ADDED: All of the liberal handwringing that’s ongoing w.r.t. the legitimacy of the Supreme Court if the ACA [Obamacare] is declared Unconstitutional seems to have disappeared when it comes to the Executive Branch giving a big ol ‘Get Lost!’ on the immigration decision. The one provision of SB 1070 that the Supreme Court kept was that law enforcement – when executing other legal and non-discriminatory actions – can ask for proof of residency – and that it is the Executive Branch’s responsibility to enforce this. The Supreme Court declared the Federal Government to be the sole source of this power – and Obama has declared that he wants nothing to do with it. While this is a remarkable change from his usual M.O., it’s not surprising. If Obama is anything, he’s all about acting without principle based on what he wants to do.
In 2008, the Annenberg Public Policy Center reported that Barack Obama outspent John McCain 3 to 1 and “raised more money than anyone in the history of U.S. politics.”
Turn about would be fair play except the present President has the temperament of a four year old and the skin of an onion.
Obama’s complaint about being outspent is …. I can’t do it. It’s so far outside the realm of reality that I can’t create a meaningful analogy. There is nothing I can compare it to. Erickson uses the four year old’s temperament as a comparison for the behavior; but I don’t think this even comes close. Obama broke all the rules when it came to spending in 2008 – reversed his stance on public funding, out of country, unverified credit card transactions, corrupt bundlers – you name it. And now he bitches that he might be outspent.
Twitchy: “Stompy Foot in Chief“
“No, for reals. He is actually broadcasting his total failure, now even as a campaigner. The one thing he used to be good at!”
That a World Bank Economist would find some way to get Obama as close to Reagan as possible in terms of how well the economy has performed – as detailed in this Bloomberg article.
He starts off with ignoring the makeup of Congress [specifically the House of Representatives where all spending bills originate] and focuses just on the Presidency. This is odd – most liberals these days are clawing for any means possible to limit the role the Presidency plays in the growth of the economy. Certainly he has no right to argue that the President can control “debt and federal taxes as a share of GDP” – The example of Bush 43 clearly shows that a President’s hands can be tied with respect to these factors.
He then repeats the mistake of the WaPo writer that gave Obama a free pass on the 2009 spending by couching it in terms of how Reagan can’t be blamed for the miserable economy under Carter. “No reasonable economist would blame the 10.5 percent inflation rate and other weak economic conditions of 1981 on Reagan. … Similarly, the slow economic growth of 2001 had nothing to do with George W. Bush’s policies, and Obama cannot credibly be blamed for the economic fallout of 2009. ” This is fine – but it neglects the fact that Democrats in Congress controlled the spending in 2009 – and they didn’t pass anything until after the election – a far different story than faced by Reagan or Bush at the start of their Presidencies. Further – Reagan’s economy crashed well before the election, whereas the economic mess that Obama inherited all started in June of 2008 – when it became apparent that absent some surprise Obama was going to be the next President. Again – a completely different situation than faced by Reagan or Bush 43. This is not to say there was no housing bubble in 2008 – nor is this to neglect the financial mess that we were in in 2008. This is to say the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back was the imminent election of a former socialist to the Presidency.
Truman gets a ‘gimme’ with this category: “the best average trade balance, a surplus of 1.6 percent of GDP. ” The question is, with so much of the world production base in tatters, how could Truman only have a surplus of 1.6%? Who was America importing from at the end of the war?
Bush 43 gets: “… the highest increase in population below the poverty line; …”. I am confused how so many people can be dropping off the unemployment rolls and out of the workforce under Obama and somehow the population below the poverty line isn’t that high. This probably has to do with the 1 year lag – so Bush 43 is getting blamed for the dramatic increase in unemployed that happened as employers shedded staff in preparation for socialism.
“With respect to GDP growth, three of the top four performers were Democrats and four of the bottom five were Republicans.” – this of course benefits Clinton – it was Reagan and Bush 41 that ended the Cold War that consumed so much defense spending; and as the economy pivoted from Cold War to Dot Com boom a Democrat benefited.
In closing – this analysis seems so close minded and blind to effects that it becomes meaningless.
InstaPundit links to this Neil Munro article at Daily Caller about Romney not answering questions on the possibility of repealing Obama’s immigration edict. Munro is the Daily Caller reporter who had the temerity to ask Obama questions in his Rose Garden speech. The only reporter that dared to ask a question. Of course, in Sam Donaldson’s eyes this makes Munro a racist.
A question still not answered – ‘How is anyone to determine which illegal immigrants came over when they were less than 16 years of age?’ “The White House’s statement says it will stop applying immigration law against 800,000 people who arrived in the country before age 16, and who are still younger than 31.” as written by the Daily Caller. This looks like an attempt at blanket amnesty for any illegal immigrant under 31 – or those who came after Reagan’s amnesty. [passed in 1986 [or thereabouts] but extended back to 1982] In other words – Brian Terry and all the other Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty died for nothing.
With InstaPundit -“Wherever “progressive” policies are tried, the result is the same.”
This is in reference to the Investors Business Daily story about the increase in gun violence in Chicago over the last several years and the concurrent loss of private sector jobs. “Chicago lost 200,000 people from 2000 to 2009. The only one of the nation’s 15 largest cities to lose people. Of all cities, it fell between Detroit, reigning champion of progressive urban decay, and hurricane ravaged New Orleans, in the number of people fleeing to greener pastures.” Right there between Detroit and New Orleans – such great company to keep.
The increase in Chicago gun violence is disturbing – not because it shows that strict gun control laws and gun buy-back programs don’t work. It is disturbing because it is counter to the national trend in decreased gun violence [with a dramatic increase in gun sales.] In this – slightly dated – Examiner story:
In May 2010, the FBI released crime statistics for the period between 2008 and 2009; gun sales soared while the number of murders decreased 7.2 percent in the country. This is an 8.2 percent decrease in the per capita murder rate after the legal and illegal population is considered. This is a 45 year low in the murder rate as of 2009.
Why is Chicago not experiencing the same improvement the rest of the country is?
Maxine Waters is still in Congress. I know this for several reasons – but most recently – because of this Denver Post Blog posting where she displayed her feelings toward Republicans – “We cannot allow the opportunities that America stands for to be eroded by those who simply want to bring this president down,” and then followed that up with a call to the Tea Party to “…let’s get it on.”. How does she get away with this behavior?
Notwithstanding the violent imagery that I thought Democrats were so heartily against; I can’t help but wonder how it is that a Democrat with her ethics record – and who is currently facing ethics charges – is such a leading figure for Obama’s re-election. I will take this opportunity to remind my reader that no Republican with her ethics background would be able to talk about Democrats in this manner without the full sound and fury of the LSM brought to bear. Further, the violent imagery she brings about with her “let’s get it on” is already equivalized [not a word] with shooting innocent people [ala Palin wrt the Giffords shooting.]
It would be nice if the whole “we’re not biased” BS that the media continues to pump would go away so there could be honest discussions of what this country needs.
Returning to the line in this post that caught my attention – “We cannot allow the opportunities that America stands for to be eroded by those who simply want to bring this president down,”. This is inane, partisan BS. If she really meant this, she’d also be attacking Pelosi for her attacks on Bush that were destroying what America stood for just so Pelosi could try (and fail) to bring the Bush down. Waters is not apologizing. I don’t want her to. What I want is for the equal opportunity for a Republican to say something this inane and not have it called out as racist or some other BS. A portion of the art in Politics is saying stupid stuff in a manner that your supporters fawn over and agree with – without thinking that their agreement is in some manner indicative of their own low level of intelligence. If Waters can get away with something like this – so should Republicans.
This post is rambling and somewhat incoherent – just like the post’s subject.