Archive for April, 2009
Post Press Conference
Thursday, April 30th, 2009Tadas Signs with Davenport University LAX
Thursday, April 30th, 2009
Where are jobs created? Ever wonder why?
Thursday, April 30th, 2009
Why can’t workers just have the freedom to choose? Why must there be forced/compulsory union membership in some states?
22 states have given workers a choice…you could call it an “employee’s freedom of choice act”…but labor bosses have hijacked that term in their attempt to jam “card check” legislations through the U.S. Congress.
Get the facts about Right to Work…how many more jobs is Michigan willing to lose before we act…fight for change?
Independents side with Republicans
Thursday, April 30th, 2009
The Great State of Michigan – We’ll be back!
Thursday, April 30th, 2009
|
After First 100 Days up 4%
Wednesday, April 29th, 2009
The End of Conservatism?
Monday, April 27th, 2009April 27, 2009
The End of Conservatism?
Heritage Lecture #1120
|
The modern conservative movement began as a Remnant with Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov; grew into an intellectual movement with Friedrich Hayek, Richard Weaver, and Russell Kirk; blossomed into a political movement with William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater; burst into full bloom as a governing movement with Ronald Reagan and The Heritage Foundation and other organizations; succumbed to hubris with Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay; imploded under George W. Bush and the neoconservatives; and is now wondering whether it is headed for the ash heap of history. Let us begin our examination of the state of American conservatism with a little history. Forty-five years ago, Lyndon Baines Johnson won the presidency in a landslide, receiving 61 percent of the popular vote and carrying 44 states for a total of 486 electoral votes. Johnson’s coattails were long and wide: Democrats wound up with a two-to-one majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives– the largest Democratic majority in the House since the high point of the New Deal. The political historian Theodore White concluded that “the elections of 1964 had left the Republican party in desperate condition.”[1] Because Barry Goldwater had run a defiantly conservative campaign from beginning to end, most political experts were quick to second White’s bleak assessment of Republicanism and go him one better with regard to the state of American conservatism. Walter Lippmann, the preeminent pundit of the day, wrote that the returns disproved “there is a great latent majority of ‘conservative’ Republicans.” Author-journalist Robert J. Donovan said that if Republicans are seen to be “the voice of right-wing radicalism,” they “will remain a minority party indefinitely.” The New York Times’s James Reston summed up that “Barry Goldwater not only lost the presidential election…but the conservative cause as well.”[2] Conservatives dismissed this doomsday analysis. Ronald Reagan, fresh from his widely hailed national television address on behalf of Goldwater, wrote that the landslide majority did not vote against conservatism but against “a false image” of conservatism that “our liberal opponents successfully mounted.” Frank Meyer, the politically astute senior editor of National Review, pointed out that despite the caricature of the conservative cause as “extremist, radical, nihilist, anarchic,” two-fifths of the voters voted for the conservative alternative to liberalism.[3] Meyer’s implication was clear: You can build a powerful political movement on a foundation of 27 million true believers. So who was proved more correct in their assessment of the returns–Walter Lippmann or Ronald Reagan? From Goldwater to Reagan Reviled and rejected in 1964 as no other presidential candidate in the 20th century–one magazine cover screamed that he was “psychologically unfit” to be President–Barry Goldwater was easily reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1968 while the President who buried him in an historic landslide dared not seek reelection. Looking back, we can see that the 1964 election results and the 1965 passage of the Great Society into law marked the apogee of modern liberalism. In 1966, the Republican Party, led by Goldwater conservatives, gained 47 seats in the House of Representatives and three seats in the Senate. Fifteen years after the so-called Goldwater debacle, Ronald Reagan announced that he would again seek the Republican nomination for President. The immediate reaction of the punditocracy was that Reagan was too old–he was nearly 69–too conservative, and too dumb to be President. How could anyone who had hosted a TV program called “Death Valley Days” cope with the multifaceted responsibilities of the leader of the free world? The New Republic characterized Reagan as an “ex-movie actor, darling of the rabid right…an international innocent, and an economic extremist.” Sociologist Robert Coles called the prospect of Reagan winning the GOP nomination “preposterous,” while James Conaway wrote in the Atlantic Monthly that among the news media, the idea of Reagan as President “was more than [they] could bear.”[4] Yet, a decade later, when Ronald Reagan left the White House, historians and politicians poured forth a stream of encomiums about his presidency, citing the restoration of Americans’ confidence in themselves, the impressive economic recovery, and the end of the Cold War at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield. Summing up his presidency after his death, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Edmund Morris said, “We know his greatness as a president by what we don’t see today…. Where is the Soviet Union? Where is the double-digit inflation? Where is the national malaise?” “On foreign policy,” remarked Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy, “[Reagan] will be honored as the president who won the Cold War.” Still, not everyone sang Reagan’s praises. The Reagan legacy, said Nobel Prize economist James Tobin, was “a crippled federal government.” “I don’t think history has any reason to be kind to him,” said CBS’s Morley Safer. So who was more correct in their assessment, Morley Safer or Edward Kennedy? American conservatism has undoubtedly suffered steep ups and downs in the post-World War II period. Indeed, it seemed on the edge of extinction after the crushing defeat of Goldwater in 1964, after Reagan’s failure to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 1976, and after Bill Clinton’s “Third Way” victory in 1992, but each time conservatism rose from the ashes like the fabled phoenix. A New Era for Conservatives? Today, liberal pundits and historians are at it again. Amnesic as ever, they are saying that in the wake of last November’s elections, American conservatism is headed for the ash heap of history. The country is no longer “America the conservative,” asserted senior editor John Judis of The New Republic, but “America the liberal.” Barely able to contain herself, the editor of The Nation trumpeted that the election of Barack Obama marked “the collapse of conservatism.” Barack Obama’s victory signaled more than “the end of an era of Republican presidential dominance and conservative ideology,” stated one-time conservative Michael Lind; “it may mark the beginning of a Fourth Republic of the United States.”[5] Lind’s conclusion that the era of conservatism was ended and America was at the beginning of an era of “Hamiltonian centralization and reform” was seconded not only by euphoric liberals, but by anxious conservatives ready to chart a new course even if they were uncertain about the destination. Former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards has called for a return to the libertarian philosophy of Barry Goldwater. The villain behind the collapse of conservatism, Edwards says, was the coupling of Big Government conservatives and the Religious Right. Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson states that we need compassionate conservatism to confront global AIDS, combat U.S. poverty, and promote human rights abroad. Saying that conservatism without idealism is dead, he lists his heroes: William Lloyd Garrison, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Paul II–a quartet that has yet to make an appearance at the annual CPAC or the Southern Baptist Convention. Commentator Patrick J. Buchanan lambastes arrogant neoconservatives and greedy Wall Streeters for leading us astray and sets forth an America First platform. Cato’s David Boaz invokes a plague on both Big Government conservatives and liberals and says that choice is the key–whether you’re choosing a church, a school, or a lifestyle. Let us be clear about one thing: Republicans lost in 2008 and 2006 not because they ran on conservative ideas but because they ran awayfrom conservative ideas. Needed: An Inclusive Constitutional Conservatism So what is to be done? I suggest that what is now needed is a politics of inclusion, not exclusion–no casting out of social conservatives or neoconservatives or any other kind of conservative, but a renewed fusionism that will unite all the branches of the now-divided conservative mainstream. I believe that a rejuvenated fusionism can do this by blending the concepts of liberty and order, individual freedom and responsibility, limited government and a strong national defense just as the Founding Fathers did with the checks and balances of the Constitution. Frank Meyer, the author of the original fusionism and an avowed libertarian, stated that the core principle of his theory was that “the freedom of the person [is] the central and primary end of political society.” The state has only three limited functions: national defense, the preservation of domestic order, and the administration of justice between citizens.[6] But Meyer argued that religious and traditional precepts were needed to undergird freedom, which could not exist on the relativist-materialistic premises of modern thought. In the American experience, liberty and faith are joined, not separated as the secularists have long argued. Such a constitutional conservatism, in the words of my colleague Matthew Spalding, will unite all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It will remind economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, cultural conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to the nation’s well-being and proper place in the world.[7] What all the brave new proposals by anxious conservatives lack is an understanding of the history of modern American conservatism. So how has conservatism survived crisis after crisis for more than 50 years and each time emerged with renewed strength and momentum? Was it luck? Divine intervention? Well, I believe in providence, but I also believe in free will. Was each conservative recovery simply part of the pendulum syndrome that Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., suggested dominates American politics, swinging left for a generation or so, then right, then left again, ad infinitum? Or is the continuing success and durability of American conservatism due to the conscious acts of individual men and women operating on certain fundamental principles over the course of the past five decades? The Conservative Ascendancy Herein, I believe, lies the central reason for the viability of the conservative movement, guided by principles such as limited constitutional government, free enterprise, and traditional American values based on our Judeo-Christian heritage. The movement has been fortunate–I might even say blessed–to have been led by a remarkable group of philosophers, popularizers, politicians, and philanthropists. First came the men of ideas, intellectuals and philosophers like Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian-born classical liberal; Russell Kirk, the Midwestern traditionalist; and Whittaker Chambers, the one-time Communist spy turned anticommunist champion. Next came the men of interpretation, the journalists and popularizers like the polymath William F. Buckley Jr., the columnist and television commentator George Will, and the radio talkmeister Rush Limbaugh. Last came the men of action, the politicians and policymakers, led by what I call the Four Misters: “Mr. Republican,” Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio; “Mr. Conservative,” Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona; “Mr. President,” Ronald Reagan; and “Mr. Speaker,” Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich. But the philosophers would not have been able to write their books and the popularizers would not have been able to publish their magazines and the politicians would not have been able to run their campaigns without the support of conservative philanthropists–men of means and vision–such as Sun Oil Company’s J. Howard Pew, who gave the Intercollegiate Studies Institute its first $1,000; Colorado beer baron Joseph Coors, whose $250,000 investment enabled The Heritage Foundation to open its doors; and California oilman Henry Salvatori, who put up much of the money for Ronald Reagan’s TV address for Barry Goldwater. And I must mention another funding father, Richard Viguerie, who perfected the craft of direct-mail political fund-raising. Viguerie and his followers have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for causes and candidates, without which the conservative movement would be a pale shadow of itself. The conservative ascendancy was also helped by the decline and fall of American liberalism, its swift descent marked by a telltale shift from concern for the common man and Middle America to preoccupation with minorities and special interests. Conservatives triumphed in the 1980s and 1990s when their movement contained all the elements necessary for political success: a clear, consistent philosophy; a broad-based national constituency; a sound financial base; proficiency in the mass media; and charismatic, principled leadership. They were also helped by a sixth factor–an atmosphere of crisis. In 1980, Americans were sharply aware that the nation required leaders who could cope with critical problems like inflation, unemployment, and the Soviet empire. In 1994, the people demanded that something be done about out-of-control government programs like welfare. Unintended Consequences But life in this target-rich environment had unintended consequences. Some Americans began to believe that government was always the problem– a position, by the way, that Ronald Reagan never held. Antipathy and then antagonism spread, affecting everything from voter turnout to respect for government as an institution. Conservatives were obliged to explain that they were for limiting, not eliminating government. Some Americans concluded that conservatives, in their rush to wipe out 50 years of welfarism, apparently did not care what happened to people dependent on welfare. William Kristol asked a pertinent question: “How can Americans love their nation if they hate its government?” Government does have its legitimate purposes, he argued, but then he overcompensated by urging a revival of “national greatness” conservatism modeled on the example of Theodore Roosevelt. As Matthew Spalding has pointed out, T.R. is a problematic choice since Roosevelt’s New Nationalism called for an activist state with strong regulatory powers, a goal at cross purposes with modern conservatism. While some conservatives might find Roosevelt’s brand of vigorous leadership “refreshing,” Spalding says, a better and more recent statesman to emulate is Ronald Reagan.[8] It is beyond dispute that conservatives miss Reagan. Starting in 1989, traditional conservatives, libertarians, and neoconservatives have been fussing and feuding like so many Hatfields and McCoys. They miss the soothing presence of Ronald Reagan and the unifying threat of Communism. As soon as the Berlin Wall came down, conservatives began building walls between one another. Soon there was open talk of a “conservative crackup.” Sharp disagreements erupted among conservatives over trade, immigration, and the direction of U.S. foreign policy. However, following Bill Clinton’s 1992 victory, conservatives began constructing a coalition of economic free-marketers, anti-government Perot supporters, and believers in conservative family values. The last group–the social conservatives–turned out in many ways to be the most important for they provided the necessary ground troops in the political wars. It did not trouble conservatives that coalition-building was an uneven and often frustrating process. Just as conservatives have always opposed centralized economic planning, so do they oppose centralized political planning. The conservative movement is a loosely bound movement made up, in the words of political strategist Morton Blackwell, of “activists, scholars, donors and organizational entrepreneurs held together by … shared philosophy, shared enemies, and shared experiences.”[9] The present spirited debate about the future of conservatism among conservatives is a sign not of decay, but of vitality. Disagreement can strengthen a movement as long as the disagreements are based on principle and not driven by a desire for personal aggrandizement. Building a Successful Movement So where is conservatism headed? As I have said, certain elements are necessary for a successful political movement. To begin with, it must have a clearly defined, consistent philosophy. It is a given that conservatives of all stripes honor the Constitution and its established system of checks and balances. They agree that government should be limited, individuals should be free and responsible, and there can be no lasting liberty without virtue–public and private. These ideas are not just conservative ideas, but American ideas that have their roots in the Founding of the Republic and are endorsed by a majority of the American people. Last October, the Tarrance Group reported that 57 percent of Americans call themselves “somewhat conservative” or “very conservative” while just 35 percent consider themselves “somewhat liberal” or “very liberal.” A Rasmussen survey at about the same time underscored Americans’ skepticism about government, reporting that 59 percent of voters agreed with the statement that government is the problem and not the solution.[10] Even in the midst of an economic crisis, America remains a center-right nation in its political philosophy, although the center is farther to the Left than it was 25 years ago. Many Americans have seen the future of the welfare state, and they like what they think they see, especially the entitlements. Fortunately, there are a number of conservative scholars, young and old, committed to explaining the conservative philosophy and exposing modern liberalism, building on the work of Hayek, Richard Weaver, Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and others. Present-day conservative intellectuals include Robert George of Princeton, Harvey Mansfield of Harvard, Charles Kesler of the Claremont Institute, Hadley Arkes of Amherst, James Ceaser at the University of Virginia, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, and Matthew Spalding here at Heritage. Next, a political movement must have a broad-based, broad-minded national constituency. Conservatives are independent, individualistic. They like to argue about ideas and institutions with friends as well as adversaries. They are uncomfortable with compromise and scorn accommodation. But they have come together and stayed together when the times required it and when the right leadership managed it–as with Robert Taft in the 1950s, Barry Goldwater in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, and even George W. Bush following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Next, a political movement must have a sound financial base. Thanks to technical proficiency and political success, the number of conservative donors has grown exponentially from a few thousand in the 1950s to more than eight million today. The fiscal strength of conservative organizations is impressive. The combined annual budgets of the 16 most influential conservative organizations– including The Heritage Foundation, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Young America’s Foundation, and the Media Research Center–total $544 million in 2008 dollars. And there are the center-right foundations whose assets approximate $7.4 billion, including the Big Six–Templeton, Scaife, Bradley, Noble, Amway, and Castle Rock–and another 37 foundations across the country. A political movement must be media-savvy, familiar with and expert in the use of the latest in mass communications. Here there is a paradox: Conservatives have displayed mistrust, anger, and contempt toward the mass media for decades. Yet: The number one columnist in America is conservative Cal Thomas. A bevy of younger writers like Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Jonah Goldberg have written best-selling books and are in frequent demand as TV commentators. The number one radio talk show host is conservative Rush Limbaugh, who has a weekly audience of some 15 million. The number two radio host is conservative Sean Hannity. In the cable world, Fox News leads CNN in audience ratings, thanks to such commentators as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. The Fox network has been the number one cable news network for seven years. In the world of the Internet, dominated by liberals for most of the decade, conservatives are asserting themselves with new Web sites, blogs, and experiments in Facebook and Twitter. Which brings us to the fifth element of a political movement:charismatic, principled leadership. Today, for the first time in 60 years, there is no undisputed conservative leader–no Taft, no Goldwater, no Reagan, no designated successor like George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000, both of whom sorely disappointed conservatives. But there are many rising and already visible stars in the conservative firmament, such as Congressmen Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Tom Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee; Senators John Cornyn, Tom Coburn, and Jim DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee; Governors Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Mark Sanford, chairman of the Republican Governors’ Conference–plus past and future presidential candidates like Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. With the right leadership, much of the frustration and uncertainty that characterize the conservative movement at present will fade away as they did when Taft, Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich were the acknowledged leaders of conservatism. The One Political Constant When the day comes, as it will, when the conservative movement unites behind the right leader and puts him on course to enter the White House, the question will be raised: Can conservatives govern? It is a reasonable question, given the glaring missteps and failures of the Bush Administration. The answer is simple: Of course conservatives can govern. In 1947, a Republican Congress under the leadership of Senator Taft cut federal spending and taxes and helped lay the foundation for the successful foreign policy of containment. In 1981, the Reagan Administration overcame the opposition of a Democratic House and passed the Economic Recovery Act, which cut marginal tax rates across the board and prepared the way for a period of unprecedented economic recovery lasting more than 20 years. In 1996, a Republican Congress under House Speaker Newt Gingrich passed, over President Clinton’s veto, welfare reform which substituted work for welfare and enabled the states to reduce their welfare rolls by as much as 33 percent. In 2001, the Bush Administration, working with a Republican Congress, enacted a monumental tax cut of $1.6 trillion–the largest in U.S. history–which kept the economy humming until the financial collapse of 2008. The liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., wrote in 1947 that “there seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.” Five-and-a-half decades later, the conservative columnist and commentator George Will wrote that we had experienced “the intellectual collapse of socialism” around the world.[11] The one political constant throughout these years was the rise of the Right, whose ascent to national power and prominence was interrupted by the death of its leaders, calamitous defeats at the polls, constant feuding within its ranks over means and ends, and the hostility of the prevailing liberal establishment. But through the power of its ideas– linked by the priceless principle of ordered liberty–and the successful political application of those ideas, the conservative movement became a major and often dominant player in the political and economic realms of our nation. So it was and so it is in these times of crisis and doubt and even fear, when conservative values are called for–prudence, not rashness; custom, not the impulse of the moment; a transcendent faith, not a fatal conceit; reform, not revolution. As we seek solutions to problems that seem almost unsolvable, we should recall the wisdom of T. S. Eliot, who reminded us that no great cause is wholly lost, because no great cause is ever wholly gained. Lee Edwards, Ph.D., is Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation and a leading historian of the American conservative movement. |
NRA – FREE One Year Membership
Monday, April 27th, 2009
The NRA is having a special offer to recruit new members and is offering ANYONE a FREE one year membership.
Go to the NRA webpage and sign up for your free membership.
NY Post: “100 Days, 100 Mistakes”
Sunday, April 26th, 2009100 DAYS, 100 MISTAKES
JOE SCARBOROUGH,GLENN BECK AND OTHERS ON OBAMA’S SHORT, ERROR-PRONE TIME IN OFFICE
1. ”Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of ‘earmarks,’ urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress. ‘Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,’ Obama said.” – McClatchy, 3/11
2. ”There is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.” — Obama during the campaign.
3. This year’s budget deficit: $1.5 trillion.
4. Asks his Cabinet to cut costs in their departments by $100 million — a whopping .0027%!
5. ”The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties.” – ABC News, 4/15
6. ”Mr. Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the ‘teleprompt president’ over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech.” – Sky News, 3/18
7. In early February, the 2010 census was moved out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House, politicizing how federal aid is distributed and electoral districts are drawn.
8. Obama taps Nancy Killefer for a new administration job, First Chief Performance Officer — to police government spending. But it surfaces that Killefer had performance issues of her own — a tax lien was slapped on her DC home in 2005 for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. She withdrew.
9. Turkey tried to block the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as new NATO secretary general because he didn’t properly punish the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel were outraged; Obama said he supported Turkey’s induction into the European Union.
10. . . . and he never mentioned the Armenian genocide.
11. The picture of Obama and Hugo Chavez shaking hands.
12. Hugo Chavez gave him the anti-American screed “The Open Veins of Latin America.” Obama didn’t remark upon it. At least it wasn’t DVDs.
13. Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega went on a 50-minute anti-American rant, calling Obama “president of an empire.” Obama didn’t leave the room. “I thought it was 50 minutes long. That’s what I thought,” he said.
14. Executives at AIG get $165 million in bonuses, despite receiving an $173 billion taxpayer bailout.
15. ”For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn’t until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back.” — Associated Press, 3/18
16. ”After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.” – New York Post, 2/15
17. MEGHAN CLYNE ON: “I WON” AND THE DEATH OF BIPARTISANSHIP
“Obama soared to victory on the hopeful promise of a new era of bipartisanship. During his inaugural address he even promised an ‘end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.’
“Too bad it took all of three days for the promise to ring hollow.
“Start with Obama’s big meeting with top congressional leaders on his signature legislation — the stimulus — on the Friday after his inauguration. Listening to Republican concerns about overspending was a nice gesture — until he shut down any hopes of real dialogue by crassly telling Republican leaders: ‘I won.’ Even the White House’s leaking of the comment was a slap at the Republican leadership, who’d expected Obama to adhere to the custom of keeping private meetings with congressional leadership, well, private.
“It’s only gone downhill from there. The stimulus included zero Republican recommendations, and failed to get a single House Republican vote.
“It’s not just the tactic of using Republicans for bipartisan photo-ops, and then cutting them loose before partisan decisions, that irks Obama’s opponents. The new president wasted no time rushing forward with policies and legislation guaranteed to drive Republicans nuts. The first bill he signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — a partisan hot-button that drew all of eight Republican supporters in the entire Congress. Then there was the swift reversal of Bush policies on abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research — issues dear to the Republican base.
“And when Obama and the Democrats in Congress took up SCHIP — the children’s health-insurance bill that Republicans say vastly expands government’s role in health care — they had an easy chance for real bipartisanship. After all, the bill had been hashed out in the previous Congress, and a bipartisan accord was reached before President Bush responded with a veto. Did the Obama team push for the compromise version in the 111th Congress? Nope. They went back to the drawing board, ramming through the Democrats’ dream version.
“Of course, the lack of bipartisanship isn’t limited to Capitol Hill. Obama has taken gratuitous swipes at the Republicans who recently decamped Washington, blaming President Bush for everything from the economy and the war to the lack of sufficient puppies and rainbows. And who could forget the Rush Limbaugh flap — in which Obama’s top advisers, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, orchestrated a public relations campaign meant to undermine the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, by framing talk-radio personality Limbaugh as the real head of the Republican Party.
“For now, Obama’s back-pedal on the bipartisanship promise just makes him look insincere. But the real consequences of the mistake will be felt soon enough. As Presidents Bush and Clinton could tell him, congressional majorities do change — and at some point, Obama will need Republicans on his side. He’d be smart to spend his second 100 days making up for the serious snubs of his first.”
– Meghan Clyne is a DC-based writer.
18. ”The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.” — Department of Homeland Security intelligence report
19. Nixes a “buy American” provision in the stimulus bill.
20. ”Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn’t have a drug war going on. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it’s been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there.” — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The 9/11 hijackers did not come across the Canada border
21. ”The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system. The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as ‘the largest middle-class tax increase in history.’ ” — New York Times, 3/14
22. JOE SCARBOROUGH ON: PROMOTING FEAR
“During his historic inaugural speech, Barack Obama promised to usher in a transformational age where hope would replace fear, unity would overtake partisanship, and change would sweep aside the status quo. But early in President Obama’s first 100 days it is obvious that the only thing that is changing is the Candidate of Change, himself.
“The same politician who proclaimed during his inauguration that ‘on this day we have chosen hope over fear’ soon warned Americans that the US economy would be forever destroyed if the stimulus bill was voted down.
“Why was it that same man who promised to put Americans’ interests ahead of his own political ambitions chose instead to use the suffering of citizens to advance his agenda?
“Maybe he was following the guidance of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said, ‘You never want to waste a good crisis.’
“They didn’t.
“The White House’s warnings were so over-the-top that Bill Clinton felt compelled to warn the new president against making such grim pronouncements. Americans would quickly warn that the White House would not channel FDR’s eternal optimism but rather embrace the gloomy worldview of Edgar Allen Poe.
“The Candidate of Hope also quickly adopted the Nixonian worldview that Americans voted their fears rather than their hopes. Over Mr. Obama’s first 100 days, that cynical calculation paid off politically for a White House that seemed most interested in appeasing the most liberal members of his Democratic Party.
“I expected more from Barack Obama. For the sake of my country, I hope I get it from the new president over the next 100 days.”
– Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and author of “The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America’s Promise” (Crown Forum), due out June 9.
23. Sanjay Gupta was in discussions to become Surgeon General, but the TV personality withdrew after he was criticized for his flimsy political record.
24. Rasmussen finds 58% of Americans believe the Obama administration’s release of CIA memos endangers the national security of the United States.
25. Only 28% think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.
26. ”Obama thanked CIA employees for their work and said they’re invaluable to national security. He explained his decision to release the memos, then told everyone not to feel bad because he was now acknowledging potential mistakes. Theirs, not his. ‘That’s how we learn,’ Obama said, as though soothing a room full of fourth-graders.” — The Oklahoman, 4/23
27. By releasing the torture memos, Obama opened American citizens up to international tribunals. A UN lawyer said the US is obliged to prosecute lawyers who drafted the memos or else violate the Geneva Conventions.
28. In their first meeting, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama gave him 25 DVDs that don’t work in Europe.
29. TIM CARNEY ON: PICKING BILL RICHARDSON AS SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
“Richardson’s value in Obama’s Cabinet had everything to do with appearances. First, he was the Hispanic pick. Second, because Richardson had run against Obama for President, tapping him for the Cabinet helped the media write the Obama-Lincoln comparisons by burnishing the ‘Team of Rivals’ image.
“But Richardson withdrew before Obama was even inaugurated when news came out about a criminal investigation involving David Rubin, president of a firm named Chambers, Dunhill, Rubin & Co. (although there was no Chambers or Dunhill), who had donated at least $110,000 to Richardson’s campaign committees and had also profited from $1.5 million in contracts from the state government.
“This was an early warning sign about Obama’s vetting process (various tax problems and the Daschle problem would reveal this as a theme), but picking Richardson to run Commerce also highlighted that Obama and Richardson’s promise of ‘public-private partnerships’ — such as Detroit bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, and green energy–was an open door for corruption and was at odds with Obama’s promise to diminish the influence of lobbyists.
“The Richardson mistake was one of Obama’s first, and it was emblematic. Richardson embodied Obama’s attention to self-image and the problems inherent in his vision of an intimate business-government connection.”
– Tim Carney is a Washington Examiner columnist
30. Timothy Geithner nomination as Secretary of Treasury was almost torpedoed when it was discovered he had failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes. He also employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper. He was confirmed anyway.
31. . . . Not so lucky, Annette Nazareth, who was nominated for Deputy Treasury Secretary. She withdrew her name for undisclosed “personal reasons” after a monthlong probe into her taxes . . .
32. . . . or Caroline Atkinson, who withdrew as nominee for Undersecretary of International Affairs in Treasury Department, with a source blaming the long vetting process. Geithner still has a skeleton crew at Treasury, with no one qualified — or willing — to take jobs there.
33. ”Barack Obama has been embroiled in a cronyism row after reports that he intends to make Louis Susman, one of his biggest fundraisers, the new US ambassador in London. The selection of Mr. Susman, a lawyer and banker from the president’s hometown of Chicago, rather than an experienced diplomat, raises new questions about Mr Obama’s commitment to the special relationship with Britain.” – Telegraph, 2/22
34. Obama’s doom-and-gloom comments and budget bill push the Dow below 7,000, from which it’s only recently recovered.
35. ”You’re sitting here. And you’re — you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about money–’ How do you deal with — I mean: Explain. Are you punch-drunk?” – Steve Kroft, “60 Minutes,” 3/22
36. ”We have begun to modernize 75% of all federal building space, which has the potential to reduce long-term energy costs by billions of dollars on behalf of taxpayers. We are providing grants to states to help weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes, which will save the families that benefit about $350 each year. That’s like a $350 tax cut.” — Obama, describing something that doesn’t cut taxes.
37. ”The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government.” — Defense News, 2/19
38. Backtracking on a campaign promise he made to black farmers, Obama significantly lowered the amount of money they could claim in a discrimination settlement against the Agricultural Department. “I can’t figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn’t want to implement a bill that he fought for as a US senator,” said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association.
39. ”I’ve been practicing bowling. I bowled a 129. It was like the Special Olympics or something.” — Obama on “The Tonight Show”
40. Obama lifts travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba.
41. Obama considers dropping the embargo on Cuba.
42. After warming signs from Raul Castro, Fidel Castro says Obama “misinterpreted” his brother’s words, and that Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights.
43. Obama is considering dropping a key demand to Iran, allowing it to keep nuclear facilities open during negotiations.
44. In a letter to Dmitri Medvedev, Obama offered to drop plans for a missile shield in Europe in exchange for Russia’s help in resolving the nuclear weapons issue in Iran.
45. Medvedev said he would not “haggle” on Iran and the missile shield.
46. Obama asked Congress for an extra $83.4 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a special funding measure of the kind he opposed while in the senate. As a candidate, Obama promised to cut the cost of military operations.
47. After trying to woo Europe as the “anti-Bush,” Obama made an impassioned plea for more troops in Afghanistan. “Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone,” he said. “This is a joint problem it requires a joint effort.” Only the UK offered substantial help, most others refused.
48. ”While the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama’s campaign in 2008.” – Washington Post, 3/27
49. Obama bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London.
50. ”It wasn’t a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he’s taller than King Abdullah.” – An Obama aide
51. DANA PERINO ON: REMAINING IN CAMPAIGN MODE
“Has it really only been 100 days? In many ways it feels like a lot longer.
“That’s partly because the new administration remains in campaign mode most of the time. Now that’s not in itself a bad thing if you can do that and accomplish your agenda. But what’s happened is that a popular new president has laid out a very bold agenda in the midst of an economic crisis, and I don’t think Congress is going to get a lot of work done on those big ticket items this year. They’ll eke out a couple of small wins on issues like healthcare and maybe energy, but the Democrats will hail them as big victories. The Republicans have been working like a cohesive and loyal opposition party, and they need to continue to outline positive new ideas like the recent one to help grow American’s savings.
“The early stumbles on the administration’s high profile nominations — Daschle and Richardson for just to examples — acted like weights around their ankles. In addition, the partisan shots from the White House were unbecoming and I don’t think we’ll see more of that. Our allies and our enemies — heck, even we ourselves — are trying to understand the new foreign policy direction, which in some ways seems to be change just for the sake of change. The next moves by the leaders of other countries — like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela — probably will prove that really not much will change just because America has a new president.
“In many ways, it’s the next 100 days that will tell us more about our new president and what he’ll be able to accomplish than we can forecast based on the first 100 days.”
– Dana Perino was White House press secretary in the Bush Administration
52. ”We can’t afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary.” — Obama, describing the stimulus bill
53. Three candidates for ambassador to the Vatican — including Caroline Kennedy — were turned down by the Holy See because they supported abortion, according to reports.
54. After saying he wouldn’t have lobbyists in his administration, Obama made 17 exceptions in the first two weeks in office.
55. . . . including Tom Daschle, who worked as a top lobbyist yet was going to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services — until his failure to pay income taxes derailed his nomination.
56. For an April 14 speech at Georgetown, the administration asked the university to cover up all signs and symbols — including the letters “IHS” in gold, a symbol for Jesus.
57. Samantha Power, who resigned from the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a “monster,” was hired to a position on the National Security Council.
58. ”Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama’s victory celebration in Grant Park — despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions.” — Chicago Sun-Times, 2/20
59. Firing Rick Wagoner as president of GM.
60. Threatening to fire Vikram Pandit as CEO of Citigroup.
61. Threatening to fire anyone the administration doesn’t like from any company.
62. Not adopting a dog from a shelter.
63. ”The GAO study asserts that officials from most of the states surveyed ‘expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff — limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.’ “ – ABC News, 4/23
64. ”The National Newspaper Publishers Association named Obama ‘Newsmaker of the Year.’ The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon. The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.” — Los Angeles Times, 3/20
65. ”Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” – Attorney General Eric Holder
66. ”I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances.” – Obama, on consulting with only “living” presidents
67. Obama quietly announced that he would not press for new labor and environmental regulations in the North American Free Trade Agreement, going back on a campaign promise.
68. NICOLE GELINAS ON: MISSPENT STIMULUS
“One of Obama’s most poignant missed opportunities was in not using the historic $787 million stimulus package to reorder state and local government’s spending priorities. As states and cities continue to spend ceaselessly and without results on education and healthcare, they’re crowding out investments in the physical infrastructure that the private sector needs to rebuild the economy.
“In the stimulus, of the more than $200 billion that went directly to states and cities, nearly 70% went to education and healthcare spending. Only 24% went to infrastructure spending.
“But the states and cities in the most trouble already spend way too much on education and healthcare, pushing taxes up and sending private industry away. They don’t spend nearly enough on infrastructure, which attracts the private sector and builds the real economy.
“As David Walker, former comptroller general of the US, said at the Regional Plan Association’s annual meeting a week ago, nationwide, we are the ‘highest in the world’ on education. We are ‘the highest in the world’ on healthcare. ‘Nobody comes even close.’ On infrastructure, by contrast, we are ‘below average’ in both critical new investments and in much-needed maintenance spending.
“And, as Democratic governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell said at the same conference, when President Dwight Eisenhower left office, infrastructure spending was about 12.5% of non-military domestic spending. Today, it’s about 2.5%.
“This shortfall is obvious to anyone who’s ridden on an “express train” to the outer boroughs or driven on the Cross Bronx Expressway recently. But in New York, as elsewhere, the stimulus money has just allowed the state to ramp up spending on its wasteful, inhumane Medicaid program and its nosebleed public-school spending.
“Meanwhile, the subways are about to crumble into oblivion — taking the economy with them. The same is true of decaying infrastructure in California and in aging states across the nation.
“The stimulus was a once-in-a-generation chance to change this. Instead, it made the situation worse.”
– Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to City Journal
69. ”The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that held that if police may not interrogate a defendant after the right to counsel has attached, if the defendant has a lawyer or has requested a lawyer. This isn’t the first time the Justice Department, under President Obama, has sought to limit defendants’ rights.” – TalkLeft blog
70. ”By any measure, my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster.” – Obama
71. ”Ahh, see. I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can’t end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I’m going to get grilled every time I come down here.” – Brushing off questions from the White House press corps
72. On Earth Day, Obama took two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One to get to Iowa, burning more than 9,000 gallons of fuel.
73. ”President Obama’s plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care.” – Fox News, 3/17
74. ”And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.” — Obama during his first State Of The Union address. A German invented the automobile
75. RALPH PETERS ON: FUMBLING IN AFGHANISTAN, FAKING IT IN PAKISTAN
“We’re squandering blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Instead of concentrating fiercely on the vital task of destroying al Qaeda and its friends, the Obama administration’s determined to erect a modern nation where no nation exists. Afghanistan isn’t a country. It’s a dysfunctional reservation inhabited by tribes that hate each other. There’s no ‘Afghan’ identity. And even if our blind-to-reality efforts succeeded perfectly, the result would be meaningless.
“Except as a target range where we can gun down terrorists, Afghanistan doesn’t matter. Next door, Pakistan matters immensely. But we don’t know what to do about it. With 170 million anti-American Muslims descending into chaos as Pashtuns, Baluchis, Punjabis, Sindhis and others claw each other over the country’s shabby remains, Pakistan’s corrupt president shrugs, its military cowers, its loathsome intelligence services collude with Islamist extremists, and the safety of its nuclear weapons grows doubtful.
“Pakistan may be this generation’s chamber of horrors.
“The Obama administration’s response? Drill more wells in the Afghan countryside. Dramatically reinforce our troops in Afghanistan, sticking them with an impossible mission of modernizing a pre-medieval landscape while exposing them at the end of an insecure 1,500-mile supply line through, of all places, Pakistan.
“As for Pakistan itself, the Obama administration wants to send billions of dollars to a thieving government that makes Nigeria’s look like a Quaker meeting and to hand Pakistan’s military more arms — weapons that might soon be used against us.
“Pakistan was a bad idea when it was created in 1947. It’s a worse one now. Afghanistan wasn’t even an idea, just an accident of where other borders ended. We can’t ’save’ either one — because neither wants to be saved on our terms.
“Obama said the right things — that Afghanistan isn’t Iraq and that our goal should be the destruction of al Qaeda. But his policies just regurgitate our Iraq strategy (one he opposed) in a profoundly different context, while ambitious generals echo Vietnam-era calls for more forces.
“Our troops will do whatever we ask, to the best of their magnificent abilities. But we should ask them to do things that make sense. We need creative strategic thought, but we’re succumbing to sheer inertia. And the president’s supporters who howled that we should abandon Iraq to concentrate on their candidate’s ‘good war’ don’t seem to be volunteering to do any fighting. Meanwhile, our president’s trapped himself inside his own campaign promiseing, Vietnam!”
– Ralph Peters is the author of “Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a BeW”
77. ”President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law — breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them — and raised questions among lawmakers and committees who say the president’s objections are unclear at best and a power grab at worst.” — Washington Times, 3/24
78. Adolfo Carrion was confirmed as Director of White House Office of Urban Affairs, but is serving under a cloud after allegations that he accepted thousands of dollars in cash from developers whose projects he approved.
79. KYLE SMITH ON: GOING AFTER RUSH LIMBAUGH
“Every so often an unfocused athlete forgets about the field of play and climbs into the stands. Ty Cobb did it. Ron Artest did it. Maybe no one did it with more sick flir than the greasy, furious Hanson Brothers who, in ‘Slap Shot,’ climbed into the stands to give a beatdown to a fan.
“In March, Barack Obama sent his own personal Hanson Brothers, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and spokesman Robert Gibbs, out to attack a non-politician — Rush Limbaugh — who was sitting innocently in the stands jeering the action. Limbaugh didn’t even throw a cup of beer.
“Senior White House staffers, who have already fallen into the classic trap of paying more attention to polls than fixing the country’s problems, had become obsessed with surveys showing that Limbaugh was an unpopular figure with swing voters. Pretty soon Emanuel and Gibbs developed Limbaugh Tourette’s. To paraphrase Joe Biden’s witty putdown of Rudy Giuliani, for a few days every sentence they uttered contained three things: a subject, a verb and Rush Limbaugh.
“El Rushbo, chuckling over his cigar as his ratings skyrocketed, could not have been more pleased if a picture had emerged of Obama wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt and burning the American flag on Harvard Square. Even that portion of the public that doesn’t like Rush squirmed at the embarrassing spectacle of the president’s men going all Mean Girls on an entertainer.George W. Bush’s spokesmen maintained a dignified silence about Michael Moore. Picture them fanning out over the Sunday talk shows to denounce, and drive up the box-office receipts of, ‘Fahrenheit 9/11.’ Wouldn’t you have loved that, Michael?”
– Kyle Smith is a Post columnist
80. Forced banks that didn’t want TARP money to take it, then added on stipulations about pay and government control after the fact. Secretly forcedBank of America to buy Merrill Lynch, then allowed the bank to be criticized for overpaying.
81. ”More than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States,” Obama said in Mexico, yet factcheck.org says, “The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. We can find no hard data on the total number of guns actually ‘recovered in Mexico,’ but US and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns that it submits for tracing. Therefore, the percentage of guns ‘recovered’ and traced to US sources necessarily is less than 90%.”
82. Obama: “[Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc.], said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off.” Jim Owens: “I think realistically no. The truth is we’re going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again.”
83. ”In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” — Obama in Strasbourg, France
84. Joe Biden: “If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there’s still a 30% chance we’re going to get it wrong.”
85. Joe Biden: “You all worked for change. You wanted to see change. Well, that wasn’t a hard thing to try to communicate to the American people. Obviously, obviously, we needed a change almost no matter who was running.”
86. Joe Biden: “You know, I’m embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number? I should have it in front of me and I don’t. I’m actually embarrassed.”
87. ”There are more than 6.5 million trucks in the United States. The program Congress terminated allowed 97 Mexican trucks to roam among them. Ninety-seven! Shutting them out not only undermines NAFTA. It caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade coming out of 40 states.” – Charles Krauthammer, 3/20
88. DAVID M. DRUCKER ON: BOWING TO CONGRESS
“Although the president possesses enormous political capital — both because of high approval ratings and because his administration is still in its infancy — he has generally declined to exercise it with Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, including when it comes to crafting legislation key to moving his agenda forward.
“Rather he has allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) to craft legislation as they see fit — even though the very bills in question were proposed by the president and involve key planks in his agenda. Among them were Obama’s signature $787 billioneconomic stimulus bill, his first major piece of legislation that was signed into law in February; and now health care reform, currently being negotiated on Capitol Hill with minimal input from the White House.
“This soft-pedal style of leadership runs the risk of forcing Obama to embrace legislation constructed for narrow partisan interests rather than in a manner capable of garnering broad bipartisan support. Over time, the public might come to see Obama’s deference to Pelosi and Reid as a weakness of leadership not befitting a president in tough times.”
– David M. Drucker is a staff writer for Roll Call
89. ”It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me.” – Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who became the second failed Commerce Secretary nominee
90. In the third sentence of his first speech as president, Obama said, “44 Americans have now taken the presidential oath.” The correct number is 43, as Grover Cleveland served twice.
91. The $49 million inauguration — triple what taxpayers spent at Bush’s first inauguration.
92. Giving the Queen of England an iPod full of his own speeches.
93. Three prime-time briefings in his first 100 days, eating into television revenues and this Wednesday pre-empting “American Idol.”
94. ”The United States government has no interest in running GM. Your [GM] warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it’s ever been, because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty.” — Obama
95. GM is given $15.4 billion in loans from the government.
96. The Obama Administration is trying to scuttle a lawsuit filed in federal court against Iran by former US embassy hostages. The lawsuit alleges that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers who interrogated the captives.
97. GLENN BECK ON: BAD ECONOMIC PREDICTIONS
“Ten days before his inauguration, the President’s chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Rohmer, released a report describing what to expect economically during the first 100 days and beyond. It presented two starkly different scenarios: one good (if the stimulus were to be passed), and one terrifyingly bad (if we did nothing). Amazingly, the report estimated that if the stimulus package were to pass, the unemployment rate would not go above 8% at any time until at least 2014.
“It’s already at 8.5%.
“In fact, while there is an acknowledged level of uncertainty, the projections estimated that the unemployment rate would be lower today if we had done nothing at all. This suggests one of two things: either the administration misjudged the seriousness of our economic problems, or the stimulus plan is actually making things worse. I suspect it’s a little of both.
“Remember, when the President’s budget was released, he was roundly criticized for his never ending deficits, even under his own optimistic scenarios for growth. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected deficits that were even uglier. But, if the President and his economic planners were this far off, this soon, how much worse does the future look now?
“The election was supposed to bring ‘change,’ but I was hoping for more than the letter after the President’s name, the positivity of the media coverage, and the hypoallergenic qualities of the White House puppy. President Obama didn’t get us into this situation, but so far he’s doubling down on the same spending philosophy that did. Common sense tells us that new debt is not the cure for old debt. No matter what the slogans say, that won’t change in 100 days or 100 years.”
– Glenn Beck is the host of the “Glenn Beck” show, weekdays at 5 p.m. on Fox News.
98. ”Education Secretary Arne Duncan has decided not to admit any new students to the D.C. voucher program, which allows low-income children to attend private schools … For all the talk about putting children first, it’s clear that the special interests that have long opposed vouchers are getting their way.” – Washington Post, 4/11
99. Obama enrolled his daughters in a DC private school.
100. ”Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.” – Obama to Rep. Peter DeFazio, after the Democratic congressman voted against the stimulus bill.
Right Wing Conspiracy
Saturday, April 25th, 2009
