More Analysis Of The Speeches

It's a new day, and there are some new comments on The Speech Tuesday night. You'll be happy to know that the #1 voice in conservative America, Rush Limbaugh, talked on his program yesterday about how the two speeches were a matter of style versus substance. Hmmm...where've you heard that before? Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

Anyway, here are some other thoughts on the evening.

Ace of Spades:

Last night Joe Biden was named the enforcer of the stimulus plan because according to Obama, 'nobody messes with Joe'. Today Biden was asked what the address is for the site where people can follow the 'stimulus' spending and hilarity ensued.

Thank God we dodged that idiot Palin as VP, huh?

You know why nobody messes with Joe? Because picking on a retard is wrong.

Clearly, no one has 'messed' with him long enough to educate him on the fact that websites aren't generally referred to by 'number'. But hey, this is the same guy who said 'jobs' was a three-letter word. Give him a break.

Ace also added this, which amuses me greatly:

The press is engaged in a game of endlessly writing "BHO + MSM = TLF" on their book-covers in hopes he might notice them.

Patterico links to some fact-checking (how inconvenient for the Obamessiah). Two good examples of not-so-factual facts in the speech:

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before."

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs."

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of how many jobs would be lost without the stimulus.

Also, an American did not invent the automobile -- a German did (Benz) -- nor did the transcontinental railroad get built during the civil war. But, this is the guy who said there were 57 states in the union. He's a liberal, so facts are negotiable things.

Tevi Troy highlights the inaccuracy of Obama's suggestion that he's already done more for health care than the previous administration.

The Bush administration accomplished a great deal on health care: prescription-drug benefits under Medicare, with choices for seniors; PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency AIDS Relief, which created a new paradigm for foreign aid based on goal-setting and accountability; the improvement and expansion of Community Health Centers, which now serve 16 million Americans; and setting the goal and the path forward for half of Americans to have electronic health records by 2014. President Bush’s domestic health-care efforts had a unifying principle, that of value-driven health care — the use of incentives and new technologies to make patients better and smarter purchasers of health care. I know some conservatives may not like all of these changes, but that does not mean conservatives should let the new president write these developments out of history.

Secretary Leavitt used to call the Bush administration “the most consequential administration with respect to health care in four decades.” Given President Obama’s grandiose pronouncements on health care last night, it is quite possible that his administration could be more consequential — at some point. But not yet, and not based on 35 days, an SCHIP eligibility expansion, $2.1 billion for comparative effectiveness, and a still-to-be-written plan for using $20 billion to promote electronic medical records.

Rich Lowry connects some dots and shows how Obama's speech was eerily reminiscent of Clinton's in 1993.

A keen-eyed friend pointed out to me the similarity between Clinton's 1993 joint-session speech and Obama's last night. My friend was struck about how much more forthcoming and specific Clinton was about his budget plans than Obama was last night. That's true, but I was most struck by the uncanny parallels. If you want to know what Obama is up to, think of Bill Clinton circa 1993, except even more ambitious, (arguably) more talented, and with (for now) no Newt Gingrich in sight. (And, of course, with every number with another couple of zeroes on it).

Hit the link for the full details.

Finally, Ed Morissey at Hot Air addresses the key for the Right to understand:

We’re never going to beat Obama on style points; he’s just too good of a speaker. Republicans need to beat him on ideas, and Jindal did about as well as anyone could in doing so.

That's a great point. Our ideas must be superior, and we must be able to communicate them well. Even if ours is a more pedestrian presentation, if it is done well people will come over to our side, especially as the Obamessiah's plans begin to exhibit their negative effects. It's all the more reason for Republicans not to sign on to Obama's plans now in the spirit of bipartisanship - they've got to provide a viable alternative because people are going to want one in a couple years.

In short, it's no big shock that the media had a collective orgasm over the speech, while much of the rest of the country -- the thinking, intelligent rubes who actually make the country work -- aren't so impressed.

There's my two cents.

That Magic Wand Is Handy

Get a load of this from David Freddoso:

How will Obama find $2 trillion in savings over the next ten years, as he said he would last night? Easy. As White House spokesman Robert Gibbs hinted today in the White House press briefing, the White House can pretend that we would have otherwise been spending the same amount in Iraq through 2019. When we leave Iraq, we can call the difference "savings."

Here is the exchange that took place:

REPORTER: We were told last night that [the $2 trillion savings pledge] basically refers to two things. One is the expiration of tax cuts on the wealthy that would happen next year; and two is a reduction of what we are currently spending in Iraq.

GIBBS: No, I don't — I — I don't think so at all. It's an end of — it's an end to the commitment and the spending of that money . . .

GIBBS: I think that's — I think that's certainly a decent part of it. I don't know, not having seen — at least not having in front of me the formal documents to know whether that's a hundred percent."

REPORTER: Okay. But let me ask, is it transparent to say that tax increases are part of savings? And is it transparent to say that we're going to be saving that much from Iraq, when nobody expects that 10 years out we would be spending what we're spending today in Iraq? Even the previous administration agreed to get out of Iraq by 2012...

GIBBS: Well, I mean, if we're not spending the money and the money doesn't go out the door and the money doesn't increase the deficit, and the deficit decreases by some amount, ultimately getting you to the president's goal of halving a 1.2 (trillion dollar) to $1.3 trillion deficit in his first four years in office.

REPORTER: But if nobody expects to spend 10 years from now what we're spending today in Iraq, and we use that as our baseline, saying, 'Oh, we're saving because we're not spending what we did 10 years ago,' I mean, isn't that sort of setting up a funny money comparison?

So, basically, Obama's going to wave his magic wand and create some money out of thin air. Sweet. Maybe he can use that same trick to bail out the American taxpayers from the hole he's put us in...unless the wand runs out of batteries again.

There's my two cents.

Tracking Wednesday's Stock Market

So, yesterday I blogged about the latest episode of Obama's words tanking the economy. It almost turned around later in the day, but...well, let's just take a look.


We've already established that Obama is bad for the American economy. Yesterday is a great encapsulation of that fact. We started the day on the residual of his big speech, which sounded pretty but was really a laundry list of socialist promises and programs that Obama can't possibly pay for. Still, Americans are nothing if not optimistic and resilient, so you see the market battle its way back throughout the day. Then, at just before 4pm...what happens?

The White House openly admits its plan to increase taxes on the wealthy, and changes the timeframe of its implementation.

Wow, what a great move! Thank you, Mr. President.

There's my two cents.

Jindal Recovers

Though last night's rebuttal speech from Bobby Jindal was somewhere between lukewarm and abysmal, there was no doubt about his performance on the Today show this morning:

This is the Bobby Jindal that conservatives know and love, not the one from last night. This is what conservatives need to confidently imitate for the next two years.

There's my two cents.

About That Pesky Little Debt Thing...

We recently examined the misinformation around the accusation that Bush inherited a surplus and ran up the national debt, and it's an argument on thin ice.  Still, let's hypothetically say it's a completely valid charge...where does that leave us now, in the aftermath of Obama's ascension...I mean, election?  Right about here:

"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down."

President Obama
Address to Joint Session of Congress
February 24, 2009

You have to admit.
The man has nerve.
Democrats want to push the blame for the enormous national debt on George W. Bush.
But, in reality, Obama and Democrats will likely quadruple the national debt in the first few months of their rule:

Chart via RedState

And, despite the headlines about cutting debt--
They want to spend much more of your money on their pet projects.

By the way... Democrats have already spent twice as much as the cost of the War in Iraq.
They are likely to spend 6 times as much as the total cost of the Iraq War this before they are through with their bailouts.
The "deficit they inherited" is a drop in the bucket to what they are doing to this economy.
But, don't expect the media to point this out.

So, the reality is that for Obama and the Democrats to hammer on Bush and the Republicans for running up the national debt is something like a 5-year meth user scolding a kid for smoking pot a couple times.

HOPE!  CHANGE!!!

On a related note, the House today passed Obama's omnibus spending bill.  Yes, that's right...the one with 9,000 earmarks in it.  Fox News via Gateway Pundit:

The Democratic-controlled House approved $410 billion legislation Wednesday that boosted domestic programs, bristled with earmarks and chipped away at policies left behind by the Bush administration.

The vote was 245-178, largely along party lines.

Republicans assailed the measure as too costly -- particularly on the heels of a $787 billion stimulus bill that President Barack Obama signed last week. But Democrats jabbed back.

"The same people who drove the economy into the ditch are now complaining about the size of the tow truck," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass., pointing out the large increase in deficits that President George W. Bush and GOP-controlled Congresses amassed.

Perhaps so, but would it be okay to complain about the Democrats quadrupling the depth of the ditch?

HOPE!  CHANGE!!!

There's my two cents.

Link Roundup

This link roundup is a day late due to the big speeches last night, but they're still chock full of great content.  Check it out!

Here in America:

• Eco-warriors waste more energy.
  
• The need for ancient wisdom and values.
  
• How not to endorse Palin.
  
• American press surrenders.
• Lutherans beware.
  
• Hawaiian independence and reparations?!
  
• Russ Feingold, the Constitution Slayer.
  
• Tea party, USA.
  
• Debunking FOCA.
• Racist idiocy and chimpanzees.
• GOP proposes spending freeze (donkeys ignore, at least so far).
  

Economic madness (i.e. news):

• Good news: welfare for millionaires has now been established!
  
• Awaiting the awakening of the Forgotten Man.
  
• Some interesting numbers on poverty.
  
• Who were the real big spenders?
• Pennies from heaven.
• The nationalization of Citi draws closer...
  
• ...So does the nationalization of other banks.
  
• Most Americans oppose all bailouts, period.
  

Obamessiah news:

• Obama to Britain: I've no use for your historical hero.
  
• Obama stiffs Chicago.
  
• Obama approves of terrorist takeover in Somalia.
  
• Obama promises immigration reform (translation: amnesty) is coming.
• Senator questions Obama's birth origin.
• Where's the hopemonger?
  

Around the world:

• Hard times in the U.K.
  
• Anti-Semitism and the Muslim threat in Sweden.
  
• No global perception gains in post-Bush era.
  
• Democrats: secret ballot OK for Mexico, not for U.S.
  

Good stuff!

Those With 'Skin In The Game' Not Impressed

Remember when Obama suggested that all Americans should have some 'skin in the game', thus justifying his socialistic agenda of redistributing wealth?  Well, what do the people who have 'skin in the game' right now (i.e. investors on Wall Street) think of his speech last night?

The media sure loved the socialist big government speech last night by Dear Leader.
Unfortunately, the markets didn't.
Reuters reported:

The tone was set early by disappointment President Barack Obama shed little new light about how his administration would stabilize the economy in a major speech before Congress.

It looks like another Barry Market day.
Will Obama and Democrats bust below that 7,000 ceiling? We'll see:

Stocks were down this morning by 150 points or 2% today.

Maybe the markets were reacting to the Democrat's promise to raise taxes on the rich? Or, maybe it was the talk about raising taxes on businesses? It might have been the promise to spend billions more on another pork-laden bill?
Who knows?

At the moment I'm writing this, the market is down about 125 points.

Obama speaks = market tanks.

The consistency continues.

There's my two cents.

Stephen Spruiell reports on some of Obama's words at the economic summit from earlier this week:

His remarks just now at the Federal Budget Summit featured two priorities and one glaring omission:

More honest accounting: Obama said the key to getting the deficit under control is to account honestly for money that the government spends each year off its books. Among other things, that means putting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan into the regular budget, rather than funding them through emergency appropriations. This approach has potential benefits and drawbacks. On one hand, the war supplemental has become a vehicle for off-budget pork-barrel spending, and putting it into the regular defense budget will take away some opportunities for congressional mischief. On the other hand, the previous administration feared that if it put the war money into the DOD's baseline, any attempt to reduce that inflated number would be attacked as a cut in defense spending — i.e., the wars would end, but the extra $150 billion a year would stay in the DOD's budget. This possibility doesn't concern me at this point. Obama is desperate to cut the budget somewhere, and his advisers have mentioned that they will pay for their new domestic spending in part by winding down the war in Iraq.

But for all of Obama's talk about honest accounting, he said nothing in his speech about the government's biggest accounting trick: its failure to correctly account for its long-term Social Security and Medicare liabilities the way a private company would account for similar liabilities. Former CBO economist Kent Smetters recently told NPR that if the present-value shortfalls in the funding for these two programs were properly accounted for, that would add $2 trillion to the deficit this year alone. I seriously doubt that Obama is going to start accounting for liabilities of that magnitude on the government's books.

A line-by-line audit of government programs: Obama repeated his campaign pledge to go through the federal budget line by line looking for savings, and offered the recent streamlining of a few Department of Agriculture programs as evidence that he is serious about this promise. His claims would have more merit, of course, if he hadn't voted for a monstrous $300 billion farm bill last year. He also stressed the importance of sticking with congressional PAYGO rules, even though his own party has thrown those rules out the window whenever convenient since reinstituting them two years ago.

No mention of tax increases: We've gotten wind of Obama's planned tax increases through various news reports — so far as we know, he will let the Bush tax cuts on the top two brackets expire and keep the estate tax rather than letting it expire as planned — but he decided to downplay these tax hikes this afternoon.

Of course, all of this talk would probably be a lot more effective if Obama paid his own bills:

President Obama just finished up his opening remarks at a “fiscal responsibility” summit to address skyrocketing budget deficits.

How about paying your own damn bills first, Mr. President?

There’s yet another new report of Obama campaign/DNC unpaid bills — this one from Springfield, Illinois. Obama owes the city at least $65,000 for overtime and other costs.

That’s in addition to the nearly $2 million Obama still owes the city of Chicago.

And the $24,000 Obama owes the city of Philadelphia.

Deadbeatonomics for He, but not for thee.

Of course...that's the two sets of rules that liberals always play by! Aren't you used to it by now?

There's my two cents.

Just Keep Spending...

Here are just a few of the 9,000 earmarks in that new spending bill (not the one that just got signed into law - the Theft/Pork bill...I'm talking about the next one coming up):

* $200,000 for “Tattoo Removal Violence Prevention Outreach Program,” pg. 283;

*Maine lobster earmark in the omnibus, pg. 173;

*$5.8 million earmark for the “Ted Kennedy Institute for the Senate…for the planning and design of a building & an endowment,” pg. 232;

*and National Council of La Raza, $473,000 earmark from Sens. Bingaman and Menendez, pg. 212.

Clearly, all of those things are very important items for which taxpayers should shell out some bucks, don't you think? I'm sure we'll hear even more wonderful pork projects that our money will be spent on in the coming days.

Also, did you know that AIG is back for another bailout? Yep, it looks like they're following in GM's footsteps in coming back for seconds. Let's see...what was that about one-time infusions of cash again? Seems like some certain people have been predicting that bailouts weren't the way to go...but who's keeping track?

There's my two cents.

Hope-n-Change Hypocrisy: Lobbyists

Some illumination on the role of lobbyists...before and after the election:

There's my two cents.

The Speech And Response

If you care to read the transcript of the Obamessiah's speech, go here. Bobby Jindal's response is here.

Below are some links where you can check out some of the professional analysis of Obama's speech. The general consensus I'm seeing at this point is that Obama knocked the ball out of the park in terms of delivery. It's obvious that the guy is a tremendously good speech-giver. The problem is what he says - he can't possibly deliver it, nor is it even realistic. Here are a couple examples:

[W]hat the president promises to do simply cannot be done, because the costs are so staggeringly high that the economy cannot bear all or even most of them absent the sort of renewed economic growth that soaring tax rates will snuff out.

The problem with President Obama's agenda is that it is built on serial fantasies, fantasies which ignore the real benefits of things such as nuclear power and oil exploration. The president's talk was well phrased and beautifully delivered, and deeply disconnected from the realities of economic growth.

And...

We will have the world's highest college graduation rate by 2020 because Obama has told the youth of America that "it is no longer an option to drop out" of school and that it is their patriotic duty to commit at least one year to some form of post-high school education. Along the way, we will find the cure for cancer. And as for our national security, Obama "won't allow terrorists to plot against us." This overly ambitious goal -- more audacious than that of President Bush who merely wanted to make sure we weren't attacked -- will be achieved at no cost to anyone's civil liberties.

And...

Obama has won the office; now he needs to do something with it.

The problem with governing is that he will now have to take responsibility for his decisions. Obama is committed to policies that will damage our economy, run up trillions of dollars in debt, increase taxes, cause inflation, make the nation less competitive, feed unproductive Democratic Party constituencies at the expense of the "real" economy, and make the United States weaker abroad. He can give any number of speeches, and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their cohorts will applaud. But reality will not yield so easily.

It was good to finally hear some positive notions about this great country, but it's troubling that there is still such a mammoth disconnect between what he says and what he plans to do. I can't help but point out again the example mentioned above: Obama points out that we depend on more imported oil than ever before, but it is undisputedly the Democrats -- including Obama himself, in just the past couple weeks -- who have prevented all attempts at increasing our domestic energy supply. The speech was chock full of fallacies just like this, on topics from the Theft/Pork bill to tax cuts to wasteful spending to housing to the auto industry to banking...and on and on. The common pattern that emerged was for him to mention a problem area, pledge to spend huge amounts of money to fix it, and then neglect to indicate how he'll pay for those expenditures. That's just not reality - at some point, those IOUs will come due, and we won't be able to pay them. The disconnect is shocking for anyone with more than a quarter of a working brain.

Nevertheless, that's how he campaigned for two years, that's how he's been governing for the past month, and there's no reason to think he'll change. He is truly a master of doublethink. Once upon a time we had a media who would prevent any politician from getting away with that kind of revisionism, but not anymore. Even worse is the fact that there are so many people out there who don't bother to think past his words to the meaning or ramifications behind those flowery words. We have a lot of work to do in the next two years!

Bobby Jindal's response was a mixed bag. In terms of delivery, he wasn't nearly as polished as Obama. Particularly in the beginning, it was very obvious that he was reading text off a prompter - it was flat, dull, and rushed. The further in he got, however, it seemed that he began talking rather than speaking. That's one of his strengths, and once he began conversing it got much better. There were two things that I appreciated most: first, that he didn't shy away from condemning the pathetic waffling of the GOP over the past few years. Without acknowledging the previous problems, the GOP won't be able to overcome them. Second, Jindal speaks from experience - when he talks about the triumphant American spirit, he's lived it. When he talks about cutting taxes and implementing transparency, he's already done it in Louisiana. When he talks about getting past the party to serve the people, he's made it happen. This is the kind of leadership that we need, now more than ever.

Watching these two speeches is most definitely a case of style versus substance. The question is: which would you prefer in your government?

There's my two cents.


Links:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/f845bd1b-f30b-4dad-9429-5ed1b5afa7cc
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022923.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022922.php
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjFiYTFjMGQ5N2NiNDc5NDQ4ZDZjNGEzMjdkMzRjZGY=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWU2YjQxNjMzNmIyYWVhNTliZjQ0MWViM2FjNmE5NzU=
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/barack-obama-addressed-joint-session-of.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/24/bobby-jindal-and-the-expectations-game/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmEyZjY0YThlM2NhOGZkZmQ1ZWQxNWM0MDFiMTJiM2Y=
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmI1NGZlNGJmZjI0OGRkZjFiNzM4NGM3OGZiN2RjZmQ=
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/bobby-jindal-rocks-rebuttal.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/24/video-jindals-awful-rebuttal/

Denzel Rocks

I knew there was a reason I liked Denzel Washington!  In addition to being a top-notch actor, he's also a true patriot.  I got this e-mail from a friend recently:

Don't know whether you heard about this but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troops at Brook Army Medical Center, in San Antonio, Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers who have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the United States, especially burn victims. There are some buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a Hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying on base, but as you can imagine, they are almost filled most of the time.

While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one of them would cost to build. He took his checkbook out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it.

The question is: why do Brad Pitt, Madonna, Tom Cruise and other Hollywood fluff make front page news with their ridiculous antics and Denzel Washington's patriotism doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the local newspaper in San Antonio?

That is truly an injustice.  But, that's the media we have nowadays, and all the more reason we should go ahead and stop paying attention to them.

Thank you, Mr. Washington, for your generous gift to the men, women, and families who sacrifice so much to keep us safe and free.

There's my two cents.

Biden Linked To Latest Multi-Billion Dollar Dem Fraudster

Don't expect more than a whiff of this to hit the mainstream media (if even that), but it's a big deal.  Excerpts from Debbie Schlussel:

[I]t should be headline news that a fund operated by Joe Biden's son, Hunter, and his brother, James, had millions of dollars worth of dealings with Stanford Financial Group and another Stanford-controlled entity. In fact, Stanford entities provided the Bidens the seed money for their business and invested millions in and brought many clients (and their money) to the Bidens' company.

A fund of hedge funds run by two members of Vice President Joe Biden's family was marketed exclusively by companies controlled by Texas financier R. Allen Stanford, who is facing Securities and Exchange Commission accusations of engaging in an $8 billion fraud.

The $50 million fund was jointly branded between the Bidens' Paradigm Global Advisors LLC and a Stanford Financial Group entity and was known as the Paradigm Stanford Capital Management Core Alternative Fund. Stanford-related companies marketed the fund to investors and also invested about $2.7 million of their own money in the fund, according to a lawyer for Paradigm. Paradigm Global Advisors is owned through a holding company by the vice president's son, Hunter, and Joe Biden's brother, James.

A Paradigm marketer, Jeffrey Schneider, confirmed accounts provided by others that he brought in the Stanford business. Stanford would bring clients to the fund and Paradigm would manage it, according to Mr. LoPresti. The fund is mentioned on the Web site of a Stanford entity called Stanford Trust Co. as one of its "investment management strategies."

Mr. LoPresti said Stanford entities put up the $2.7 million in seed money and marketed the fund. SEC records show the fund, which was launched in June 2007, had 104 investors as of Nov. 10, 2008, with assets of $49.8 million. Paradigm Global, of New York, manages portfolios of hedge funds with a total of about $270 million in assets.

The Bidens' 2006 purchase of Paradigm has sparked litigation. In December, James and Hunter Biden settled a lawsuit brought in New York state court by a onetime business partner, Anthony Lotito Jr. Mr. Lotito alleged the Bidens owed him money from the Paradigm purchase. In court filings, he also contended that James Biden asked him to help Hunter Biden, who had been a Washington lobbyist, get into the hedge-fund business. Mr. Lotito alleged that Joe Biden was concerned about the impact his son's lobbying could have on his planned 2008 run for the Democratic presidential nomination. Mr. Biden did run for president but dropped out of the race.

Schlussel raises the first obvious question:

The son and bro of a then-Senator and now-Veep don't just get millions to invest "just 'cuz," especially when the two have zero experience (Hunter Biden was a lobbyist) in the finance arena. It usually has to do with that guy--the Senator/now-Veep, himself.

So, what was Joe Biden's role in all of this?

I would add the second obvious question: what does Biden owe those investors now?

This is the problem that we have with the Obamessiah's entire administration.  They raised half a billion dollars during the campaign, fully half of it through fraud and anonymous (i.e. untraceable) donations.  Although that process is something of the nature of American politics, this was a gross abuse of the system.  The ramifications of that abuse, unfortunately, are completely hidden until the payback takes place, so the American people don't have any idea who holds influence over our President.

The same apparently holds true over our Vice President now, too.

Not a great situation for a country to be in, and certainly not a great fulfillment of all the campaign promises of transparency.

There's my two cents.

Wow, Maybe He Really Is The One!

No, seriously...if he can send a reporter back in time to write a post-speech summary before the speech actually takes place, that's pretty incredible.  Via Ace of Spades:

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 session of 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 for the 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 nearly every member of Congress.

Pre-speech, the White House blitzed the airwaves, talking up Obama's plans but tamping down any expectations of high-flying rhetoric, splashy headlines or fancy new initiatives.

Or, could it be that the media just knows their place as the Obamessiah's propaganda mouthpiece, and has simply turned in the coverage a little bit early? 

Don't think too hard about that one.

Mary Katharine Ham suggests that if this reporter (Jennifer Loven) has access to the future, Obama should put her on his economic team.  Instapundit has documented quite a history of this kind of pre-reporting, if you're interested in time travel.

Ace also offers this:

Breaking! Did we really need this poll to forecast events which will unfold within hours?

"A national poll indicates most Americans think President Obama will give a good speech Tuesday night in his address to a joint session of Congress, but expectations are not as high as they were for his inaugural address."

Good Lord, the media are really rooting for their boyfriend, aren't they? Now they are making sure the public expects him to give a "good speech."

*sigh*

Regardless, it should be interesting to hear the speech tonight.  Perhaps even more interesting will be Rep. Governor Bobby Jindal's response.  I suspect we'll see two wildly contrasting philosophies - one suggesting that responsibility should be on the shoulders of government, and one suggesting that responsibility should be on the shoulders of the individual, the people of America.  And, as it just so happens, that's the most basic difference between liberals and conservatives.  Stay tuned.

There's my two cents.

Finally: A Real, Much-Needed Stimulus!

I can't tell you how much this amuses me:

Har: Firm offers "mental stimulus" to forgetful corruptocrats

By Michelle Malkin  •  February 24, 2009 04:16 PM

I love it. A biotech firm in Wisconsin has stepped up to the plate with its own stimulus — a stimulant for government officials who can't remember to pay their taxes and follow the laws.

Via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

A Madison biotech company is offering what it is calling a mental stimulus package to government officials who forget to pay their taxes.

Quincy Bioscience will provide free bottles of its flagship brain-enhancing supplement, Prevagen, to any member of Congress or the Obama administration who has forgotten to pay taxes during the last 10 years, the company said this morning.

"We're confident that after 30 to 60 days of taking the supplement, most legislators and government officials will recall, without being reminded by aides or reporters, all tax periods for which they have forgotten to pay state or federal income taxes," Quincy Bioscience president Mark Underwood said in a news release.

Prevagen is so effective it also should help most government officials recall when they failed to make Social Security and Medicare contributions for undocumented household workers, Underwood said.

Wonder if it will work on Commerce Secretary picks who can't remember the details of their Chinagate campaign finance scandals?

Isn't it great that some people still have a sense of humor in this country?

Of course, they'll probably never get any federal funding again, but I suppose that when the Feds come knocking at the door about this statement they could just say it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.  Too bad this company isn't publicly traded...I think I'd like to own stock in them.

I also find a great deal of irony in the fact that Prevagen is made primarily from spineless jellyfish.  Hmmm...

There's my two cents.

How Popular Is He Really?

If you're listening to the mainstream media, you probably believe that the Obamessiah walks on water and is universally loved.  Weeeeellllll...not exactly.  Andrew Malcolm reports on the latest Gallup numbers:

One month down, 47 to go.

And Barack Obama's poll numbers have slid almost 10% already. According to the latest Gallup Poll, the new president's approval rating of 68% in January has slipped now to 63%, about average for recent new presidents one month in.

What isn't average, however, is Obama's new disapproval rating -- 24%, or 50% higher than the 16% average for a month-old new presidency.

And it's twice the 12% disapproval rate that Obama had last month.

While liberal and independent support has held fairly steady, the rookie chief executive's approval among Republicans has plunged from 41% to 30%, presumably tied at least somewhat to growing awareness of the spending program. The drop has been especially steep among conservatives, from 36% at inauguration to 22% now.

Additionally, Obama's support has weakened among middle-class Americans, those touted during the campaign as benefiting from his promised tax cuts. Among that working crowd, Obama's approval fell from 69% to 58%. 

Historically, 63-62% approval after a month is about average; Ronald Reagan had the worst at 55%, and Jimmy Carter had the best at 71%. Look how they turned out.

In fact, after 30 days, the Gallup Poll shows Obama has about the same approval rating as did George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, the man whose eight years in office the Illinois senator so often denounced as destructive during the recent campaign.

What's surprising, as the astute Don Surber points out this morning, is that the gap between approval and disapproval is worse now for Obama than it was for the newly departed Texan after his first month. Bush's differential gap was 41 points between approval and disapproval. Obama's is 39 points, still above Bill Clinton, who had the worst differential of 30 points. Carter again had the best after one month of 62. Richard Nixon had 54.

How.  About.  That.

I expect this to be a continuing dichotomy.  As more and more Americans get hammered in real life by Obama's policies, they'll get angry; on the other side of things, though, we have the mainstream media, who will stop at virtually nothing to portray their golden boy as flawless and politically invincible.  At some point, though, we'll reach a critical mass where they just can't spin responsibility away from Obama and the Democrats anymore, and that's when things will come crashing down.  The question, then, becomes not if, but when.  If the GOP gets their act together, it will be sooner rather than later.  And that's good, because we simply can't afford to let Obama get his entire agenda for the next 8 years.

There's my two cents.


***Update***
It appears the numbers today are slightly worse than those used by Malcolm for the article above:

For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.

The Obamessiah's Speech And Optimism

Barack the Obamessiah is giving a big speech on the economy tonight which should be a barrel of monkeys:

Aides say the speech, which will have a heavy focus on the economy, will try and strike an optimistic tone. That's a sign Obama has heard the criticism, including from former President Bill Clinton, that he needs to mix sober talk with an upbeat bottom line.

"He believes we will meet these challenges and lift ourselves out of this," one top aide said of the recession. "He will say, 'The best days are ahead of us.'"

The aides said foreign policy will be touched on lightly in the speech so that the president can focus largely on the economy and related issues, including health care, education, and energy.

Aides stressed the speech will be "thematic" and thus will not get into much detail on the president's plans to deal with the credit crunch and housing crisis.

Hm. A non-detailed speech that will "try" to strike an optimistic tone?

Haven't they tried that before?

I'm glad he will attempt optimism in this speech, but I have my doubts as to whether it will work because I do not believe Barack Obama is an optimistic man at heart. Sure, he sometimes mouths optimistic platitudes, but his entire campaign was based on the assumption that something was wrong with America and only his election would heal the country. That's not optimism, it's conceit.

Since winning the presidency, Obama has flailed a bit because it's hard to run a country on the vision of not being George W. Bush. As we've seen from the market, part of the skittishness of investors is because of the doom and gloom talk on the part of this administration. We'll see if the president can change that tonight, or whether he'll just keep trying to blame the previous administration for the economy's ills.

Update - Volfan, in the comments, brings up a good point. The non-optimistic talk isn't the only thing wrong with Obama's 'cures' for the economy. It's this:

The joint address to Congress, similar to a State of the Union speech, which presidents traditionally give in subsequent years of their administration, is also Obama's first chance for a formal roll out of nuts-and-bolts policy.

He is set to address healthcare, climate change, energy and education, as he argues that the size of the crisis means his key agenda items are more, not less important than they would have been in sunny economic times.

Obama has already driven a 787-billion-dollar stimulus plan through Congress, unveiled a 275-billion-dollar foreclosure plan and tried, so far unsuccessfully, to steady the banking industry.

We have a serious economic crisis and he's being opportunistic. Is that what passes for leadership these days?

For the Democrats, yes, it is.  I've got to admit that Bill Clinton is right on this one - Obama needs to be more optimistic, at least in his rhetoric.  Clinton had similar socialist designs as Obama when he was President, as well as a similar talent for moving speeches and triumphant appearances.  But, Clinton also realized that America runs on good feelings.  When people feel confident and safe, they spend money, create jobs, and produce like crazy.  That's what makes America great, and has for a very long time.  Even while trying to implement things that would hurt the economy (like his huge tax increase in 1993), Clinton spoke of better days ahead for America, and of how America would overcome all the hurdles in front of it.

Obama has yet to figure that out.

His lame best efforts so far include some utterly forgettable empty nonsense about how we hoped for change, but that things will get far worse before they get better.  In fact, he's gone out of his way to talk down everything about this country from day one (or, if you want to be particular, from way back on the campaign trail).  It's no wonder, then, we're seeing economic turbulence and plummeting markets on a daily basis.  Guess what?  Rasmussen tells us of a new record low:

For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Investor Index on Tuesday shows investor confidence falling to a record low.

At 54.5, the Investor Index is down five points from a week ago, 13 points from a month ago, and 47 from a year ago.

Just 6% of Investors say the economy is in good or excellent shape while 67% rate it as poor. A year ago, just 32% rated the economy as poor.

If we're talking about investment as the key to jump-starting the economy, this is a major, major problem:

Investor confidence is low enough that 37% would put new investment money in a savings account. Just 27% would opt for a real estate investment and only 16% are eyeing the stock market.

As I've said before, I suspect this constant negativity is intentional.  Without substantial depression and panic from the American people, his socialist reforms will never be accepted; if enough Americans are desperate enough, they'll grab at anything proposed by anyone who promises to help them out.

This is what Obama calls leadership.

Unfortunately, reality calls it a recipe for disaster.

There's my two cents.

Nixon Has No Problem With Generational Theft

It would be refreshing to hear such openness and honesty from our Democrat Governor if it wasn't done with such a cavalier attitude toward mortgaging our children's and granchildren's future. Observe for yourself:

Wow. What great news for Missourians. Or, more accurately, for our kids and grandkids.

There's my two cents.

A Comment Response

A reader named "DG" left me a comment last night that I wanted to respond to in a full post. Here's the text of the comment:

I love how all the conservatives like to blame every problem on the democrats. Here is what I have the hardest time with. The Conseratives had a budget SURPLUS in 2001. They had control of every branch of government until 2006 yet somehow the SURPLUS turned into a massive deficit that is now at a trillion dollars a year. I'm sure that is entirely the democrats fault somehow, but I'm curious. I'm not dumb enough to blam all our problems on the republicans, but I certainly see them more at fault than the Dem's given they have had the power the whole time this mess was brewing and did nothing to stop it. Now Obama takes over and you refuse to give him any chance to try something new. Its really funny to watch your party go the way of the dinosaur.

DG, I suggest you be a bit more careful with your overgeneralizations.

First, that whole Clinton surplus thing is a bit...well...misunderstood. It was caused largely by factors that no one had any control over - the dot com boom and the end of the cold war; certainly not by anything Clinton did. Second, it was never a real surplus, anyway - it was just a projection based on wildly unrealistic estimates. (reference here)

Furthermore, the deficit had been cut to $165 billion in 2007, partly through Bush's tax cuts. In fact, right up until the housing crisis we were on a pace toward a balanced budget. And yes, the housing meltdown was, in fact, caused primarily by Democrats -- take your pick of links here, here, here, here, here, here, or here to justify that one -- who started the irresponsible lending policies that eventually tanked Fannie and Freddie, perpetuated those policies for decades, and repeatedly prevented Republicans from pushing through reforms in the past five years, when the meltdown was actively being predicted. Throughout it all, Democrats vehemently protested that there was nothing wrong at Fannie or Freddie...right up until the collapse.

So, I don't accept your premise of the GOP turning a huge surplus into a huge deficit.

However, I level the charge of hypocrisy at Democrats often enough that I feel compelled to show my own lack of it on this matter, and the chance to set the record straight is never wasted.

Your overall point is an extremely valid one - the Republicans did have control of the White House and Congress for six years, and they spent like Democrats. In short, they blew it. History shows us the Dems typically spend a lot, but history also shows us that Reps do not. The current bunch (starting from President Bush, who didn't veto a single spending bill until his second term, on down throughout Congress) failed to keep things in check, and paid the electoral price for their foolishness. It is for precisely that reason that I believe the GOP has lost the past two elections badly - they failed miserably on at least one of the biggest issues of their core constituencies, and the base threw them to the wolves. Justifiably, in my opinion; I almost registered as an Independent myself. If the GOP doesn't get back to its conservative roots, I will in the near future.

But, if you'd bothered to take a spin around this blog, DG, you would have seen that I have often verbally hammered the loser Republicans (like Kit Bond, in my home state of Missouri) who have been guilty of such gross negligence in fiscal responsibility. I have not tried to sugar coat what they've done over the past few years, nor have I pretended that the GOP is guiltless. So, before you accuse me of slanting things purely by party, you might want to do your homework.

If you're referring to my constant donkey bashing on the more recent events, then you would actually be correct - this is a completely Democrat disaster. There is no stretch of the imagination that would indicate bipartisan support for Obama's stimulus or other spending plans; even if you count the three GOP Senators who gave him the keys to the kingdom, there were seven Dems in the House who opposed it. By my calculator, that still adds up more in my favor than yours. So, the current madness is all Democrat, my friend. Admit it, live it, breathe it, and own it. It is theirs, as is the sum total of the political and economic fallout, and I will proclaim that fact loudly and often in the coming months to remind everyone reading this blog who is to blame because I believe that these Democrat measures are going to cause extreme hardship for millions of Americans. They already are, in fact, as you can plainly see with a quick glance at the stock market and all manner of investments. The blame game isn't just a petty finger-pointing thing, either - it is essential to understand who enacted these economically disastrous measures so the American voters know who to send home in the next election. That's how our system works, so I'm all in.

One last point. You mentioned that we are refusing to let Obama try anything new. Now that's funny! Obama is proposing an almost identical method and plan as what FDR did back in the 1930s! I've spent considerable time delving into those details, so I won't rehash them again here. Suffice it to say that those ideas didn't work 75 years ago, and they won't work today. In fact, it is precisely because these policy ideas are proven failures that conservatives are vehemently opposed to them - we don't have to speculate on whether or not they would fail, we know they will. If Obama could come up with anything new, I'd be happy to entertain it, but he hasn't done that.

Once again, I suggest you do a little more homework before you accuse someone else of blind opposition simply for the sake of opposition, but thanks for the opportunity to address your comment!

There's my two cents.

The District: Another Democrat Power Grab

The Heritage Foundation sends out this message today:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States ... No Person shall be a Representative who shall not ... when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

- Article I of the United States Constitution

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.

- Article VI of the United States Constitution

For all of its many ambiguities, on the matter of whether the residents of the District of Columbia can vote in the House of Representatives, the United States Constitution is crystal clear: no. In 2000 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed this truth, writing: "The Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives." The Supreme Court later affirmed that decision.

Despite the clarity of the law, Senate leaders have scheduled a vote today on S. 160, which would create two new seats in the House of Representatives and give one of them to the District of Columbia. The new fig leaf the left is using to push this blatantly unconstitutional measure is the argument that Art.1 sec. 8's grant to Congress to exercise "exclusive Legislation" over the District, gives them the power to grant the District a seat in the House. Heritage fellow Hans von Spakovsky exposes how specious this claim is:

The Constitution's provision giving Congress the power to run the affairs of the District of Columbia — the seat of the nation's capitol — doesn't wipe out other parts of the document. Congress could not, for example, restrict the First Amendment rights of District residents.

Furthermore, the very same section of the Constitution also applies to "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards" and other federal properties. But it would be ridiculous to assert, on the basis of that text, that Congress has the power to award House seats to an army base, federal office building, or Navy pier.

Conservatives are not alone in pointing out what a blatant violation of the Constitution S. 160 would be. Liberal constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley writes:

It would be ridiculous to suggest that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention or ratification conventions would have worked out such specific and exacting rules for the composition of Congress, only to give the majority of Congress the right to create a new form of voting members from federal enclaves like the District. It would have constituted the realization of the worst fears for many delegates, particularly Anti-Federalists, to have an open-ended ability of the majority to manipulate the rolls of Congress and to use areas under the exclusive control of the federal government as the source for new voting members.

Some Senators appear to believe they can in good conscience vote for explicitly unconstitutional legislation if they include a provision in the bill that allows a Member of Congress to challenge the law in court. But such a provision would only clear statutory standing. Any plaintiff would also have to muster constitutional standing and as Heritage scholars Andrew Grossman and Nathaniel Ward detail, Congress has the power to play political games with voting in the House to prevent such a suit from ever happening.

Members of Congress take an oath to defend the Constitution. This makes them duty bound to oppose any legislation that is unconstitutional. It would be a black eye on the entire Congress if they chose political expediency over their solemn promise to the American people.

The only reason for Congress to do this now is to make Democrat power that much more entrenched.  Washington, DC is one of the most liberal areas in the country, and it is a virtual guarantee that no Republican will ever take office in those elected seats.  It's nothing more than another power grab on the part of liberal Leftist Democrats who are seeking to acquire and hold as much power as possible, for as long as possible.

There's my two cents.

Here's Your Chance To Offer The RNC Your Opinion

The Republican National Committee is asking for ideas from the grassroots base of the party. Whether you're tickled pink or extremely aggravated, go here to offer your thoughts to the wizards of smart in the GOP.

Get cracking!

The Coming Republican Leadership

It's good to hear the right things coming from the new Republican leadership. First, let's look at the new RNC chair, Michael Steele, on the subject of the three RINOs who enabled the Obamessiah's horrifically bad economic non-stimulus 'stimulus' bill:

Gateway Pundit observes that the voters of those states (Maine, Pennsylvania) were waiting for this. I'm not quite as confident - the GOP voters in those states have kept all three of them in office despite their track record of supporting the donkeys more often than not. I certainly hope they'll be sent packing, but it still remains to be seen. The point here, though, is that the RNC appears to be genuinely focused on bringing back fiscal conservatism, and is willing to help challengers who fit the bill against old-timer RINOs. Very good news, indeed!

Next, take a look at Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal at a press conference of Governors. He sums up in two minutes the bulk of what was wrong with the Theft/Pork bill:

Yes, this is why Republicans are crazy about him. He is very intelligent without sounding elitist, his numbers and facts are at the ready, his speaks simply and effectively, and he encapsulates the issue completely but quickly, and in a way that really frames the debate.

Combined with his track record of proven conservatism and anti-corruption, Jindal would be an outstanding candidate for higher office in 2012. We can only hope he'll step forward.

There's my two cents.