I didn’t necessarily have it in mind to post today, but I ran across this OpEd piece in the Washington Post by Ruth Marcus.
Now let me just say at the outset that Marcus describes feeling “thoroughly depressed” after reviewing Obama’s debt reduction plan. But it seems to me this stands to reason at some level.
You see, Ms. Marcus appears to have bought into the “Change you can believe in” chant from a few years back. And now she apparently believes that Obama somehow reneged (just like I described in a piece yesterday).
The only difference? Marcus believes that, essentially, the devil made him do it—the devil being personified by those nasty members of the opposing party. [Continue reading]
I don’t know how many of you are following the emerging Solyndra scandal (and I do mean scandal).
National Review Online is reporting the story—complete with links to several previous reports—but for some reason, I haven’t yet heard it break on the major networks. Now that may be because I use CNN as my main source of news. But in any event, much of it appears lost on the world.
My main gripe has to do with how quickly this shows the President began breaking campaign promises after taking office. [Continue reading]
I’m just curious… Who knows what it is about today’s date, September 17th, that makes it special?
Well, we certainly know it doesn’t have anything to do with September 11th. Even though our date follows just a few days after that ignominious incident, nothing of historical significance could have taken place so quickly in response.
If I mention that it’s a date of political significance, does that help any?
Well, it’s too early before the elections to be included in any type of “October surprises.” And while I’m sure there are plenty of historical things that could have happened on this day, it’s not like there was a Pearl Harbor or Bay of Pigs, or even a Battle of the Bulge, in terms of possible big military anniversaries.
Were there any big catastrophes recorded for the date? In point of fact, the event represents much more in the way of hope than in terms of destruction. One participant at the event in question even likened the moment to a “rising sun” of hope—certainly an encouraging and apt description.
What’s up with the need for having a presidential “spokesman?” (No, I’m not worried about being politically correct—we haven’t yet had a spokeswoman, probably because we haven’t yet had a female president.)
Editor’s note: Much to my chagrin, I’ve been gently reminded that we have had some spokeswomen. Thus my coy attempt at tongue-in-cheek humor fell flat on its face. Thanks to a reader for the correction…
Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary
In the old days you did your own talking. From all I’ve been able to gather, there was never a need for someone else to explain on behalf of a president what they thought on a particular issue—they could do it all by themselves. This was the case with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and others. I’d like to think they’d find it pretty odd to have someone trying to tell others what their positions were on the problems of the day.
But somewhere along the way (post Abraham Lincoln), President’s began this modern practice of having a Press Secretary. It went along with the new practice of hiring White House staff, the numbers of which have of course grown dramatically over the years. [Continue reading…]
A recent article unveils the results of a “new CNN investigation” into the birther claims against Obama. But CNN, just like the rest of the media, doesn’t seem to understand that they no longer have the credibility to persuade.
The crux of the story deals with how ridiculous the birthers are for insisting that more persuasive evidence should be provided that Obama is indeed a U.S. citizen. But in attempting to make the birther movement look stupid, CNN ultimately falls flat on its collective face.
Well, because it’s intrinsically absurd. Those who believe in the theory that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. (obviously) don’t trust the media—not one whit! Then a representative of that very media comes along and writes a story that tries to call adherents of the movement into question and make them look fringe and goofy?
Now. for my part I don’t see the writer (or those who did the “research”) really addressing the issue as the so-called “birthers” see it. What are their positions on the issue? [Continue reading…]
I find it interesting that, after the bombardment of Libya, Dennis Kucinich and others (Democrats and Republicans) are now parading it around as though it were a sacred cow.
Kucinich says that what Obama did (by not consulting Congress) was an impeachable offense—it doesn’t agree with the Constitution. And so it was. Congress, not the President, is given all authority to declare war (or attack others in this case) according to Article I Section 8 of the document.
Kucinich then said something that I find wholly obtuse. In essence, he stated that just because it’s an impeachable offense, that doesn’t mean we have to impeach the President.
Huh?! If the highest office of the land acts in a manner contrary to the Constitution which gives that office its powers, then mustn’t impeachment follow as a matter of course? How can an “impeachable offense” remain unchallenged, according to the laws set forth in the instrument which established the government in the first place?
Why is it that the Constitution is suddenly so important when liberals need it to be? Kucinich and many other Dems are crying “Foul!” that the Constitution wasn’t followed, yet they have shown extraordinary disdain for the document when it’s at odds with what they seek to do. The entire bailouts, running up huge deficits, dictating health care to the people and the several states—these are all un-, non-, or extra-constitutional in their own right. [Continue reading…]