Wednesday, 13 October 2010

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S UNKEPT PROMISES (TOO LONG TO POST)

Ken Berwitz

A lot of people think all politicians are a bunch of liars who promise a lot during their election campaigns and, once elected, don't make good on the promises.  Personally, I don't tar all politicians with the same brush (though I certainly can understand why some people come this conclusion).

With this in mind, just 21 months into his presidency Barack Obama has compiled so prodigious a list of unkept promises that his fraudulence is reaching epic dimensions.  And we should take note of them.

Fortunately for us, Jim Geraghty of National Review has done just that.  He has compiled the list of Mr. Obama's promises and, in his words, their post-election "expiration dates".

The list is far too long to post here.  But I'll put up the first few -- and urge you to click here so that you can read Mr. Geraghty's entire list.  It is fully referenced and breathtakingly extensive:

HEALTH-CARE MANDATES

STATEMENT: Weve got a philosophical difference, which weve debated repeatedly, and that is that Senator Clinton believes the only way to achieve universal health care is to force everybody to purchase it. And my belief is, the reason that people dont have it is not because they dont want it but because they cant afford it. Barack Obama, speaking at a Democratic presidential debate, February 21, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: On March 23, 2010, Obama signed the individual mandate into law.

HEALTH-CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN

STATEMENT: These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made. January 20, 2008, and seven other times.

EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health-care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, the campaign is over, John.

RAISING TAXES

STATEMENT: No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase. (multiple times on the campaign trail)

EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: President Barack Obama said he is agnostic about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

RECESS APPOINTMENTS

STATEMENT: Then-senator Obama declared that a recess appointment is damaged goods and has less credibility than a normal appointment. August 25, 2005.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 27, 2010: If, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.

BORDER SECURITY

STATEMENT: We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws. Then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008.

EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a virtual fence on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.

GUANTANAMO BAY

STATEMENT: Executive order stating, The detention facilities at Guantnamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order. January 22, 2009.

EXPIRATION DATE:  November 19, 2009: Guantnamo, we had a specific deadline that was missed.

MILITARY TRIBUNALS

STATEMENT: Somebody like Khalid Sheik Mohammad is gonna get basically, a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. September 27, 2006

EXPIRATION DATE: Ongoing. President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash. Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holders decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.

RECOVERY.GOV

STATEMENT: We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government, and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.  President Obama, January 28, 2009

EXPIRATION DATE: More than two months after some of the funds were released, [Recovery.gov] offers little detail on where the money is going . . . The government [spent] $84 million on a website that doesnt have a search function, when its purpose is to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government. April 2, 2009

Let me again emphasize that these are just the first few.  There are far more - multiples of what you just read - in just about every conceivable area of governance. 

Thank you Mr. Geraghty for the compilation.  How I wish as many voters as possible will get a chance to read it, so they can understand how badly they were taken by Barack Obama.  


THE MOMENT JERRY BROWN LOST THE ELECTION

Ken Berwitz

Despite that title, I do not know whether Jerry Brown will or will not lose the race for California Governor versus Meg Whitman.

But if he does, I strongly suspect that this exchange will be a, if not the, key reason:

TOM BROKAW:  Mr. Brown you did attempt to reach out to the police union. The telephone message was left on. It's now a notorious part of this campaign. In which somebody in your campaign referred to Ms. Whitman as a "whore." A campaign spokesman then described that as "salty language" and apologized after a fashion. We've heard no outrage from you about the use of that kind of language which to many women is the same as calling an African-American the n-word. Have you been in charge of the investigation in your campaign to find out who is responsible for using that phrase?

JERRY BROWN:  I don't agree with that comparison, number one. Number two, this is a five week old private conversation picked up on a cellphone, uh, with a garbled transmission. Very hard to detect who it is. This is not, I don't want to get into the term and how it's used. But I will say the campaign apologized promptly and I affirm that apology tonight.

Unbelievable.  In a few short sentences:

- Brown downplayed the significance of using the term "whore" against his female opponent (Hey, no problem, what's the big deal anyway?);

-Brown claimed the phone transmission was garbled (What does that mean?  Is he trying to convince us that the word "whore" was not audible enough?  Everyone else heard it);

-Brown said it was hard to detect who used the term (Maybe on the telephone it was.  But Jerry Brown was there, he was the one it was said to, and he knows damn well who said it.  Plus, if Brown heard the word and knows who used it, what was that "garbled transmission" comment about anyway?  Does he even know what he's saying anymore?);

-Brown dismissed the comment as something he didn't want to get into (thus blowing off anyone who was offended by it.  Fortunately for Brown, the so-called National Organization for Women wasn't offended at all, and gave him their endorsement the day after the "whore" comment came to light.  NOW has all the integrity of a snake oil distributor). 

-Then Brown apologized?  After that?  If Whitman could have, I have a feeling she would have told him to take that apology and shove it straight up his rectal cavity.  I assume she was thinking it.

This was not the only way Jerry Brown lost votes last night.  His disturbingly sour, angry demeanor probably was a contributing factor as well (why in the world did he show voters such a farbissoner puss?).  But that was small potatoes compared to his "whore" response.

This morning I watched the video of this amazing Q and A on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" show.  And after it played, Mike Barnacle, hardly what you would call a right winger, commented that he couldn't think of a worse answer.  The panel then marvelled that Brown, who had all the time in the world to devise some kind of answer to the question - which he had to know was going to be asked - responded this way.

Let me say it again:  If Jerry Brown loses the race for California Governor, look to these few seconds of dialogue as a, maybe the, key reason.

Oh, one other thing.  If Brown doesn't lose, he can thank venues like the Today Show, which used a video clip that lopped off his offensive remarks and only showed him apologizing.  And the Associated Press, whose article about the debate brushed by the offending part of Brown's answer (which is more than Today did), but only gave the apology part of his quote:  

"I don't want to get into the term and how it's used, but I would say that the campaign apologized promptly and I affirm that apology," Brown said. "It's unfortunate. I'm sorry it happened, and I apologize."

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


JOY BEHAR'S LATEST IDIOCY

Ken Berwitz

Months ago, I watched Joy Behar's show on HLN (a CNN offshoot) a few times.  I gave up watching because she is so arrogantly smug and so amazingly unprepared to interview any guest who does more than nod agreement with her. 

But I just saw the transcript of a short colloquy between Behar and S.E. Cupp at Jeff Poor's blog for newsbuster.org that was so idiotic I've decided to put it up so that you can see it too:

BEHAR: Dont you think it shows their true colors these mama grizzlies so-called? I mean she is against a federal program to help poor kids get health insurance, Michele Bachmann. She is no mama grizzly. She is against children. Who is she fooling?
CUPP: Thats a little I think thats a generalization. Michele Bachmann
BEHAR: That is a fact.
CUPP: I think is a woman to admire. I admire her, I know her well. She is I think an advocate for her state, for women, for men, for all different types of people. And the fact
BEHAR: She is against children, the federal program helped at aiding income kids get health insurance.
CUPP: The fact that she is a conservative, the fact that she does not support gay marriage does not make her anti-woman.
BEHAR: No, but dont call yourself a mama grizzly when youre against children.
CUPP: She is not against children, Joy.
BEHAR: Yes she is.
CUPP: She is absolutely not against children. She has children. She stands up for children
BEHAR: Im sure they all have health insurance all her children.
CUPP: She thinks policy should you can disagree with her politics, joy, but lets not paint her as anti-woman. This is a mistake.
BEHAR: Anti-children.
BEHAR: But shes anti-children.
CUPP: She is not.

You may like or dislike Michele Bachmann's political views.  But calling her anti-children because she opposes one specific piece of legislation?  

As Jeff points out, Michele Bachmann has 5 biological children -- and has been a foster mother to 23 others.  That's some anti-children record.

Simply stated (and I do mean "simply"), Behar sounds like an idiot -- which, based on my previous viewing experience, isn't exactly virgin territory for her.   Maybe that is why, after over a year on HLN, Behar's ratings remain so anemic (the latest data, as of Monday, show Rachel Maddow with 3 1/2 times Behar's audience....and Sean Hannity with almost 10 times her audience. )

Put another way, Michele Bachmann is about as anti-children as Joy Behar is pro-knowing what the hell she is talking about.

Zeke .... ..... de churrun .... de churrun ..... say those magic words, and you can do no wrong. .... Ultimate Absolution .... Just like those idiots who parked their band's truck across 3 lanes of traffic on US 101 in California .... backed up traffic for miles.... but they had a banner about 1.5 million homeless churrun. ..... (probably a made up number ) ...... (10/13/10)


THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S ISRAEL PROBLEM

Ken Berwitz

Pity the poor Obama administration.  It so desperately wants to please Israel's enemies by pretending the country is not a Jewish state, but is stuck with our history of acknowledging that it is.

Rick Richman of Commentary Magazine gives us the latest example of how the Obama administratisn is (mis)handling what it clearly sees as its Israel Problem, by posting a transcript of this exchange between White House spokesperson P.J. Crowley and the press:

QUESTION: P.J., do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will you try to convince the Palestinians to recognize it?

MR. CROWLEY: We will continue our discussions with the parties. I would expect, following up on the Arab League meetings of late last week that George Mitchell will go to the region at some point. Im not announcing anything, but I it would be logical for us to follow up directly with the parties, see where they are. [Blah, blah, blah.]

QUESTION: And do you recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CROWLEY: We recognize the aspiration of the people of Israel. It has its a democracy. In that democracy, theres a guarantee of freedom and liberties to all of its citizens. But as the Secretary has said, we understand that the special character of the state of Israel.

QUESTION: Is that a yes or no?

QUESTION: P.J., its do you want to answer his question or

QUESTION: Did you say yes or no to that question from Michel?

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: Michels question was a yes or no sort of question. I was wondering whether that was a yes or no.

MR. CROWLEY: We recognize that Israel is a as it says itself, is a Jewish state, yes.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. want the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

MR. CROWLEY: Look, I will be happy to go back over and offer some Im trying Im not making any news here. We have recognized the special nature of the Israeli state. It is a state for the Jewish people. It is a state for other citizens of other faiths as well. But this is the aspiration of the what Prime Minister Netanyahu said yesterday is, in essence, the a core demand of the Israeli Government, which we support, is a recognition that Israel is a part of the region, acceptance by the region of the existence of the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and that is what they want to see through this negotiation. We understand this aspiration and the prime minister was talking yesterday about the fact that just as they aspire to a state for the Jewish people in the Middle East, they understand the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.

Could that answer be more grudging?  Could it be less encouraging to Israel? 

If I were a member of the Gaza/west bank terrorist group, hamas, or its terrorist counterpart in Lebanon, hezbollah, I would be thrilled at the obvious lack of conviction this administration has regarding the nature and character of Israel.  Wouldn't you?

Mr. Richman concludes by saying:

Why is it so hard to get the Obama administration to reiterate basic commitments the U.S. has made in writing to Israel? The Bush letter stated that the U.S. is strongly committed to [Israel] as a Jewish state. This administration has to be prodded six times to answer whether it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state and after an affirmative response is extracted cannot give a one-word answer on whether it wants the Palestinians to recognize one as well.

In the 2008 election, exit polls indicated that 78% of US Jews, most of whom presumably support Israel, voted for Barack Obama.

I hope they're happy with what they got.  Speaking as one of the other 22%, I can assure you I am not.

WisOldMan What would be more surprising to learn from anyone in the Obama admin. is that they are not also a radical, Israel-loathing, George Soros-like nitwit. (10/14/10)


JACKASS JOE AND BS BLOOMBERG

Ken Berwitz

It is hard to tell which is more prominent:  Joe Biden's jackassery or bloomberg.com's casually-tossed-in BS about jobs.

Read this segment of bloomberg.com's article, written by Kate Andersen Brower (who should be ashamed of herself) and see what I mean:

Less bad is never good enough, Biden said in an interview on board Air Force Two on Oct. 8, the same day that Labor Department figures showed the jobless rate held steady at 9.6 percent in September, the last yardstick before voters in the Nov. 2 elections determine which party controls Congress.

Voters want to be told the truth, Biden said on the way to Madison, Wisconsin, jacketless, kneeling against the back of an airplane seat and holding gold-trimmed aviator sunglasses. They want to know, Tell me, man, do I have a shot? he said, his enthusiasm undeterred by a cold.

With unemployment topping 9.5 percent for 14 straight months, Biden is having difficulty trumpeting the 3.3 million jobs created or saved by the White Houses economic stimulus.

Its just really hard to convince people that when there werent, up until the first of the year, when there werent net new jobs its awful hard to say, Its working, he said at the end of a three-state campaign swing Oct. 7-8 for four Democratic candidates in Wisconsin, Missouri, and Washington. Its counterintuitive.

Vice President Biden has trouble explaining to people how swimmingly the "stimulus package" is working, because the unemployment rate jumped up instead of going down?   Wow, what a shock. 

OF COURSE he has trouble explaining to people that it is working.  Other than dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, no one BELIEVES that it is working - because the numbers are right there in our faces. 

If Mr. Biden wants to do some explaining, maybe he can explain how come President Obama said the "stimulus package" would stop unemployment at 8% and then lower it but, if it didn't pass, unemployment would go to 8.5% - 9%. 

So far the "answer", if you can call it an answer, is that it is somehow President Bush's fault.

But that "answer" is absolutely false.  President Obama knew what shape the economy was in when he made those promises.  The "stimulus package" was specifically touted as a program to overcome the condition of the Bush economy. 

In practice, however, it has done no such thing.  And these people are incapable of admitting it, even as more and more voters, including former supporters, turn away.  Pathetic.

And then we come to that toss-in by bloomberg.com's Ms. Brower, that "Biden is having difficulty trumpeting the 3.3 million jobs created or saved by the White Houses economic stimulus".

Huh?

What basis does Ms. Brower have to claim 3.3 million jobs were "created or saved" - other than a few Obama administration PR releases, that is?  Where is her evidence?  How does she define the term "saved"?  How does she quantify the number of "saved" jobs? 

Put plainly, that line was nothing more than a hot steamy load of BS, tossed in to make Joe Biden and the Obama administration look good.  Readers are supposed to divine from this that the "stimulus package" really is working, it is just hard to explain how great it is to we obtuse, simple-minded voters.  Too bad we aren't smart enough to get it....

...which is even more pathetic than Jackass Joe's comments.  Quite an accomplishment.

Zeke ..... ..... ..... "Everything is fine" ...... said the guy passing the 32nd floor, after jumping off the top of the Empire State Building. ... .... .... Trillions of dollars of national, state and local debt, more trillions in unfunded liabilities (public pensions, social security, etc) ..... .... at least we are reassured that there are 3 million people who ARE working ..... .... probably, they are tasked with figuring out exactly what a "Saved Job" really is ...or, how to lie about one. .... .... .... .... ..... The US economy has survived by kiting checks ..... ..... and the chickens are coming home to roost. ..... ..... Today, the dollar is worth ONE FOURTH its value against the Yen compared to a generation ago. (10/13/10)


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!!