Is Obama in Trouble?

Whew…. What a weekend. As many of you know I run a retail business. And that means that this was a big weekend. I can’t speak for where the economy is headed, but there were a ton of folks out this weekend spending money. Tonight I ran across an especially passionate lady who, once started, was fired up about politics as anyone here. I didn’t intend to get into a political conversation, as I try to keep those separate from work. But she sucked me in and I invited her here. I hope she joins us as I would love to have yet another passionate voice eager for action in a positive direction. I mention her because I see more and more folks like her every day. Incensed with the direction of this country. Not just the Democrats in Congress, although she certainly could see their ills at the moment, but with both sides, with bigger government. With an out of control Congress that is working to tax and spend everything, right up to breathing at this point.

And the question I have to ask is whether, all of the sudden, Barack Obama is finding that the direction he wants to take the country is a direction that the country is going to ensure that they do not go?

We all know that politics in Washington. One batch of leaches is just as bad, corrupt, and self serving as the other batch of leaches. The Red Shirts and the Blue Shirts are in this together, while playing much of America for the fool. What we saw in November of 2008 was a perfect storm of George Bush hatred, weariness of the two wars, an entirely complicit media, and a silver tongued man who made Americans believe that he was the hope and change they had been waiting for. Make no bones about it, Barack Obama wrote a whole slew of checks that he had no intention of paying. At this point I believe that he outright lied to America, and very few of us were able to see it for what it was at the time. He ran a campaign in the middle, and now wants to take us far to the left.

Oh, I know that some of you are seething that I would say it that bluntly. “He has not had enough time” or “he is only doing what the realities of the Presidency have forced upon him” are the common excuses. But I say NO. He was lying when he said many of the things that he said on the campaign trail. Of course there are other things that I think he was being completely honest about, but that many in America were unwilling to permit themselves to believe that he meant them the way he said them. Some cases in point:

  • Promising transparency when he had zero intention of delivering. Even going as far as promising a hard set period of time for Americans to review bills before they were passed. He obviously failed that test on the first stimulus bill…. and every single bill passed since that time. Far from transparent, his administration has thus far remained as closed, sometimes even more closed, as any administration in my lifetime.
  • Promising that 95% of Americans would not “see a single dime of increase in their taxes”… The instances where this has been broken started early and continued through today. Taxes have been increased over and over for Americans. Sin taxes, “penalties” that he attempts to say aren’t taxes, rising energy costs to pay for corporate taxes and Cap and Trade madness, and coming soon, massive increases in the amounts that Americans pay for health care and health insurance. This was an intentional lie from day one.
  • Saying Afghanistan is the “right war” and the one we must win at all costs, only to falter as soon as a General makes a request for more troops. He has done absolutely nothing to further the progress that Bush made towards leaving Iraq. And Afghanistan has become a decision that he is either not willing, or not mentally equipped, to make. This was a lie too. He knew he couldn’t win the election opposing BOTH wars, so he lied and said he supported the convenient one. Now he is exposed.
  • Saying that he was bringing change to Washington. He didn’t lie here, he meant what he said. Many Americans simply believed that he meant good change, when he in fact meant a massive expansion of government and a reversal of any program that provided an obstacle to his plan for American citizen dependency and loss of liberty (specifically I am talking about the effective welfare reforms that were erased immediately so that the poor can once again become government dependents). The increase in the size and scope of government in just one year has been both unbelievable and faster than anyone since FDR.
  • Promising over and over again that he would never support health care reform that included taxing employer provided health care coverage. This was a major part of his campaign (His campaign spent $44 million on 16 different television ads hammering John McCain on this). We are seeing in the ongoing debates and his own comments that this position has been totally abandoned now that the campaign is over. These taxes were included in the House Bill and are expected to be in the Senate version as well.

And this is throwing away some of his large lies that were exposed prior to even being elected. For example his promise to stick to the $84 million in campaign financing provided by the federal funding so long as his opponent did. He scrapped that as soon as he realized he could outspend his opponent by 5 or 6 to 1. McCain stuck to his promise, and as a result was outspent almost 6 to 1 in the campaign. Obama was the first President to do this. There was the promise to those who elected him in 2004 that he would not seek public office. He said, “Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years.” Responding to a question from a reporter he later stated, “Guys, I’m a state senator. I was elected yesterday. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. I’ve never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow I’m immediately going to start running for higher office, it just doesn’t make sense.” Man that good ole boy “that doesn’t make sense” is a line he has continued to use with frequency in the years since. It is as much of a lie now as it was then.

And lord don’t let us forget the nonsense about not knowing Bill Ayers that well, or the complete nonsense of sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years and not knowing that he was a hate filled bigot who hate the USA. Or his relationship with the now infamous hooker helping voter fraud group ACORN.

Let’s face it, all politicians seem to be liars. It is common stock in the business. But I cannot recall someone getting caught lying so much and still getting elected. And I cannot recall any President so quickly breaking so many of his campaign promises. I mean, really, Bush was a polished turd, but his first year wasn’t this filled with reversals in his campaign stances. No President’s first year featured this much of it.

So now we come back to the present. It certainly appears that many more folks are beginning to see him for what he really is, a very far left guy. I know that communist and socialist carry such stigmas to them. So I will refrain from saying them. But I will say that he is slightly more of a fascist than the past few Presidents, but it is important to realize that he is more of one, NOT he is one and they weren’t. Each President has taken us further down this path, he just accelerated that train, now the wall seems to be looming and getting larger in the windshield at a much faster rate.

I think that what we are seeing is yet another perfect storm of awakening in the American people. I do, of course, realize that this could be nothing more than me seeing what I want to see in the population. So I am open to discussing it. But here is the perfect storm that I am seeing:

I see a President that was voted the most far left by his peers in the Senate, who ran as a centrist, but who is proving to be the most far left President in recent history. I see a Congress led by the most far left whack-job Speaker of the House that I have ever seen. I have seen some pretty influential and somewhat radical party leaders in my time, but Pelosi is as polarizing and as far out there to the fringe as any. And I see a media that is so over the top complicit in their support, through their puff questions, selective articles, non-coverage of critical news, and gushing tingle in the leg Obama love, that the American public can no longer ignore the fact that the media has nothing to do with news any longer and cannot be trusted on anything. Finally, I see legislation that is so corrupt, so dishonest, so self serving, and so not going to do what it claims, that the American public is finally beginning to understand that Washington DC isn’t doing this out of ignorance, it is an intentional screwing over of the American people.

And I think because of so much of this all coming to a head in such a short timeline (the last 10 years? with a marked acceleration over the last 18 months), the people are unable to ignore this any longer. The threat is now beginning to be seen as imminent rather than possible. The impacts of the last ten years of corruption in Washington DC is affecting a majority of Americans at this point as they lose their jobs, their homes, their peace of mind, their trust, and most important, their liberty.

I think the tea parties were just a start. They were not a fringe population. They were the few who were motivated. I think that if things continue down the path we are going, Americans will become even more frustrated, more vocal, more desperate, and will eventually come to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the federal government at all. Think of how fringe the idea of refusing to recognize the authority of the federal government was just ten years ago. Look at how the number who feel that way has grown exponentially over the last 5 years.

Obama’s approval rating is now below 50%. That is a fairly big swing. It is not all that uncommon, as most President’s see a drop in their numbers early in their Presidency. But it is a surprising factor for this President, whether those who support him will admit that or not. I remember early in the Summer talking to a guy who said to me that President Obama was already a lock to be reelected in 2012. I was hard pressed to dismiss that idea out of hand. But at this point, I have to wonder if he even stands a chance of being reelected in 2012? The opposition to him will not be the weak effort put forth by McCain, who ran the worst campaign in my lifetime.

I believe the 2010 elections will return Congress to the corrupt Republicans rather than the corrupt Democrats. Has anyone thought about the fact that this might in fact temper Obama just enough so that in his last two years, he is able to once again rally people to believe in him? Democrats winning in 2010 might be just what we need so that he continues the radical path that seems to be awakening more and more people to the perils of a giant federal government each day. Perhaps the best possible scenario is more of what the looney far left is pushing so that more of the people wake up. Remember, a revolution doesn’t occur until the tipping point is reached. That tipping point is coming, but it could be stopped with a Republican Congress that slows him down.

I look forward to everyone’s thoughts on this. Has Barack Obama’s luster worn off? Are the people of America finally beginning to see through the facade and see him for the true far left liberal he has always been? Can he possibly be reelected in 2012? At what point will the majority of moderate Democrats completely abandon the SS Obama? Can he destroy our country before anything can be done (and I mean really, think about it, not just a gut reaction)?

Advertisements

Comments

  1. USW…You racist!!! Don’t you know that any talk like this makes you a racist? How dare you !!! Sorry…to the reality.

    I saw an interesting piece on the TV this morning wherein Obama has used the word “unprecedented” over 126 times in his speeches. I did not give it much thought until I started thinking about it. Is there anything that is unprecedented that he has had to tackle. I think I will list a few of the things that he claims are unprecedented.

    1. The Iraq/Afghanistan War – Let me see, President Kennedy inherited a war from President Eisenhower, President Johnson inherited a war from President Kennedy, President Nixon inherited a war from President Johnson, and President Ford inherited a war from President Nixon. President Carter tried to start a war and President Reagan went to war with Granada. President Bush went to war with Iraq and President Clinton went to war with Libya and Bosnia. President Bush 2 went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and President Obama inherited and is widening the war with Afghanistan and is about to get us into wars all over the world with his cowardice. SO, his claim of “unprecedented” in wars is folly. He is not the only President that inherited or gone to war. However, his claim of “unprecedented” does ring true with his cowardice (and I can use that term) in addressing world issues. I know some of you will have a heart attack today because of my use of that term but I know no other term to his apologist stances to the world and his willingness and apparent delegation of the United States to a third world status. Obama does not have victory in mind…he has capitulation in mind.

    2. The Economy – Let me see. Obama claims that the economy was worse than the great depression. Interesting as simple research shows that unemployment in 1933 was 25% and 15% in 1940. Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 6% and it is now somewhere around 15%-20% depending upon the numbers being put out by the, you guessed it, Government. It is important to remember that the government changed how unemployment is calculated from pre WWII. It is now calculated on the numbers of those receiving unemployment compensation. It does not take into consideration the number of people whose unemployment ran out and are NOT working and are NOT counted. The unemployment was not inherited as a result of BUSH policies like many of you want to claim. Using Obama’s own statement of the GREAT Depression. Let us look at the policies of the US compared to today. Historians most often attribute the start of the Great Depression to the sudden and total collapse of US stock market prices on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday. However, some dispute this conclusion, and see the stock crash as a symptom, rather than a cause of the Great Depression. Even after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, optimism persisted for some time; John D. Rockefeller said that “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.” The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30% below the peak of September 1929.Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.By mid-1930, interest rates had dropped to low levels, but expected deflation and the reluctance of people to add new debt by borrowing, meant that consumer spending and investment were depressed. In May 1930, automobile sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930; but then a deflationary spiral started in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933.There were multiple causes for the first downturn in 1929, including the structural weaknesses and specific events that turned it into a major depression and the way in which the downturn spread from country to country. In relation to the 1929 downturn, historians emphasize structural factors like massive bank failures and the stock market crash, while economists (such as Peter Temin and Barry Eichengreen) point to Britain’s decision to return to the Gold Standard at pre-World War I parities (US$4.86:£1).Recession cycles are thought to be a normal part of living in a world of inexact balances between supply and demand. What turns a usually mild and short recession or “ordinary” business cycle into an actual depression is a subject of debate and concern. Scholars have not agreed on the exact causes and their relative importance. The search for causes is closely connected to the question of how to avoid a future depression, and so the political and policy viewpoints of scholars are mixed into the analysis of historic events eight decades ago. The even larger question is whether it was largely a failure on the part of free markets or largely a failure on the part of government efforts to regulate interest rates, curtail widespread bank failures, and control the money supply. Those who believe in a large role for the state in the economy believe it was mostly a failure of the free markets and those who believe in free markets believe it was mostly a failure of government that compounded the problem.Current theories may be broadly classified into three main points of view. First there are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation, causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow to owe ever more in real terms.Second, there are structural theories, most importantly Keynesian, but also including those who point to the breakdown of international trade, and Institutional economists who point to underconsumption and overinvestment (economic bubble), malfeasance by bankers and industrialists, or incompetence by government officials. The consensus viewpoint is that there was a large-scale loss of confidence that led to a sudden reduction in consumption and investment spending. Once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could make more money by keeping clear of the markets as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand. Lastly, there are various heterodox theories that downplay or reject the explanations of the Keynesian and monetarists. For example, some new classical macroeconomists have argued that various labor market policies imposed at the start caused the length and severity of the Great Depression. The Austrian school of economics focuses on the macroeconomic effects of money supply, and how central banking decisions can lead to overinvestment (economic bubble). The Marxist critique of political economy emphasizes the tendency of capitalism to create unbalanced accumulations of wealth, leading to over accumulations of capital and a repeating cycle of devaluations through economic crises. Marx saw recession and depression as unavoidable under free-market capitalism as there are no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself.

    Now, if any of you read all of this, there is no difference between then and now except that the policies of the administration are exacerbating the problems and not fixing anything. So the economic cycles of the world are still there. It will fix itself. Reading further in the history proved that the socialist polices of the NEW DEAL prolonged the depression and the stagnating economic problems in the US. Only did WWII bring the unemployment below 8% again. Now, I do not want a war to bring us out of anything. They are expensive, but his policies of tax and spend are not new and not unprecedented in democratic justification and, in my opinion, will lead to a greater depression/recession.

    3. Health Care Reform – His claim of “unprecedented” health care is an additional shovel full of folly. If there were 50 or more percent of Americans….yes AMERICANS…not illegal immigrants… that do not or did not have access to health care…that is one thing. BUT to destroy the majority of a working health care system for (depending upon the numbers you choose to believe) less than 10% of the rest is an agenda not a fix. Please, take out those of us that choose not to have insurance and take out the illegal immigrants in counting the uninsured and my numbers match up pretty good. THIS IS THE UNPRECEDENTED issue. Let the free market work. Quit trying to claim that health care is a responsibility of government and get off this entitlement quest. Entitlement mentality will be the ruination of this country.

    There are many other issues but the point is that there is NOTHING unprecedented except trying to make us walking, mind numbing imbeciles that depend upon government to “give” us what we think we are entitled to….The ONLY thing this government should be doing is providing for a common defense. AND….anyone that is dependent upon the Federal Government to “give” you food, Pay your rent, give you a car, pay for your HD tv, “give” you health insurance. Etc…..makes you a mind numbing imbecile.

    Yes, USW, I think and see that there is a ground swell beginning and I am doing what I can to start one. I do know several people that voted Obama are suddenly saying…..He LIED ???? Really???? The luster is wearing off, I think, thanks to Pelosi, etal. The more the democrat controlled Congress does, the greater the ground swell and the more that I think will make people get interested in politics.

    The bloom is waning…..I just hope that we are not short on memory as we seem to be at times. This is a return to the New Deal era that prolonged the suffering of this country BUT the taxes are greater, higher, and more encompassing….Now this is the UNPRECEDENTED issue.

    • Good Morning All!

      Love your reply D13! I have to say that most of the people I talk with and have contact with have one general issue. That they are fed up with all politicans. I have friends who are very right and very left, and they truly see the shine coming off of both parties and politicans in general.

      You are right USW that there has been broken promises this year with out a doubt. I think that the general people that truly believed that the way things operated in Washington would change for the better. I think now they just see another politican in a suit.

      Hope everyone has a great day!

  2. You know, the funny thing is that I have ready nearly identical postings to this before – from the left. The left thinks he’s too far to the right, continuing too many of bushes policies, not pushing hard enough on their priorities.

    So he gets hit from the right for being too left, and from the left for being too far right.

    Now your questions:
    Has Barack Obama’s luster worn off? Yes. It’s easy to be lustrous before you have to actually get down to the business of governing. You can promise things, you can over-simplify things. The luster comes off pretty fast.

    Are the people of America finally beginning to see through the facade and see him for the true far left liberal he has always been? I don’t know.. the right’s political machine has done a great job of making him appear to be a radical. I don’t think this is entirely accurate, but that’s not your question. Do the People think he’s a far left liberal. I’d say about half-and-half. Certainly all the tea-partiers think so, as does a sizable portion of the remainder of the Republican party. Many on the left find him infuriatingly slow in fulfilling his promises to us.

    Can he possibly be reelected in 2012? Sure. All we need is for the Republicans to run a “true Conservative.” Allow me to glance into my crystal ball. It’s 2011 and the Republicans are just getting warmed up. There’s a centrist – his odds of getting elected in the general are good. But wait, what’s this, a far, far right conservative makes an appearance. A blood bath ensues comparable to Obama-Hillary. The conservative staggers out of the primary, beaten and bruised. But now, to win the primary, he(she?) had to promise lots of red meat – things like a federal anti gay marriage amendment, anti-abortion amendment, English as a national language, prayer in school, creationism in schools, etc. So he sets out against the Big O, and gets smacked around with his own words. It’s 2012, and it’s a tight race, but Obama hasn’t had to fight for the last few months. He’s been quietly raising money and staying off the radar and he’s fresh for the fight and he’s been governing centrist for the last year in anticipation. Obama takes it by a nose. The conservative demands a recount and accuses ACORN of messing with the hanging chads, but to no avail.

    At what point will the majority of moderate Democrats completely abandon the SS Obama? Unlikely. Their choice is clear. They might be temped to abandon Obama if there were another option, but the Republicans are running to the right. So their choice is someone who’s not good versus someone they hate. They’ll stay put at least until the Republican party finds its way out of the wilderness.

    Can he destroy our country before anything can be done? Sure he can. But he won’t. Our country is pretty tough. If I may be permitted another glance into the crystal ball, I see that our country emerges stronger in 2016 at the end of his second term than it has ever been. Subsequently, Biden’s bid for the Presidency ends disastrously when he chokes to death on his own foot.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius,

      Your crystal ball needs a good cleaning. Right now Gomer Pyle could run against Obama and win.

      It is possible that he wins a 2nd term if he finds a way out of his own morass over the next year or so, but right now his reelection prospects are somewhere between slim and none, and slim is on his way out the door.

      Of course, many of us realize that whether he gets reelected or someone in a different color shirt gets elected instead, it is not likely to make a whole lot of difference in the long run anyway 🙂

      • LOL @ Gomer Pyle!

        Hope everyone had a great holiday! I am glad the company is finally gone 😉

      • Not sure about Gomer (though he was a marine, so that should help).. but the question isn’t whether he would win today. We’re talking about 2012, and I think it’s possible (if not probable). My crystal ball hasn’t let me down yet.

        Anyone who doesn’t think that the primary race for the Republican slot isn’t going to be on par with Hillary-Obama is out of their mind. Further, I’ll lay even odds that, if the moderate wins, the tea party crowd hamstrings him with a third party bid (a la NY23, but national).

        • Depressing me this AM, Mathius. Will any competent, honest person show up? Look what the left did ,with a complicit media, to Whole Foods John McKay!

        • Ok, Matt….you are on. Here is the bet. If there is a blood bath like the Obama/Clinton debacle…..I will drink one Red Bull per day for a week. If there is a Repub candidate and no blood bath between far right and center…you drink a Dr Pepper….one per day for a week. Ok?

          Economically speaking, however, if the debt is actually risen to the trillions predicted…there will be no robust economy in 2016….just higher debt.

          • I accept your terms. I task you with remembering this challenge, because I am getting senile in my old age and doubt I will recall having this conversation next week, let alone in 2012.

            • But Matt, my friend, it will be close in your mind. We will not have to wait until 2016. Let’s see…2012….3 years from now….I will be 64 and change…..hoping that the Dems/Repubs have not spent my social security that I have paid in full….but not counting on it. Well, it is already spent….I will outlive the actuarial table….at least my parents have. They are 91 and 90 and have been pulling the maximum allotted in SS for 25 years now. It is amazing how this entitlement works. They have been pulling the maximum (something over 32k per year for 25 years….far more than they paid in…..the pyramid will burst sometime. But I wager that I am more senile than you…but according to you…Red Bull is it.Cures everything…even old age and senility. But you are on.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      “things like a federal anti gay marriage amendment, anti-abortion amendment, English as a national language, prayer in school, creationism in schools, etc.”

      Interesting choice of items to list as part of the “conservative” agenda, especially the way you worded it.

      Let’s try the same game with the “liberal” agenda, shall we?

      1. Federally mandated making the people who make money pay for healthcare for the people who don’t make money program.

      2. Federally mandated program to eliminate the main component in air that plants need in order to breathe and produce food for themselves.

      3. Federally mandated program to force people who make money to pay for having babies ripped out of the uteruses of people who don’t make money.

      4. Federal mandate that God is not only not mentioned in schools, but that his existence is actively denied.

      5. Multi-lingualism as a national language.

      You see, depending on the words you use, you can make any position sound really bad 🙂

      • Your list lacks a certain je ne sais quoi, but point well taken.

        But I do have to take exception to #4 in particualar. Nobody is advocating for actively denying God’s existence in schools. They are just trying to stop advocating for his existence. There is a huge, huge difference.

        3. Federally mandated program to force people who make money to pay for having babies ripped out of the uteruses of people who don’t make money.

        I had a conversation with my brother in law yesterday that you may appreciate. He said that he’d be ok with welfare only on the condition that individuals submit to voluntary sterilization first. That way, if the government’s going to steal his money and give it to someone else, he is at least getting some utility out of it. Not particularly related, but this made me think of that, and I thought I’d share it with the group.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius,

          I am not sure that public schools had advocated FOR the existence of God in quite some time, except perhaps by taking lots of our money that has “In God We Trust” printed on it 🙂

          Oh sure, there are certain states where they teach “intelligent design” or whatever they are calling it these days, but as far as I know that was decided on the State level, which is probably where such decisions should be made.

          Not sure what to think on the sterilization issue. My position is that if you engage in activities that might logically lead to pregnancy, you might want to take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to make other people responsible for them, but hey, that might make sense!

        • I would add mandatory drug testing, like the working people have to do.

          • I’m not against that either. I would even take it a step further. No alcohol while on the public dole.

            And one more for you. No tobacco. Not because it’s unhealthy blah blah, but because if he is so poor that I have to provide for him, he should not be spending my money on cigarettes. I’ll make an exemption if he grows it himself.

            Oh, and no cable TV service. Don’t have a job? You should be watching TV.

            This is fun.

    • Choking on his foot LOL. Would that be unprecedented?

      • No, it happens ever time he opens his mouth. Doctors aren’t sure what to do about it.

        Just last week, he came down with a nasty case of athlete’s mouth. He has to gargle Tinactin twice a day for the next three weeks.

        • But I thought that a strong dose of RED BULL cures foot in mouth disease….now I am disappointed….but we are talking about Biden here….regular dosage of RED BULL probably will not cure the severity of his ailment. At this very moment, I bet he is trying to figure out how to get BOTH feet in there at the same time.

  3. I don’t see how we can accuse him of trying to take us to the far left when the far left is getting more and more frustrated by his absolute abandonment of them. I have trimmed back my own politics in favor of a more responsible socialist approach (meaning cleaning the current messes and fraud that seems to flourish all around us before making any wholesale moves—which Obama is not in favor of), but … this guy couldn’t be more centrist to those of us who take a more liberal approach.

    Having said that (the new Curb Your Enthusiasm line) and after being called “the new voice of right wing America” by so-called liberal democrats on their blogs, I think the guy is in serious trouble and was probably nowhere near ready to be President (not that George Bush was either–but for proven incompetency reasons instead). Those 130 “present” votes in the Illinois Sentate are starting to show up in his indecisions about everything (and don’t get me wrong, I want OUT of Afghanistan and Iraq, so it isn’t just about his taking his time on troop deployments), but his seemingly never ending running around the globe for what should be considered less than crisis issues, while ROME burns, isn’t sitting well with the public. Add to that his political disastrous move to hold the terrorist trial in New York (where he may lose a blue state or two) and you have a guy in genuine trouble.

    It will still require the Republicans to come up with someone to contest his charismatic appeal (and I don’t see anybody there with it yet), but if his inability to get anything done with a veto proof Congress continues much longer, the time will be ripe for a third party to enter the race(s).

    On another note: I finally finished Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead … way too much subservience for moi (talk about slavery) but there were some good points made (not enough to sway my core beliefs). And now I know where BF gets that savage stuff from :).

    Hope yous all had a good thanksgiving.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Charlie,

      You make a good point. Obama’s biggest problem right now is that he cannot please ANYBODY. The “right” was never going to like him no matter what, the “middle” is abandoning him for many reasons, the chief of which is run-away spending, and the “far-left” is really unhappy with him because he has not stepped up and pushed their agenda.

      His is currently not an enviable position to be in.

      • You know you’re in SERIOUS trouble when (as an “alleged” liberal), Saturday Night Live starts teeing off on you.

        He may well run himself out of town …

        • NOW….this is true. I am surprised that the fairness doctrine has not reared its head over the Obama skit.

      • Peter, I agree. Obama gets no love from the far left or right fringes. His biggest problem is the abandonment by the center (you know the working people). They can see no way to pay off the enormous debt we are running up. They are becoming frightened. I think it is a mistake for the politicians to consider the Tea Parties as extreme right wingers, it has been my observation they are common folks trying to stop or slow down government spending.

        • I’m a proud tea-partier (of whatever label we’ve been given) and I am a “common folk trying to stop or slow down government spending.” You are right on, Bama Dad.

        • Today Michael Moore went after him (and about time). I get into all kinds of beefs with so-called liberal democrats who spend more time pissing on Palin, Beck, etc. (the non-factors, I call them) then holding their guy responsible for what they “claim” they voted him into office for.

          If you’re against the war in Afghanistan (I am), the letter Moore wrote was a stinger:

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_373457.html

          • Hi Charlie…have not talked to you in a long time..Read the reference you sent (wish I knew how to do that) and it was interesting. However, the messenger has a credibility rating somewhat below a snake’s ass in a wagon rut but the message had some very good points that even I agree with.

            Hope you have a great day and the next couple of months is going to be interesting.

            • Sorry I’m late again, D.

              Yeah, I’m not much of a Moore fan and he obviously couldn’t control himself from taking shots at the GOP, but it is significant that many on the left are already fed up with Jimmy Carter II.

              I can’t believe how inept this guy seems to be so far. When will any party have that much control again (and do nothing with it)?

  4. Ray Hawkins says:

    Just a different view on things –

    Politifact, the website owned/run by the Saint Pete Times in Florida (conservative area but not sure where the paper itself washes out) has been maintaining the Obameter. Of the 515 campaign promises they document he made during the campaign they rate:

    Promise Kept = 55
    Compromise = 14
    Promise Broken = 7
    Stalled = 17
    In the Works = 160
    Not Yet Rated = 262

    Of a list of 25 they consider most significant:

    In the Works: 18
    Promise Kept: 3
    Compromise: 2
    Stalled: 1
    Promise Broken: 1

    Most all of what I have read from the site is well documented and referenced.

    We should recognize that this President will, inherently, be the most analyzed President in our history – and that is not just because of some groundswell – it is also a product of our information age, access and movement.

    I’ll agree with Mat that I do see a total of eight years of Obama – that can change – but it is not likely. The Republicans are too scatter shot to figure out if they continue to run to the right or if they make their tent bigger.

    Maybe we’ll see an Evan Bayh or Billary run then…..

    • Ray Hawkins says:
    • TexasChem says:

      Ray and Mathius, I do not understand your conclusion of America having eight more years of Obamanomics. I see more people from the working class getting involved in politics both locally and nationally. The working class American is the silent majority and trust me their voices will be heard in 2010 and 2012. This is just common sense. My crystal ball has told me of an “unprecedented” move to the right in regards to American politics. This movement thrown into warp speed by Obama and the left!

      • Living the Dream says:

        Texaschem I do not know why you would think that you could use the term common sense in one of your posts. From what I have read of your comments, common sense is about as foreign to you as living in house that does not have wheels. Please leave the thinking to others who are qualified to do so. Obama will be reelected as long as the only competion he has is from uneducated people such as yourself.

        • TexasChem says:

          Oh come now LTD, tell me is a personal attack against someone the BEST response you can come up with to defend your evident Leftist views? I would expect no less from someone who takes the stance of seemingly knowing what is Best for society.I would suggest that it appears to your peers that you have an attitude of self superiority most likely used to defend your inept attempts at integration into a society that just does not accept you.

  5. USW:

    Excellent article by you and I also like D13’s response.

    I think Obama’s luster is wearing off.

    I think Obama is being seen by more and more people as a far left radical. I also think they are beginning to question his intelligence. He may have gone to Harvard but he cannot talk well without his teleprompter. He has no understanding of U.S. history, economic theory, geography, business practices, etc. I don’t know what he is an expert in other than giving speeches off a teleprompter.

    Obama can be elected again in 2012. Democrats will only abandon him temporarily to get re-elected. They will never completely abandon him.

    Obama can destroy this country before the 2010 or 2012 election. Flag’s warnings are out there. The dollar could collapse next year.

    • I do not think the dollar will be allowed to collapse in the next 10 years….perhaps after that but not now….I don’t care what the doomsayers print.

      • I agree, however, the alternative will be the worse Depression in modern history.

        The government will probably not survive (as we know it) such a Depression.

        • Yessir, the alternative is not pretty and I really think that a lot of Congress carry the same attitude towards the dollar as they did towards the banks and automotive industry…..TOO big to fail.

          They know not what they are doing because eventually, without good leadership, the world will seek another avenue. It is not here yet but it is on the horizon. I do not see a gold standard coming back but, quite frankly, my crystal ball is cloudy. We have invested significantly in the gold market since 1974, especially from China ( the entire Panda series ) but it is still a commodity. Hard to figure right now. The Euro is not stable and I am not real sure of the Sterling but……….(roll the dice here) it is not snake eyes yet….or to your liking…it is not time to bet on the river.

  6. I see some scary stuff coming between now and elections in November 2010. The White House realizes their time to take total control of everything will come to an end then and so the pressure build up to cram everything through will be enormous.

    The $300 million bribe/vote that we just saw in the Senate Health Care bill will be nothing compared to the blackmail, behind doors deals and outright Chicago thugery come to Washington. Desperate people do desperate things and this Adm. fits the description.

    We all need to do what we can to slow down the train (ie, prevent any health care bill before the holiday break will be huge – job preservation will come into play in 2010 and it may die on its own then) and then prepare for the wreck to happen, because it will.

    • I agree with you Kathy. This Administartion will try to ‘seal the deal’ no matter what. Neither Party cares what the voters want, unless it fits the Party’s objectives. What I’m wondering is, how far are the parties willing to go? How far are the voters willing to go? Will it end in violence, or will people just complain, and then following along like good little sheep? Or will we have violence and then compliance?

    • Kathy

      I agree that there is alot of policies that are getting pushed through with out the needed researched to make sure that they will actually work. My issue is that even if the power switches to the Rep in 2010 in Congress, I am pretty conviced that they are no better than what we have now. I would love to see some real people not related to either party get in.

      • Hi Ellen,

        I’m convinced that we’re screwed either way, too. But I have to wonder if getting ‘real’ people elected is enough. Obama is not the problem as much as he’s the symptom. This situation has been in the making for decades, with the people responsible for it now controlling the levers of power. The best we can do is delay the inevitable. All we’ll be doing is slowly bleeding to death, so to speak. If the Dems are kicked to the curb in 2010, all it means is that the other bunch of corrupt politicians get to feed at the trough while the masses go back to sleep because they think the problem is ‘solved’. Meanwhile, the march to a totalitarian country continues……

        • I actually disagree-If we have any chance of changing the direction of this country-I see no way of doing that without using the republican party who at least run on the platform of small government-But you are right about the people we have to stay awake and insist by our voice and our vote that they keep to this principal, while we are busily putting new people in government on the local and state levels.

          • The people who are going to do it need to get in high gear, and soon, because time is running out. Those that would enslave us are very close to achieving their goal, and aren’t about to sit back and let it slip away.

        • V, I’m with you. I don’t think there are any or many good politicians right now, but we first have to put a halt to things and that means putting and to the liberals dominance in 2010. Does it mean we can become complacent again? Absolutely not and I don’t think we (the people) will.

          People are waking up to the fact that both parties are at fault and I see the rise of a new party coming – that won’t happen by November 2010 – so we must deal with what we have to work with first.

          Some Republican politicians have tried to jump on the tea party bandwagon and they are getting booed off stage and put in their place. I’ve had 5 very confrontational phone conversations with RNC members, as I’m no longer giving $$ to the party, but will donate to specfic candidates whose votes match their talk. The NY23 election was a great situation for Republicans to see unfold. Will they learn from it? Only time will tell.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Cyndi – agree with ‘some’ of what you are saying – key question for me is how do you get people to give a hoot?

          • If I knew the answer to that one, I’d still be married. I think the best that can be done is to let people feel the consequences of their words and actions. After that, its up to them.

            You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink….

          • Ummmm….promise 70 virgins in paradise?

    • Kathy, don’t you know that it is called negotiations not bribes, blackmail and payoffs to get politicians to vote for a bill. You are just not PC enough. If you or I did those kind of negotiations in business deals we would go to jail for bribery.

  7. This article and/or a variation are all over the web today and as these areas of weakness become common discussions, his approval numbers will continue to tank:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091130/pl_politico/29993

  8. Judy Sabatini says:

    Hello Everyone.

    Reading along for now, and I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.

    Hope you all will have a wonderful day today.

    You all take care.

    Judy

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    Deconstructing USW (until he shoots me down by simply saying I am being argumentative):

    “Saying Afghanistan is the “right war” and the one we must win at all costs, only to falter as soon as a General makes a request for more troops.”

    – Didn’t you state that you had no issue with him not making an immediate & rash decision? Why the change in course?

    “He has done absolutely nothing to further the progress that Bush made towards leaving Iraq.”

    – I’m not sure where this estimation comes from. My understanding was that the withdraw process is a logistics nightmare that is not easily resolved overnight. From some indications I have found there is at least planning on reduced troop levels. To suggest he has done NOTHING is not accurate. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf

    “And Afghanistan has become a decision that he is either not willing, or not mentally equipped, to make. This was a lie too. He knew he couldn’t win the election opposing BOTH wars, so he lied and said he supported the convenient one. Now he is exposed.”

    – Again – I am not sure where you are coming from with this. Did I miss a blog where you reversed course from “I want him to take time and make right decision” (which in your conclusion was get out of Dodge) to “he is lying about ‘something'”?

    So – take shots at him – not an issue there. Would just like to see us get it right!

    • Ray,

      I may have to agree with you to a point here. I am not ready to throw stones at Obama on Afghanistan yet, am waiting to hear what he decides. I do think deciding the policy should come first, else, there is no way the military can be successful. So his answer had better be a damn good one, with clear objectives, or he’s just dining and dancing while out troops are dying.

      I do think he waited too long before addressing this issue, not just after the report was made, but after his election/swearing in, this should have been a higher priority.

      I wonder about something here, you have pretty much defended Obama on all counts, but you have some issues with his performance as well. What are your main complaints with our OH So Transparent leader? I have a bit more respect for you when you are “fair and balanced”, not just the automatic defense of “the One.”

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        LOI – I have limited time to respond – but suffice to say that as the administration elects to tackle every identified problem or issue it feels like we are swinging for the fences every time – be damned the results. I’d like to see this country hits some singles, the odd double, and hell – let’s bunt from time to time. Trying to do too much at one time only means that we cannot fathom how all this plays out in the end – it is the limitation of the human mind to construct the net cumulative effect of all the Healthcare Reforms, Stimulus, wars, Cap N Trade, so and so forth – his first two years should have been focused on more core issues to Americans – the economy and the wars. Sometimes you have to say no – but by engaging every perceived problem or issue he has simply opened up the floodgates of criticism. Ty Cobb was good because he hit the ball – not because he held a home run record.

        • Right you are Ray…..hits….that is what wins….give me a great hitter over a fence swinger every time. Our on base percentage right now is zero.

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Trouble is D13 when the ball is hit for average nowadays he is trying to pull it in the wrong way.

  10. Excepting change in Washington is like expecting Santa Clause.

    Obama has no choices – others are making them for him, far, far behind the scene.

    • WHAT, there is no Santa Clause?

      Do you mean expecting change?

    • Damn…no Santa Clause…..and here I thought Obama WAS Santa….he seems to be to some people.

      • And, Flag…you are totally correct…his strings are being pulled from the “power” behind the throne….and it ain’t Michelle M’ Belle.

      • I guess next, there will be no Easter Bunny….sigh. Wait, perhaps Pelosi? She seems to have multi colored “aigs” all around her….or am I being racist again.

    • Q. How is the President like Yoda?

      A. They are both puppets.

    • Coal in your stocking this year, young man!

      • Hey, I got coal in my stocking one year (my mother is Christian, even if I’m not). She asked if I believed in Santa, I answered honestly that I did not, so I got to watch all my siblings open their presents while I sat there with a black rock (apparently she didn’t have a piece of real coal on hand).

        Ah, fond childhood memories.

        I got my presents the next day after swearing that I did, in fact, believe in Santa.

        If the pirate gets coal, I will give him the following x-mas present. I know he’d love it (I think I already posted this here, but hey, ’tis the season).

        • Matt,

          Thanks but would not work for me, two young children, so firearms are under lock. One quick access(1-3 sec.), and the big safe. I had a VERY good weekend, exercising my second amendment rights, obtained a few extra that Obama will never know about! Starting to run out of room in the safe, any advice? LOL

  11. Judy Sabatini says:

    My daily cartoon of the day.

  12. Lifted…..

    The liberals claim we are being too hard on Obama and we need to give him time.

    I would agree and think 25 to life would be appropriate.

    • I’m not sure what he’s done that qualifies for jail time, but hey.. I’m sure this means that you’re at least open to arresting Cheney and Bush, too, right?

      • Oh, you just wait, Matt. I believe there is plenty that this guy has done to qualify. We just need for some honest people to start talking……

        If Bush/Cheney committed treason, by all means. Doesn’t that argument get a little old, though?

        • I doubt he’s done anything on par with stampeding a country into a war on evidence he knew to be flimsy… but I could wrong. I’m not, but I could be.

          And no, it never gets old. We’re going to be running against Bush for decades to come. Too bad for you, Jeb could run and have a decent shot at it, if only he had a different last name.

      • Aiding and abetting is a crime, how many tax cheats has he appointed?

  13. Judy Sabatini says:

    Where Is Obama the Leader?

    By Liz Peek

    Why does president refuse to put himself on the line?

    It is becoming crystal clear that President Obama is not the leader we thought he was. This revelation is as surprising as it is disappointing. He certainly looks like a leader; heaven knows he talks like a leader, but it turns out that he lacks a crucial qualification that all real leaders possess.

    Great leaders put themselves on the line; Obama puts Congress on the line.

    This penchant made headlines again last week. The White House wants to establish a commission to cut the federal budget deficit. According to The Wall Street Journal, budget director Peter Orszag met with Senate Budget Committee head Kent Conrad about setting up a bipartisan committee that will examine ways to reduce spending.

    Here’s a shocker for the White House: that’s your job. You are in charge of the budget. You — the Obama administration — made the spending choices that led to a $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal 2009. Going forward, your decision to ramp up government outlays guarantees unsustainable red ink far into the future. Yes, you stepped into a deteriorating situation, as you have reminded the American people on countless occasions; like all inheritances, however, the deficit now belongs to you.

    It is not up to Congress to find a way out of our fiscal sand trap — that is the responsibility of the White House. It is the president, ultimately, who is responsible for finding ways to cut the out-of-control entitlements programs that will otherwise destabilize this country. He then has to ram the tough choices through Congress, which his party dominates, even if it makes some people angry.

    This, Obama will not want to do. His desire to shunt responsibility to others is not a one-off. Obama displayed his distaste for taking responsibility right out of the box when he handed health care overhaul to Congress, though it was his signature issue. Given that the country has been wracked with controversy over Congress’ proposals to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on health insurance for uncovered Americans and that the bills issuing from our dysfunctional legislature are a bloated embarrassment, would it not have been better for a newly elected and then-popular president to have worked his magic on this issue? If he had personally guided the construction of a health care bill would the country have been subjected to the bitter wrangling we now witness? Could a quicker resolution of the issue have allowed Obama to focus on jobs — the number one priority of Americans today?

    I should note that Congress is not always the fall-guy for the president. Sometimes Obama hands the baton to others. For example, trying terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York civil court was apparently the brainstorm of Attorney General Eric Holder. As the outrage over this decision built, Holder claimed total responsibility, saying that the president was informed of the plan after the fact. Does anyone believe that?

    By the way, the president’s reluctance to put himself on the line predates his presidency. We recall his 130 votes of “present” on many controversial issues while serving as an Illinois state senator. During the campaign we were fed the tale that such ambiguity is a hallmark of that body. Hilary Clinton saw through that absurdity and during the campaign derided him as a “talker” rather than a “doer.” How right she was.

    Obama’s desire to avoid accountability is understandable, if not laudable. Every time a politician takes a stand, he alienates some voters. The Obama White House has made a fine art of political assessment. The upcoming decision on Afghanistan is a case in point. After weeks of postponement and soul-searching, Obama has apparently decided to send up to 30,000 additional Marines — in phases — initially targeting Afghanistan’s southern sector. This is a far cry from the immediate deployment of 40,000 troops requested by General Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s hand-picked adviser. We can only hope that this decision will get the job done. The Goldilocks strategy — trying to appease those who see Obama as weak on fighting terrorists while comforting those who oppose our presence in Afghanistan — smacks of political calculation. At least Obama personally made the decision. On the other hand, the process was so clumsy that maybe we’re better off dealing with designated hitters.

    According to most analysts, the United States faces an extended period of high unemployment and slow growth. This will be a trying period for our impatient country. Americans like quick fixes; our attention span is about the length of a Tweet. A drawn-out recovery that does not supply a steady stream of new jobs could spell trouble, and bring back the social turbulence of other unhappy and struggling times.

    President Obama is in the hot seat; he needs to learn how to lead, and should send the political calculators back to Chicago.

    • You are in charge of the budget. You — the Obama administration — made the spending choices that led to a $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal 2009.

      I’m pretty sure that’s exactly wrong. Firstly, the power of the purse is specifically granted to Congress, not the President.

      Further: A graphic posted on FoxNews.com suggested that President Obama is responsible for all of the $3.5 trillion in federal outlays for Fiscal Year 2009. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that “much” of the 2009 increase in spending “results from legislation enacted in calendar year 2008 in response to turmoil in the housing and financial markets-in particular, $133 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $291 billion for the estimated costs of placing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship.”

      http://mediamatters.org/research/200911250006

      trying terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York civil court was apparently the brainstorm of Attorney General Eric Holder. As the outrage over this decision built, Holder claimed total responsibility, saying that the president was informed of the plan after the fact. Does anyone believe that?

      Who cares. It was the right move. It was a criminal act by a civilian and it should be dealt with by a civilian criminal court. Besides, if one cared to step back, they would see that this is so much sound and fury signifying nothing. In all honestly, who give a flying crap where he’s tried? He’s one person. And they’re going to hate and target us no matter how we try him. It’s a hyped up political wedge issue. Bah humbug.

      should send the political calculators back to Chicago

      You blast him for making decisions too slowly. You mock Americans for our short attention spans. And then you suggest that he should stop calculating? I’d rather he took too long evaluating issues and measuring things out than misstepping. Bush was famous for going on his gut reactions and see where that got us. Measure twice cut once is good. I say measure 10 times, cut once.

      How are things in Judy-land?

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Things are just peachy here in Judy-land. Thanks for asking. I’ll ask you the same, how goes it in your world? Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

        • Thinks are good in my world.. had a mediocre thanksgiving (was working). Winding down my day early so that I can head off to class tonight. Joy. So I guess I’m done here for the day..

          Good night, and good luck.

      • Matt:

        Did you already forget how the Dems were blasting Bush for “taking to long” to get the revised assessment done on Irag at the time?

        You see in politics, once one side violates the “standards of conduct” the other is free to act in the same manner. Tit for Tat, back and forth it goes.

        The bottom line on the wars is that Mr. Obama has not done anything to change the policy and withdrawl plan from Irag that Mr. Bush put in place. Mr. Obama claimed Afghanistan was the right war and chided Mr. Bush for his lack of effort to win the same. Yet months after being sworn in as Commander in Chief he is taking months to re-evaluate and formulate a new strategy. Remember all those generals and other military types who supposedly counciled Mr. Obama on his campaign positions?

        Then why the hell didn’t he have a new policy ready to go within the first 6 months?

        It looks to me like political paybacks through the spendulous bill were of higher priority than making sure we “won the right war”.

        • Would someone please tell this grizzled old, lame brained, retired Colonel (who knows nothing) which war is the “right” war? I must have missed that somewhere. Maybe 1776 and 1860…but that is about it and I have fought in 4 of them. (No, Matt, I am NOT old enough for the 1860 one. Don’t even go there or I will have to stick Red Bull up your nose with a straw).

          HOWZIT going JAC? Good Thanksgiving?

          • D13

            Turkey week was absolutely great. Actually spent a day on the Oregon coast in full sunshine, in November no less.

            The only “right” war is the one we fight to maintain OUR freedom against the agression of another who wishes to destroy that freedom.

            How’s that for a definitive answer?

            Hope all is well in Texas.
            JAC

    • Liz Peek”

      You typify what is wrong with this country today and one of the biggest reasons Mr. Obama got elected. This idiotic belief that the President is responsible for everything.

      Yes, the President submits a budget. That budget is based on the laws passed by Congress, it can not ignore those laws. Therefore, there is little room for making large reductions in program spending. One could propose FREEZING expenditures at prior year levels but that is about it.

      IT IS IN FACT CONGRESS’ RESPONSIBILITY to prepare and approve the expenditures. It is CONGRESS’ RESPONSIBILITY to cut the programs needed to balance the budget.

      The President can provide leadership to some extent by publicly chastizing congress or calling for certain action. A little like Mr. Bush did, which got him labled “King George” by Pelosi and Reid.

      His real chance at leadership passed him by when he failed to VETO the Spendulus Bill and then the regural Spending Bills.

      The Left is screaming that he hasn’t done this and hasn’t done that. Again, the think they want a KING. Neither HE nor ANY OTHER President can simply start doing things without getting cross ways with Congress. The Left thinks they can get it all done NOW. They don’t have the Dem. Party under complete control. Those BLUE DOG Dems are the problem, not the President.

      If all the Dems start towing the Leftist line Mr. Obama will sign everything they pass into law. Until the Left gains that Control Mr. Obama has to appear to dance a little in the middle. He knows full well that a complete jump to the left would cost them the next two elections.

  14. Any Notre Damers out there? Weis got the boot today -not a surprise move.

    • Kathy:

      Did you happen to see that young man from Stanford give the linebackers and safetys of Notre Dame a lesson in REAL MAN FOOTBALL?

      • Real he man football is only played in the Southeast Conference, everyone knows that.

        • Oh Noooooooooo……….We shall see when the day comes this year. This longhorngrad is sitting quietly by waiting for the injustice of last year to right itself this year.

          Saw an interesting interview the other day on Cable Sports Central where they were interviewing BCS voters. Everyone agrees that it has nothing to do with who wins or loses but what brings in the greatest TV ratings and sponsors. It is all about money and the colleges agreed to this. What a shame. They even said that the computers were programmed in favor of the bigger teams to that the smaller conferences would not ever get to National Championship level. They even went as far to say that if Bama, Texas, and Florida all lost prior to the Championship game, and Cincinatti and TCU went undefeated, the Championship game would be against one loss teams and the undefeated teams only at large berths. It is rigged that way. Unbelievable but that was the interview.

        • I know you said the SEC, but you meant the Big Ten right?

          • http://fullysports.com/football/2009/conferencenpi
            Hate to break it to you but the Big 10 ranks 5.

            • Not to mention that the BCS sports writers are 62% located on the…ahem….east coast. THAT is a joke, my Bama friend.

            • However, should Bama be fortunate enough to survive the SEC Championship (Great Auburn game BTW) and Texas survives the Big 12 Championship……I am sure that you and I can get some sort of “wager” up.

              • Friday was a big disappointment, but a win is a win. A&M looked pretty good Saturday BTW. I also hate the BCS; go to a 8 game playoff.

              • You bet A&M was scary. AND that was a freshman team. They look good for the next three years. But, all rivalry’s like Bama and Auburn, Texas and A&M…those type of games….you cannot put any ranking on them. A rival team can be 0-12 and beat the crap outta ya.

          • Give it up, USW. We all know he meant the Big 12 South. Play it on the field. However, the ratings for the TV are not there. I am NOT a BCS advocate at all.

          • http://www.fullysports.com/football/2009/sos
            You can take pride in that Joe Pa’s team has a better strength of schedule than them there Longhorns.

            • But, sir, strength of schedule means nothing in a championship game. I take it that you are a BCS advocate since it is tilted towards the SEC and always will be.

              • Hate BCS, play it on the field.

              • Tilted towards the SEC, you jest, for years all USC and Notre Dame had to do was dress out in pads and they got first place votes.

              • This is also true….it is still the same for ND..all they have to do is win 6 to be bowl eligible. LOL….did not do it this year tho.

            • I view it like the Olympics….let us say that Bama LOST the game with Auburn….and Cincinnati and TCU remained undefeated….you do not believe they deserve their chance?

        • Bama Dad

          I watched the Bama game, it was as I expected….almost. I thought Auburn would actually win.

          I also watched the Stanford game. I take it from your comment you did not.

          I did not see another running back all week do what that kid from Stanford did when the game was on the line. Not since Bo Jackson have I seen that kind of physical ass whoopin handed out by a running back.

  15. Judy Sabatini says:
  16. Judy Sabatini says:

    This was sent to me by a friend, forgot to post it.

    The Source of Obama’s Anti-Israel Policy
    Posted on November 27, 2009 by freemenow
    Reprint of Original by Bishop E W Jackson Sr. (United States), Jun 29, 2009 at 11:25

    Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama’s policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization.

    We heard it in Jesse Jackson’s “HYMIE town” remark years ago during his presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright’s remark about “them Jews” not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle East as a “Jew” problem.

    Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in Pennsylvania, I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were “greedy cheaters” who could not be trusted, according to my family and others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were “evil”. Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community.

    In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Most African Americans are not followers of “The Nation”, but many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, “he speaks the truth” and “stands up for the black man”. What they mean of course is that he viciously attacks the perceived “enemies” of the black community white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians buy into his demagoguery.

    The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan’s Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does. First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called “sitting under”. You don’t merely attend a church, you “sit under” a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama “sat under” Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan Wright’s friend to attend and help organize his “Million Man March”. I was on C-Span the morning of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and anti-Semite, no matter what “good” he claims to be doing. Yet a future President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support.

    The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel’s victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the “Muslim World,” he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That’s where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian “dislocation”.

    Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of “The Muslim World” is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly ant-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President’s truest albeit undeclared sensibilities.

    Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentorship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe as I do that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are.

    NEVER AGAIN!

  17. Judy Sabatini says:
  18. Judy Sabatini says:
  19. Judy Sabatini says:

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is holding a rival jobs forum to match the White House’s Thursday event, heading to Cincinatti, Ohio, on Wednesday for the start of a program he calls “a real jobs summit.”

    Gingrich, who is head of a political action group called “American Solutions,” is widely known to be toying with a run for the presidency. The trip to Ohio, where unemployment is slightly higher than the national average of 10.2 percent, is the first in a series and will followed by a trip to Jackson, Miss.

    In promoting the event, Gringrich’s group is dismissing the event hosted by President Obama as “political theater.”

    “As the administration actively promotes job-killing health care, energy, and big labor legislation, millions of Americans struggling to find work won’t be fooled by the political theater of a ‘jobs summit,'” reads promotional material from his Web site.

    According to the Gingrich job creation plan, he would first reduce payroll taxes by 50 percent for employers and employees to be paid for with unused TARP and “stimulus” money authorized late last year and early this year.

    Gingrich also proposes allowing small businesses to expense 100 percent of new equipment purchases, abolishing the capital gains and estate taxes, reducing the corporate tax rate and balancing the budget by driving down spending and reforming government.

    Obama announced his jobs forum shortly after the monthly jobless numbers showed the U.S. average topping 10 percent. He said he was planning the forum because “the economic growth that we’ve seen has not yet led to the job growth that we desperately need.”

    But expectations are being managed for the forum, which is featuring 130 guests, including business owners, experts from the green jobs sector, business leaders, academics, mayors and representatives from non-profit organizations.

    The White House reportedly wants to discuss green job growth and shifting stimulus spending to infrastructure projects as well as a limited range of incentives for small businesses to create jobs.

    But White House aides aren’t predicting big outcomes.

    “Hiring often takes time to catch up to economic growth,” said Valerie Jarrett, an adviser on business issues to President Obama, according to The Wall Street Journal. “At the same time, there are limits to what government can and should do, even during such difficult times.”

    The White House on Monday morning posted a blog entry on its Web site encouraging citizens to hold their own discussion forums between now and Dec. 13, and to send back results to be complied for review in the Oval Office.

    Accessing the sign-up page lets people insert their basic data and be reassured that the White House will e-mail “discussion questions and other materials to help make your event as productive as possible and give you instructions on to how to share your ideas with us.”

    The tactic has been used by the White House before, most notably during the health care debate, in instances when the administration can tap into its formidable grassroots support.

    Obama, too, is headed out into the heartland, traveling to Allentown, in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh County, where the unemployment rate stands at 9.5 percent.

    The president’s trip is the first stop on a so-called “White House to Main Street Tour” so he can, as the White House puts it, “spend some time out of Washington and take the temperature on what Americans are experiencing during these challenging economic times.”

  20. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6678334/Benign-neglect-may-turn-the-dollar-from-a-safe-haven-to-a-dangerous-place-to-be.html

    Benign neglect may turn the dollar from a safe haven to a dangerous place to be
    The US government is shouldering a vast $12 trillion debt pile – that’s 12, followed by 12 zeros.

    By Liam Halligan
    Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

    Comments 18 | Comment on this article

    The trade deficit of the world’s biggest economy also remains huge. How much longer can the dollar defy gravity?

    Last week, America’s currency fell to a 15-month low against the euro, cutting through $1.5050. Against a trade-weighted currency basket, the dollar was also at its weakest since July 2008. The greenback plunged to parity with the rock-solid Swiss franc, then hit a 14-year low against the yen.

    The dollar’s weakness is based on fundamentals – not least America’s jaw-dropping debt. It’s a long-term trend. From the start of 2002 until the middle of last year, the dollar lost 30pc on a trade-weighted basis.

    It was during the summer and autumn of 2008, though, that the sub-prime debacle entered its most vicious phase (so far). The rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America’s quasi-state mortgage-lenders, followed by the Lehman collapse, sent shock waves around the world. For six months or so, Western investors piled into what they knew, liquidating complex positions and buying plain dollars. The greenback became stronger, spiralling upward during the so-called “safe haven rally”.

    All that has now changed. The trade-weighted dollar has lost 22pc since March. One reason is that, since the spring, the Federal Reserve has been printing money like crazy – both to bail out Wall Street and service America’s rapidly growing debt.

    Sophisticated investors have also been exploiting America’s ultra-low 0.25pc interest rate to borrow cheaply in dollars, switch these borrowings in currencies where returns are higher, then pocket the difference. This so-called “carry trade” has flooded foreign exchange markets with US currency.

    The dollar fell particularly sharply last week, though, as traders were reminded of the patently obvious – that the White House actually wants the dollar to fall. US Treasury officials have lately taken to staring into the TV cameras, puffing out their chests, then stating: “We are committed to a strong dollar.” That’s nonsense, of course, because a weaker currency boosts US exports and lowers the value of America’s external debt.

    When the minutes of the Fed’s latest policy meeting were published on Tuesday, describing the dollar’s decline as “orderly”, the markets rightly took that as confirmation of America’s “benign neglect” approach – with intervention to support the dollar unlikely. The minutes also showed the Fed’s key committee members voted “unanimously” to keep interest rates at rock-bottom for “an extended period” – another reason to sell.

    In addition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the fund that safeguards US bank deposits, warned that the number of “problem” banks grew in the third quarter, leading to speculation it could seek a credit line from the US Treasury. That would mean more borrowing and money-printing, concerns which sent the dollar even lower.

    Yet “benign neglect” is fraught with danger. A weak US currency makes commodities more expensive (seeing as they’re priced in dollars). It was when the dollar hit an all-time low of $1.60 against the euro during the summer of 2008 that oil soared to $147 a barrel. Expensive crude damages the economy of the world’s biggest oil user. And as the dollar falls, America’s huge commodity imports cost more, making the trade deficit even worse.

    On top of all that, a falling dollar makes it even more difficult for the US government to meet its massive borrowing needs. Just to service existing debt, America must sell $205bn of Treasuries this year, a total set to hit more than $700bn a year by 2019 – even if annual budget deficits shrink. Selling long-term sovereign debt, in a currency expected to fall, is not easy.

    Almost every American economist I know dismisses these concerns. Several have contacted me over the last 48 hours, gloating that the dollar has just put on a renewed “safe haven” spurt in the midst of fears about Dubai.

    Yet the state of the dollar poses enormous dangers. For one thing, America’s currency depreciation trick could backfire if “the rope slips” and a steadily dollar decline turns into free fall. The cost of US imports would soar, with the Fed being forced to sharply push up rates. The world’s largest economy would then be caught in a stagflation trap – a slump, but with high inflation.

    A more immediate concern is that a blind rush into the US currency could cause the carry-trade to go badly wrong – with those who’ve borrowed in dollars suddenly owing more, while their dollar-funded investments elsewhere are worth less.

    A rapid “unwinding” could cause major losses at financial institutions, posing renewed systemic dangers. Far from being a safe haven, the dollar is the likely source of the next financial crisis.

    Liam Halligan is chief economist at Prosperity Capital Management

%d bloggers like this: