will be zero..

Montana I love that they asked for “Public Defender”, they know now that there was an undercover FBI agent. The simpleton Tea baggers keep missing the point. These are the same whiners that were crying when the McCain/Bailin ticket lost. Now that their yelling (because they are haters not debaters) did not stop health care from passing, they are crying again. They think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something they are not the only ones who have guns and not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around in the parks playing commando, the majority understand that the world is more complicated and grey then the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. So it’s only fitting that their leaders are Sarah Bailin, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and their turn coat Glenn. So if you are bothered that there are some misconceptions of your group, well then I think you need to be more careful who you invite to give you speeches. (03/31/10)


THE ERIC CANTOR DEATH THREAT: MEDIA BIAS 101

Ken Berwitz

From Richard Grenell at www.bigjournalism.com:

A Tale of Two Donors, Media Bias Division

Posted by Richard Grenell Mar 30th 2010

Lets summarize: A donor to the Democratic National Committee threatens to kill Republican Whip Eric Cantor in the same news cycle that a donor to the Republican National Committee gets financially reimbursed for going to a racy club in Los Angeles, but the old-school news media leads with the GOP donor story.

Id actually argue that threatening to kill someone from the other party is a more serious offense and deserves serious attention especially in light of the four-day media frenzy over intimidation tactics after the vote to hijack health care. But maybe thats just because I live in Los Angeles?

Shouldnt the liberal media at least talk about both stories together? This is a perfect example of why many people have turned to new ways to get their news and why the old model of news gathering is in deep financial trouble.

Im not suggesting that the media should ignore the GOP donor issue, its just a question of priorities and innate bias for Washington and New York media executives.

 What a nice guy Mr. Grenell is.  Too nice, actually.  I think he's wrong:  there is no reason at all to talk about these stories together. 

A congressperson, and his family, was explicitly threatened with violent death - along with a specific reference to the fact that he and his family are Jewish:

-That is 100 times more newsworthy than whether Republicans blew some money at a racy nightclub. 

-And 100 times more newsworthy than the bogus claims that people were chanting "nigger" at John Lewis and Emanuel Cleaver, when not one of the numerous recording devices right there has any record of it.

-And 100 times more newsworthy than the bogus claim that someone spit at Emanuel Cleaver, when even Cleaver now admits there was no actual spitting, the guy just sprayed a little when he talked.

-And 100 times more newsworthy than someone calling Barney Frank a "faggot", which, while loathsome and offensive, doesn't come remotely close to a death threat.  Ask Mr. Frank if he'd rather be called a name or told that he and his family would be shot, see which one he picks.

As Grenell says, this is why many people have turned to new ways to get their news.   And let me add that it is also why many more will do so in the future.


MIKE PENCE ON THE OBAMA OIL EXPLORATION POLICY

Ken Berwitz

Here is Republican congressperson Mike Pence's reaction to President Obama's apparent support of offshore drilling:

Pence Calls Presidents Drilling Announcement Smokescreen

"This Administration's energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family inAmerica and trade American jobs overseas at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work."

 

MARCH 31, 2010

WashingtonDC

 

U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference and the American Energy Solutions Group, issued the following statement today regarding President Obamas announcement on oil and gas exploration:

 

As usual the devil is in the details.  Only in WashingtonD.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim youre going to increase production. 

 

The Presidents announcement today is a smokescreen.  It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan. 

 

Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the Presidents national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate.  At the end of the day this Administrations energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs overseas at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

Ok, now you have both sides.

Who do you believe?


PRESIDENT OBAMA'S GOOD NEWS: BUT DO YOU BELIEVE HIM?

Ken Berwitz

Let's start with the fact that Barack Obama lies.  A lot. 

Ok, with that in mind, we have this apparent policy change, excerpted from an Associated Press article:

In a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, President Barack Obama is allowing oil drilling 50 miles off Virginia's shorelines. At the same time, he is rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

Obama's plan offers few concessions to environmentalists, who have been strident in their opposition to more oil platforms off the nation's shores. Hinted at for months, the plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama was set to announce the new drilling policy Wednesday at Andrews air base in Maryland. White House officials pitched the changes as ways to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and create jobs - both politically popular ideas - but the president's decisions also could help secure support for a climate change bill languishing in Congress.

The president, joined by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, also was set to announce that proposed leases in Alaska's Bristol Bay would be canceled. The Interior Department also planned to reverse last year's decision to open up parts of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Instead, scientists would study the sites to see if they're suitable to future leases.

Obama is allowing an expansion in Alaska's Cook Inlet to go forward. The plan also would leave in place the moratorium on drilling off the West Coast.

In addition, the Interior Department has prepared a plan to add drilling platforms in the eastern Gulf of Mexico if Congress allows that moratorium to expire. Lawmakers in 2008 allowed a similar moratorium to expire; at the time President George W. Bush lifted the ban, which opened the door to Obama's change in policy.

Under Obama's plan, drilling could take place 125 miles from Florida's Gulf coastline if lawmakers allow the moratorium to expire. Drilling already takes place in western and central areas in the Gulf of Mexico.

I am a huge proponent of solar, wind, natural gas and/or any other alternative that can supplant oil.  But I also recognize that the practical, general-use application of most such alternatives is a good many years away - and we need energy now.

If true, therefore, this would appear to be good news. But is it true?

Here, via Jake Tapper of ABC News, is what Mr. Obama said during the presidential campaign:

In June 2008, then-Sen. Obama told reporters in Jacksonville, Florida, "when I'm president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida's coasts. That's how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good."

Given Mr. Obama's propensity for lying to us, about a whole lot more than energy policy, I would be very cautious about this.  I have to wonder if it is nothing more than a move to get support for climate change legislation, after which there will be a policy switcheroo.

But, if it is true?  Good for President Obama, and it's about time.

Zeke ... .... Seems Barry is holding states hostage over developing oil deposits. ... Play ball with the Man, and you'll get bennies. ... .... Worked in California, where magically, water was once again available for agriculture in the Central Valley. ... ... Damn fish will have to swim elsewhere, this is politics. .... .... (03/31/10)


SUNSHINE DEFINITELY SHEDS LIGHT ON, ER, THINGS....

Ken Berwitz

With all appropriate apologies.....

I was just sent this remarkable picture by West Coast Russ.  Though I can't be 100% sure, it seems to be real, not a photoshop at all.

Let's just call it a major-league whoopsie......

Apparently they didn't consider the sun when designing this wall 

 



 


SAINT PETER'S BASILICA in ROME

 


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!