Saturday, August 29, 2009
Americans clearly don't like Obama's and the Left's proposals on healthcare reform and that point needs to be emphasized by conservatives. Then too the fact that the Left, and their minions in the press are using Kennedy’s death to force passage of ObamaCare is reprehensible. No bill should be passed for someone’s memory. And the more the Left continues to go down this route, the more they're guaranteed to turn people off.
No, there's no such thing as liberal bias in the media, conservatives just keep making this stuff up. Clearly it's just in our heads:
ABC and NBC have refused to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan. The commercial features a doctor who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to rationing and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare.
The spot has been running for two weeks on local affiliates of Fox, CBS and even ABC and NBC. But the two networks have refused to air the commercial nationally, according to Fox News.
The ad was produced by the League of American Voters, a national, nonprofit group that advocates for accountability by elected officials.
NBC responded to a Fox inquiry by saying it would consider running the 30-second ad if it were revised.
"We have not rejected the ad. We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed," said NBC spokeswoman Liz Fischer.
In June, ABC was hosted by the White House for a special on health care, which ran nationally in prime time.
But in response to Fox's question about the network's refusal to run the ad, ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a statement that the network "has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue."
League of American Voters Executive Director Bob Adams takes issue with ABC calling the ad "partisan," saying: It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind. Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."
Dick Morris, the former advisor to President Clinton, is the League of American Voters' chief strategist. He told Fox he is especially troubled by the hypocrisy of ABC's refusal to air the spot.
"It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."
ABC and NBC are only reinforcing the perception of a liberal media bias by refusing to air an ad that shows the downsides of the Obama proposals. The result is that the American people will learn about both sides of the health care debate from CBS, Fox and their local affiliates.
Not always the bosom buddies they want you to pretend they were:
As President Obama continues to bask in the reflected glow of late Sen. Ted Kennedy's veneration, the serious run-in that Obama had with Kennedy – which nearly cost him his endorsement – has been widely overlooked.
The tiff first came to light in the Boston Globe's extensive biography, Last Lion: The Fall and Rise of Ted Kennedy.
It seems that in 2003 Obama, then a little-known Illinois state senator, uttered one of his infamous, off-the-cuff gaffes -- on camera.
Speaking to a gathering of AFL-CIO members, Obama said Democrats needed to "get some backbone" and reject the Medicare prescription-drug benefit bill that recently had been introduced. Not surprisingly, Obama thought the reforms the bill offered weren't drastic enough.
As told in Last Lion, Obama urged union members: "We've got to call up Ted Kennedy and say, 'Ted, you're getting a little old now, and you've been a fighter for us before. I don't know what's happening now. Get some spine and stand up to Republicans.'"
That an unknown Illinois rabble-rouser would dare to berate Kennedy on his signature issue of healthcare reform -- in front of a union meeting no less – apparently drove Kennedy to distraction.
So five years later, when Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin started lobbying Kennedy to endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton, Kennedy made him sit down and watch the video of Obama shooting from the lip.
Of greatest interest to historians, however, may be Durbin's account of Obama's reaction.
"I didn't say that," Obama insisted when Durbin told him why Kennedy was upset.
"Barack," Durbin replied, "it's on the video."
Desperately needing the mainstream acceptance a Kennedy endorsement would bring, Obama had no choice: He visited the Senate's liberal lion and personally apologized.
"It was a stupid thing to say," Obama told Kennedy, according to the Globe's account.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel has filed new disclosure documents revealing his net worth is double what he originally said it was. The Democrat from New York is already under investigation for various tax and financial issues.
Rangel's amended disclosure forms include previously undisclosed assets worth as much as $780,000 — including an omitted checking account worth up to a half-million dollars, unreported investment portfolios of up to $50,000 and another fund of $100,000.
The New York Post concludes Rangel failed to reveal $3 million in various business transactions between 2002 and 2006, including up to $1 million from the sale of a Harlem building that city records show Rangel still owns. Rangel's office told The Wall Street Journal he is now confident the amended records are accurate.
Rangel is a disgrace. I mean, here's a chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means whose already under investigation for possibly breaking House ethic rules. Then again failing to pay taxes should make him ripe for an appointment with the Obama administration.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Mark Hemingway at the Corner followed up on an item at Jules Crittenden's blog late last night.
What perked Hemingway's interest was Mr. Crittenden's relay of the following yesterday concerning an exchange during NPR's Diane Rehm Show:
Newsweek’s Ed Klein (told interviewer) Katty Kay about Kennedy’s love of humor. How the late senator loved to hear and tell Chappaquiddick jokes, and was always eager to know if anyone had heard any new ones. Not that Kennedy lacked remorse, Klein quickly added, seeming to intuit that my jaw and perhaps those of other listeners had just hit the floorboards. I gather it was a self-deprecating maneuver on Kennedy’s part, exercised with the famous Kennedy charm, though it sounds like one of those “I guess you had to have been there” things.
Hemingway went and listened. There is a 1:40 YouTube posted of what he heard.
Here is the transcript of that clip, without wrap-up niceties:
Kay: Ed Klein, that's what I'm hearing today, that people are sad at his passing, and yet celebrating this huge life and its huge long list of accomplishments.
Klein: I think he'd be the last person who would want us, those he's left behind, to, um, be, uh, morose and, and full of bathos. I think he, he --
Kay: He would come in with a big guffawing laugh and make us laugh too.
Klein: He would, yes. You're so right, he would. And he'd probably have a joke to tell as well.
Kay: At his own expense.
Klein: Well y'know, he, I don't know if you know this or not but, one of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself. And he would ask people, "have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?"
I mean, that is just the most amazing thing. It's not that he didn't feel remorse about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne (background music begins building), but that he still always saw, um, the other side of everything and the ridiculous side of things, too.
Kay: Ed Klein, former foreign editor of Newsweek, and author of a new book on Ted Kennedy.
Beyond observing that a post-mortem observation such as this about a conservative would be front-page and top-story material almost anywhere and everywhere, I would rather not comment on this, as it pretty much speaks for itself. I don't want that to stop others, not that I could.
Liberals in this country have made it clear that they don't like dissent, so no doubt a leftwing campaign to smear Sam Bates will begin soon. Hope he doesn't have any unpaid parking tickets.
A key House liberal suggested Thursday that party moderates who've pushed for changes in health care legislation are "brain dead" and out for insurance company campaign donations.Blue Dogs shouldn't pay Stark any mind, after all Stark is the same idiot who once suggested that President Bush found "amusement" at U.S. troops having their "their heads blown off" a couple of years back. It's the liberal way to smear, ridicule and/or impugn those who dare disagree with them. They just can't help themselves.
Moderate Blue Dog Democrats "just want to cause trouble," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
"They're for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told reporters on a conference call.
A spokeswoman for the Blue Dog caucus did not immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
AFP reported August 26 that the real unemployment rate in the United States is 16 percent when individuals who have left the labor pool and individuals working less than they want are included in the count, according to an official of the Federal Reserve.
The story quotes Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart as saying, "If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking -- so-called discouraged workers -- and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent."
The categories cited by Lockhart are not part of the Department of Labor's monthly unemployment rate calculation.
Lockhart also offered his forecast: "My forecast for a slow recovery implies a protracted period of high unemployment. Further fiscal stimulus has been mentioned, but the full effects of the first stimulus package are not yet clear, and the concern over adding to the federal deficit and the resulting national debt is warranted."
Remember, Barry is taking responsibility for this mess, he just doesn't want to hear from the people who helped create this mess. Mind you, Democrats have been running Congress for almost 3 years now.
Romney had a great term as governor of Massachusetts, but I don't see him going for a Senate seat what with presidential prospects still in the air.
Though it may be hard to see at first, the passing of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts may have a profound impact on 2012's race for the GOP presidential nomination.
Back when Sen. John F. Kerry was his party's presidential nominee, the Massachusetts Legislature—which is overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats—changed the law to require that a special election be held after a vacancy occurs in one of its U.S. Senate seats rather than allowGov. Mitt Romney to make an appointment if Kerry had won.
The law is still that way today. (As he lay dying, Kennedy asked the state's political leaders, now that a Democrat was the commonwealth's chief executive, to revert to the previous method of picking a replacement.) And that means voters in Massachusetts will go to the polls, unless the law is changed soon, sometime in the next few months to pick a replacement for Kennedy.
Surprisingly enough, this brings things back full circle to Romney, who up to now has been busy laying the groundwork for another presidential bid in 2012. It would be an intriguing thing if, after waiting a day or two out of respect for the late senator, Romney were to downshift and announce he will be a candidate in the upcoming election to fill Kennedy's vacant Senate seat.
Such an announcement would likely be embraced immediately by the Republicans, who would like almost nothing more than to deny Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada his new, hard-won, 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority. As a self-funding candidate who has already been elected once statewide, Romney has nearly 100 percent name ID. And, in an environment where President Obama seems to be dragging the Democrats down, he would be a serious threat to the Democratic hegemony in Massachusetts's congressional delegation. Meaning Romney likely would win.
If he did, Romney would then have a platform to actually introduce legislation modeled on the proposals he put forward as a presidential candidate in 2008 and planned to put forward in 2012. No guesswork. No empty rhetoric. Real ideas, on the Senate floor, that could be evaluated, debated, and perhaps even voted on.
From the Senate floor, Romney could show his fellow Republicans, and the country, just what kind of president he would be. How he would approach national problems. As an added political benefit, it would give him the opportunity to establish true conservative bona fides allowing him to finally overcome the suspicions many conservatives in the GOP's primary electorate still harbor about him. Rather than tie him down, Romney could actually use the Senate seat to lock up the GOP nomination in 2012.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Never liked the man, rarely agreed with his policies, much less the Left's whitewashing of his legacy. But we're better than them...so respect due to his courage in battling brain cancer and prayers to his family and loved ones for thier loss.