In the world of politics, Sunday is wash day. Bad news is best delivered on Sunday because the voter is taking the day off. White collar workers spend Sundays away from the TV, radio, and computer.
It is the day to sleep in, play a round of golf, go to the beach, do the crossword puzzle, and go to church (Yes, 38% of us claim to go to church each week).
So, get the bad news out on Sunday and by Monday the story will be gone.
And if it’s REALLY bad news, send out your talking heads to appear on the Sunday news specials. Only the wonks and your mother watch the boring, hour-long, news programs like Face the Nation. And lazy news reporters if they’re sober.
And if it’s REALLY, REALLY bad news you do it on a three day weekend. By Tuesday only the most controversial topics will have any life in them.
And so it is with the Obama administration. Things are a mess in the White House right now.
~Health Care Reform needs a major rewrite
~Van Jones the Communist is not only radical and racially motivated…he’s also a conspiracy theorist
~Obama’s back-to-school speech idea was a disaster
~The stimulus plan is a huge success only in the mind of Joe Biden
~Afghanistan is painted by the media as a bloody battle not worth the effort
So Van Jones resigns at midnight on Saturday and the White House staff puts on their makeup for Sunday performances:
~Press Secretary Robert Gibbs goes on Pravda (er…ABC News This Week with Stephanopolis)
~PR chief David Axelrod was on Meet the Press
~Secretary of Education Arne Duncan appeared on Face the Nation
Wow! The dirty laundry must be piling up inside the Beltway.
Oh, and the illegal aliens are marching in Chicago today, thanks to the support from the labor unions.
http://www.chicagojwj.org/node/95
(At least their “assimilation” has advanced to the point where they are marching on OUR Labor Day, not the socialist/communist one of May 1st. Duh!)
With what appears to be a perpetual boneheaded agenda, the talking heads in the White House aren’t likely to get a Sunday off any time soon!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Sunday wash day
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The S word
(Note: Sometimes I make things up. I assume people can read sarcasm and understand that I’m being ridiculous. Sadly, this isn’t one of those times. Yes, Daley’s quote is real. Yes, two members of the Obama administration used “silly” in the last three days.)
Apparently the Obama administration has a style book.
Under S, the word “stupidly” has been banned.
But the word “silly” is the adjective of choice when you want to deflect criticism by poking fun at your critics.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs used the phrase “silly season” to give the official response about those who think Obama doesn’t need 18 minutes to tell elementary students to stay in school.
And Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, says it is just “silly” for people to worry about this nation-wide broadcast to students.
(Perhaps the most reasoned comment on the topic came from a school teacher in Utah who said the president should speak to the students some evening (say Labor Day) so the parents can choose the viewing and make the explanations. Besides, classroom time is precious and doing it at night would not disrupt the day.)
Well, “silly” is a great word, but hardly original. Its origins as a means of eloquent political speech hark back to Mayor Richard M. Daley.
(Of course, one will note that Duncan, Obama, Chief of Staff Emanuel, Obama’s brain Jarrett, and many others are also from the Chicago Democratic Machine. And as such they are protégés of Mayor Daley.)
In May of 2006 charges were leveled against Daley that he kept the tollbooths at the Chicago Skyway well staffed so he could breeze over to his Michigan cottage on week-ends. His response to reporters was eloquent:
“Everybody’s caught in traffic every day. I don’t know where they got that. Don’t worry. I’m caught in traffic as much as anyone else. It’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. It really is silly. It’s silly, silly, silly. It is just silly. Silliness. It is silly. Completely silly…You’ve been on [the Skyway]. Come on. It’s silly…You know me. That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.”
Count ‘em. That’s 11 sillies in one short answer.
The term was so effective that he used it again in September of 2006. It still comes out now and then.
The only question now is whether or not the White House seriously thinks Daley is a good communicator. If so, YouTube will light up with comments from the Obama administration.
Apparently the Obama administration has a style book.
Under S, the word “stupidly” has been banned.
But the word “silly” is the adjective of choice when you want to deflect criticism by poking fun at your critics.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs used the phrase “silly season” to give the official response about those who think Obama doesn’t need 18 minutes to tell elementary students to stay in school.
And Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, says it is just “silly” for people to worry about this nation-wide broadcast to students.
(Perhaps the most reasoned comment on the topic came from a school teacher in Utah who said the president should speak to the students some evening (say Labor Day) so the parents can choose the viewing and make the explanations. Besides, classroom time is precious and doing it at night would not disrupt the day.)
Well, “silly” is a great word, but hardly original. Its origins as a means of eloquent political speech hark back to Mayor Richard M. Daley.
(Of course, one will note that Duncan, Obama, Chief of Staff Emanuel, Obama’s brain Jarrett, and many others are also from the Chicago Democratic Machine. And as such they are protégés of Mayor Daley.)
In May of 2006 charges were leveled against Daley that he kept the tollbooths at the Chicago Skyway well staffed so he could breeze over to his Michigan cottage on week-ends. His response to reporters was eloquent:
“Everybody’s caught in traffic every day. I don’t know where they got that. Don’t worry. I’m caught in traffic as much as anyone else. It’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. It really is silly. It’s silly, silly, silly. It is just silly. Silliness. It is silly. Completely silly…You’ve been on [the Skyway]. Come on. It’s silly…You know me. That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.”
Count ‘em. That’s 11 sillies in one short answer.
The term was so effective that he used it again in September of 2006. It still comes out now and then.
The only question now is whether or not the White House seriously thinks Daley is a good communicator. If so, YouTube will light up with comments from the Obama administration.
White House Van Crashes
In an unsuccessful effort to move to the center Obama has fired Van Jones, his green jobs czar.
(David Axelrod adamantly denies that he was forced out. Denial is confirmation in Washington.)
It started like this. Jones was chosen as an Obama czar without adequate vetting. Clearly the president cannot simply do whatever he wants with his “kitchen cabinet” just because his trusted experts don’t come up for confirmation in congress. And he found out with Jones. (Sorry to besmirch Andrew Jackson here. There is no evidence that Jackson paid members of his kitchen cabinet, though some of them got pretty good jobs later on.)
When this video about Jones’ background went viral the administration started to worry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgmwyfKuL8&feature=related
Jones was co-founder of STORM, a pro-Communist group. Then the Ella Baker Center. Then he was part of the Apollo Alliance (authors of the stimulus package).
A group called Color of Change shot back at Beck, calling him a racist and sending boycott letters to Fox sponsors. (Strangely, Color of Change claims Van Jones was never associated with their group…yet the White House put his affiliation in their bio of Jones. Hmmm.)
Some of the advertisers caved, but others did not.
Once again, the race card is played and the ensuing strip poker game reveals some very radical statements coming from a White House advisor.
Glenn Beck then exposed more recent Van Jones statements on September 1st:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo46e8OHd9U&feature=email
Gee, can you find that kind of rhetoric in the archives of Colin Powell or Michael Steele? Well, no you can’t, but they continue to claim that the criticism is about race, not fundamental ideology.
Next come the poll numbers and a very critical problem is revealed. The White House is losing the support of the moderates.
According to a CNN Commentary on August 27th: “In May, 66 percent of independents approved of Obama's job performance, according to the Gallup Poll.
By August, Gallup showed the president was supported by 49 percent of independents."
Democrats may own the black vote. They may even own the Latino vote. But when you get beyond identity politics you have to really work to win the Independent voters. And they are losing confidence in Obama and his staff.
So Jones rolls over, claiming that he resigned for the good of the order. He called the attack a “vicious smear campaign” but failed to elaborate. In fact, the White House didn’t ever really defend him, leaving the media to take their quotes from George Soros as the apologist for Van’s radical past.
As Obama attempts to move toward the middle he is confronted once again with his extreme left past.
As an important byproduct of this OTJ lesson Obama will now create his own kinder, gentler proposal for national health care. But as the politicians say, standing in the middle of the road is the most dangerous place to be.
Suddenly, an old campaign cartoon seems appropriate.
(David Axelrod adamantly denies that he was forced out. Denial is confirmation in Washington.)
It started like this. Jones was chosen as an Obama czar without adequate vetting. Clearly the president cannot simply do whatever he wants with his “kitchen cabinet” just because his trusted experts don’t come up for confirmation in congress. And he found out with Jones. (Sorry to besmirch Andrew Jackson here. There is no evidence that Jackson paid members of his kitchen cabinet, though some of them got pretty good jobs later on.)
When this video about Jones’ background went viral the administration started to worry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOgmwyfKuL8&feature=related
Jones was co-founder of STORM, a pro-Communist group. Then the Ella Baker Center. Then he was part of the Apollo Alliance (authors of the stimulus package).
A group called Color of Change shot back at Beck, calling him a racist and sending boycott letters to Fox sponsors. (Strangely, Color of Change claims Van Jones was never associated with their group…yet the White House put his affiliation in their bio of Jones. Hmmm.)
Some of the advertisers caved, but others did not.
Once again, the race card is played and the ensuing strip poker game reveals some very radical statements coming from a White House advisor.
Glenn Beck then exposed more recent Van Jones statements on September 1st:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo46e8OHd9U&feature=email
Gee, can you find that kind of rhetoric in the archives of Colin Powell or Michael Steele? Well, no you can’t, but they continue to claim that the criticism is about race, not fundamental ideology.
Next come the poll numbers and a very critical problem is revealed. The White House is losing the support of the moderates.
According to a CNN Commentary on August 27th: “In May, 66 percent of independents approved of Obama's job performance, according to the Gallup Poll.
By August, Gallup showed the president was supported by 49 percent of independents."
Democrats may own the black vote. They may even own the Latino vote. But when you get beyond identity politics you have to really work to win the Independent voters. And they are losing confidence in Obama and his staff.
So Jones rolls over, claiming that he resigned for the good of the order. He called the attack a “vicious smear campaign” but failed to elaborate. In fact, the White House didn’t ever really defend him, leaving the media to take their quotes from George Soros as the apologist for Van’s radical past.
As Obama attempts to move toward the middle he is confronted once again with his extreme left past.
As an important byproduct of this OTJ lesson Obama will now create his own kinder, gentler proposal for national health care. But as the politicians say, standing in the middle of the road is the most dangerous place to be.
Suddenly, an old campaign cartoon seems appropriate.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Bible study
From Ecclesiastes chapter 1 we read:
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
And so it is with politics. We think that this propaganda effort from the left is something new. Not really.
агитпроп
That funny Russian word is what we call Agit-prop for the Soviet technique of “urging” people to endorse Communism (agitate) through “disseminating information" (propaganda).
And Obama has pulled out all the stops on health care. You’ve got ACORN, and the SEIU, and Moveon.org, and FactCheck.org, and MediaMatters, and CNN, and MSNBC, and ABC (except Jake Tapper).
It’s funny he doesn’t have the support of the Congressional Budget Office or the Congressional Research Service. But let’s not bother with that.
Agit-prop turned ugly in California when a “Moveon-er” walked through an anti-Obama group at a health care reform rally. A 65-year-old man took a swing at the leftie and so the leftie bit off his pinkie.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/09/fingered_protesting_man_bites.html
Now, that may be a first, Preacher.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
And so it is with politics. We think that this propaganda effort from the left is something new. Not really.
агитпроп
That funny Russian word is what we call Agit-prop for the Soviet technique of “urging” people to endorse Communism (agitate) through “disseminating information" (propaganda).
And Obama has pulled out all the stops on health care. You’ve got ACORN, and the SEIU, and Moveon.org, and FactCheck.org, and MediaMatters, and CNN, and MSNBC, and ABC (except Jake Tapper).
It’s funny he doesn’t have the support of the Congressional Budget Office or the Congressional Research Service. But let’s not bother with that.
Agit-prop turned ugly in California when a “Moveon-er” walked through an anti-Obama group at a health care reform rally. A 65-year-old man took a swing at the leftie and so the leftie bit off his pinkie.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/09/fingered_protesting_man_bites.html
Now, that may be a first, Preacher.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
They can't show that to my kid
What would you do if they showed this video at your kid’s (or kids’) school?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0
Well, some parents out in Utah got upset and complained to the school.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705327260/Eagle-Forum-parents-decry-video.html
or
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171
An overreaction? Chew on this idea and ask yourself what it would take to shift our attention away from the War on Terror:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/24/obamas-plan-to-desecrate-911
The “I Pledge” video was produced by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher for the inauguration. Note how it has some very effective elements of propaganda, especially the celebrity endorsements.
And it rides on the coattails of the Pledge of Allegiance without even a hint of patriotism. By association they are suddenly pledging to globalism, mixed in with the “love thy neighbor” theme.
Did anyone see a flag? I saw some red-white-blue and blue/gray.
Some (not all) adults can see what’s happening here. Children cannot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kAw4OTlA0
Well, some parents out in Utah got upset and complained to the school.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705327260/Eagle-Forum-parents-decry-video.html
or
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13249171
An overreaction? Chew on this idea and ask yourself what it would take to shift our attention away from the War on Terror:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/24/obamas-plan-to-desecrate-911
The “I Pledge” video was produced by Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher for the inauguration. Note how it has some very effective elements of propaganda, especially the celebrity endorsements.
And it rides on the coattails of the Pledge of Allegiance without even a hint of patriotism. By association they are suddenly pledging to globalism, mixed in with the “love thy neighbor” theme.
Did anyone see a flag? I saw some red-white-blue and blue/gray.
Some (not all) adults can see what’s happening here. Children cannot.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Hopey-changey for the visual learner
Here we have a graph of Obama's approval rating, courtesy of Rasmussen Polls.
This chart shows that 13% of the gung ho have gone home:
And this one shows that the people who were dissatisfied at the start have NOT been converted. It is the spread between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of Obama's performance:
This chart shows that 13% of the gung ho have gone home:
And this one shows that the people who were dissatisfied at the start have NOT been converted. It is the spread between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove of Obama's performance:If you ask me this is a result of the following flaws:
1) He is allowing clearly radical folks to write his proposed legislations for him.
2) He then turns it over to Pelosi and Reid to defend it and sell it.
The end result is that these ultra-liberal folks are selling something America doesn't want. They then take cover using tactics that only make them look foolish.
Obama compensates by making speeches that paint him as the guy promising everything to everyone, only to be found out as misrepresenting the truth.
He's not selling subsudized housing to welfare recipients on the south side; there is real resistance to his ideas now and people WILL check his words carefully. Therein erodes our trust.
FactCheck.org must be working for Obama
FactCheck.org explains that illegal aliens will NOT get free health care under Obamacare. So they say in the following explanation:
Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.
Their link: http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
Well, FactCheck.org is showing their fangs (and bias) right from the start with the title of this report. They call the analysis “Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200.”
The word “Lies” jumps out at you, doesn’t it? After all, even the president misunderstands the content of HR 3200 from time-to-time. To label something a lie is strong language indeed.
I suppose the experts over at FactCheck.org are rethinking their tune now that the Congressional Research Service, a federal agency that does studies for Congress, reports that illegal aliens can get free health care from HR 3200. Their report can be found at this link: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40773_20090825.pdf
FactCheck.org is either duplicitous or clueless from the beginning as evidenced by the last line of their explanation above. It reads, “And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.”
Surely they must know about the EMTALA.
Surely they have read the horror stories of illegal aliens racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and the hospitals can’t send them to facilities in their home countries because they can be sued for doing so.
Surely they read about the illegal alien in California who had received three liver transplants, all of them rejected, and was waiting for a fourth. And she didn’t pay a dime for any of the surgeries or the $30K a year in prescriptions.
Surely FactCheck.org knows that anchor babies are gateways to all sorts of means-tested benefits from school lunches to medical care.
So, who’s lying now?
Claim: Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
False. That’s simply not what the bill says at all. This page includes "SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE," which says that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." However, the bill does explicitly say that illegal immigrants can’t get any government money to pay for health care. Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.
Their link: http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/
Well, FactCheck.org is showing their fangs (and bias) right from the start with the title of this report. They call the analysis “Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200.”
The word “Lies” jumps out at you, doesn’t it? After all, even the president misunderstands the content of HR 3200 from time-to-time. To label something a lie is strong language indeed.
I suppose the experts over at FactCheck.org are rethinking their tune now that the Congressional Research Service, a federal agency that does studies for Congress, reports that illegal aliens can get free health care from HR 3200. Their report can be found at this link: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40773_20090825.pdf
FactCheck.org is either duplicitous or clueless from the beginning as evidenced by the last line of their explanation above. It reads, “And as we’ve said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.”
Surely they must know about the EMTALA.
Surely they have read the horror stories of illegal aliens racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and the hospitals can’t send them to facilities in their home countries because they can be sued for doing so.
Surely they read about the illegal alien in California who had received three liver transplants, all of them rejected, and was waiting for a fourth. And she didn’t pay a dime for any of the surgeries or the $30K a year in prescriptions.
Surely FactCheck.org knows that anchor babies are gateways to all sorts of means-tested benefits from school lunches to medical care.
So, who’s lying now?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)