Obama isn’t being honest. In other words, he either IS lying to the American People… or he WAS lying to the American people. Which is it?
Tag Archives: obama
stimulus as a political exercise
Robert J. Samuelson isn’t a right-winger… which makes his criticisms of the stimulus all the more useful (politically). It has FAILED its original purpose… there is NO DENYING IT at this point.
It’s not surprising that the much-ballyhooed “economic stimulus” hasn’t done much stimulating… The program crafted by Obama and the Democratic Congress wasn’t engineered to maximize its economic impact. It was mostly a political exercise, designed to claim credit for any recovery, shower benefits on favored constituencies and signal support for fashionable causes.
There are growing demands for another Obama “stimulus” on the grounds that the first was too small. Wrong. The problem with the first stimulus was more its composition than its size. With budget deficits for 2009 and 2010 estimated by the CBO at $1.8 trillion and $1.4 trillion (respectively, 13 and 9.9 percent of gross domestic product), it’s hard to argue they’re too tiny. Obama and congressional Democrats sacrificed real economic stimulus to promote parochial political interests. Any new “stimulus” should be financed by culling some of the old.
Here, as elsewhere, there’s a gap between Obama’s high-minded rhetoric and his performance. In February, Obama denounced “politics as usual” in constructing the stimulus. But that’s what we got, and Obama likes the result. Interviewed recently by ABC’s Jake Tapper, he was asked whether he would change anything. Obama seemed to invoke a doctrine of presidential infallibility. “There’s nothing that we would have done differently,” he said.
via washingtonpost.com.
The Honduran non-coup
Miguel Estrada has a very thorough legal analysis in the Los Angeles Times regarding the Honduran “coup”…. It turns out it really wasn’t a ‘coup’ after all… but a proper, judicially-ordered removal of President Zelaya resulting from his activities in violation of Hunduran Law. Here are some relevant portions of the piece:
As noted, Article 239 states clearly that one who behaves as Zelaya did in attempting to change presidential succession ceases immediately to be president. If there were any doubt on that score, the Congress removed it by convening immediately after Zelaya’s arrest, condemning his illegal conduct and overwhelmingly voting (122 to 6) to remove him from office. The Congress is led by Zelaya’s own Liberal Party (although it is true that Zelaya and his party have grown apart as he has moved left). Because Zelaya’s vice president had earlier quit to run in the November elections, the next person in the line of succession was Micheletti, the Liberal leader of Congress. He was named to complete the remaining months of Zelaya’s term.
It cannot be right to call this a “coup.” Micheletti was lawfully made president by the country’s elected Congress. The president is a civilian. The Honduran Congress and courts continue to function as before. The armed forces are under civilian control. The elections scheduled for November are still scheduled for November. Indeed, after reviewing the Constitution and consulting with the Supreme Court, the Congress and the electoral tribunal, respected Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga recently stated that the only possible conclusion is that Zelaya had lawfully been ousted under Article 239 before he was arrested, and that democracy in Honduras continues fully to operate in accordance with law…
And my favorite line from the piece:
It would seem from this that Zelaya’s arrest by the military was legal, and rather well justified to boot.
What then can we say? Zelaya tried to subvert the constitution of Honduras by means of a referendum ruled illegal by the Honduran Congress. He insisted on a course of illegal activity and evidenced a totalitarian willingness to remove anyone who stood in his path. Consequently, he was dismissed by the Honduran Supreme Court pursuant to the requirements of Honduran law.
Despite all this… despite the brave actions by the Attorney General and the Honduran Justices… the western world is turning its back on Honduras. In fact, in a recent press conference, Obama has stated Zelaya’s removal was “not legal”… evidencing not only a serious ignorance of Honduran Law but also a disturbing lack of judgment.
In a startling juxtaposition, our president found it entirely proper to meddle in a country in order to support a potential dictator… while refusing to meddle in a country [think Iran] where democratic protests threatened to remove a dictator.
In the words of Jonah Goldberg, “It sure seems like Obama has an ideological problem with democracy.”
Update 7.11 @11pm: Read my initial post on the Honduran ‘coup’ here.
Narrative Dissonance
This guy understands Obama. From The Nation:
The truth is that Barack Obama has a penchant for these narratives and yet an inclination to rise above them. Two grand but antithetical stories about the same problem, awaiting him and his Olympian skill for the discovery of “common ground”: That is Obama’s favorite script. He regards himself as a kind of unprecedented referee between histories and philosophies. He likes to think that he can see what others cannot see and that, therefore, they must come to him if they wish to live in peace and with meaning. He did this with race in the Philadelphia speech, articulating what blacks see from their end of the periscope and what whites see from theirs. (Until, that is, he had to dump his minister from the campaign truck as a matter of survival. “Common ground” is sometimes not discovered so much as invented, or imposed.) A man of not especially discriminate empathy, he sees himself in the Whitmanesque sense of containing multitudes.
In addressing American intelligence and security professionals at the National Archives, the president again aimed at bridging differences by showing that apparent contradictions are not contradictions at all and that everything will go together, if only for as long as he is speaking. National security that never compromises national values? No problem. National values that guarantee national security? Say it and it will be done. Yes, we have values that elevate and restrict us at once, the ideal of free men and women that procedurally protects also the guilty and the wicked–and never mind that, absent energetic domestic and international defenses, these principles would be outmaneuvered and outclassed on both fronts. And again at Notre Dame, the same above-it-all structure of rhetorical conciliation was applied by Obama to the subject of abortion. “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.” Nice enough. But the debate on abortion will not be so tidily retired. All of this is rising above but not really reconciling.
via Narrative Dissonance.
Obama Zizzou?
Sorry, but Steve Zizzou just came to my mind when I saw this picture on the Drudge homepage.
Steele’s censure
Shelby Steele isn’t pulling punches on the Sotomayor pick.
[T]he Sotomayor nomination shows that Mr. Obama has no idea what a post-racial society would look like. In selling himself as a candidate to the American public he is a gifted bargainer beautifully turned out in post-racial impressionism. But in the real world of Supreme Court nominations, where there is a chance to actually bring some of that idealism down to earth, he chooses a hardened, divisive and race-focused veteran of the culture wars he claims to transcend.
I have called Mr. Obama a bound man because he cannot win white support without bargaining and he cannot maintain minority support without playing the very identity politics that injure him with whites. The latter form of politics is grounded in being what I call a challenger — i.e., someone who presumes that whites are racist until they prove otherwise by granting preferences of some kind to minorities.
Obama the prevaricator
I’m not going to lie, it’s becoming hard to take Obama seriously… seriously. Each and every speech this guy gives contains nothing more than vague platitudes and nonsensical prevarications. Let’s take a look at his most recent speech in Cario, Egypt to get a feel for his use of language. Here’s what he said:
“Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique,” he said in the Grand Hall of Cairo University.
Woh… wait… is personal story is NOT unique? The first (and only) African-American man to become president of the United States is “NOT UNIQUE”? You’re kidding me, right? I suppose Obama may have intended to appear humble with that statement, but it just comes across as ignorant. He continued:
“The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores.”
So… let me get this straight… the promise of the dream of opportunity (whatever that means) is there for all our immigrants… but not for our own citizens? Really! I guess this begs the question: What do you mean by “the dream of the opportunity for all”? Do you mean opportunity that must be taken advantage of… or opportunity that must be PROVIDED by a government program? Because last I checked… there were lots of opportunities out there for those willing to work hard… even in this economy. Show me one person who doesn’t have opportunity and I’ll show you a person demoralized by a government program.
Obama went on to discuss wars and conflict:
“It’s easier to start wars than to end them” he said.
Duuuuhh. Tell me something I didn’t know.
“It’s easier to blame others than to look inward;
Your continual criticisms of the “previous administration” are proof of this…
“[it is easier] to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path”
But… wouldn’t it have just been EASIER to just let Saddam and his sons continue to rule Iraq with impunity?
There is one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. [Applause] This truth transcends nations and peoples.”
Um… this is called the “golden rule”… a saying often confused with scripture and biblical teaching. Maybe if you wouldn’t have missed so many of Reverend Wright’s sermons… you might have picked up on this.
Later in the Speech Obama discussed his role as President:
“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
What about fighting against the negative stereotypes of Republicans? You know, the ones about being racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes… do you have a greater responsibility as the president of the UNITED STATES to fight against negative stereotypes of your fellow Americans or muslims? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on that, President Obama.
Finally, he got around to women’s rights:
“I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.
Who in the west have THIS view? “some”? Like who? I shouldn’t have to remind you, Mr. President, that IT IS MUSLIMS WHO FORCE women to wear burkas and it is MUSLIMS who treat women as inferior…NOT those of us in the west. This is perhaps your weakest ‘straw man’ you have ever used in a speech… and that’s really saying something.
Mr. Obama… it is EASY.. VERY EASY to refrain from criticizing the shameful practices of many muslims in the middle east… and it is much easier to be loved and adored than it is to be respected. For someone who cautions others against taking the easy route… you certainly don’t seem to lead by example.
quotes via POLITICO.com.
not that much change…
Here’s a little gem I found on Yahoo News:
Describing the $787 billion stimulus package, President Obama evokes the 1950s construction of the interstate system, conjuring images of highways, bridges, and orange cones…
But as projects are chosen, it’s becoming clear that the program may amount to little more than an infrastructure face-lift. Owing to the need for speed and to institutional obstacles, most stimulus transportation projects are small and localized. “Here and there, people will notice things,” says Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the libertarian Reason Foundation. He cites repaired potholes and new streetlights. “But I don’t think the country as a whole will say, ‘Wow, transportation is so much better,’ ” Poole says…
An even bigger problem, experts say, is how that funding is doled out. Decisions are often politicized and are rarely coordinated between levels of government. Transportation dollars are traditionally spread thinly, “like peanut butter,” says Robert Puentes, senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s metropolitan policy program. “We don’t do cost-benefit analysis in this country.”
America may not have a clear vision for its transportation system, but infrastructure advocates, not to mention Americans who have ever sat in stalled traffic or bumped over a pothole, hope that will change.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say that last sentence was a brilliant piece of literary sarcasm. Unfortunately, that bit of humor was probably lost on the author.
via Obama’s Stimulus Projects Won’t Amount to Major Infrastructure Overhaul – Yahoo! News.