Gore Sets Deadline for Climate Bill

The King Dragon of Global Warming is in Copenhagen and he gave a speech calling on President Obama to get climate legislation passed by April 22, 2010, the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day…how cute.

“As a citizen of the United States, and no more, I will ask those among my fellow citizens who share my sense of urgency to join in asking President Obama and the leadership of the United States Senate to set a deadline of April 22, 2010—the 40th anniversary of Earth Day—for final action on U.S. legislation,” Gore said.

Gore, you’re a little more than just a citizen of the United States. Any ole’ citizen can’t fly to Copenhagen, get personal security and speak in front of thousands of drooling global warming nuts while calling on the President of the United States to pass climate legislation. That’s not exactly an everyday opportunity.

Before we go ahead and pass a half-ass climate bill that imposes crippling taxes on American business let’s decide what exactly is causing climate to change. There are hundreds of reasons the climate changes. Sun activity, natural cycles, changes in the wind, ocean currents, etc. To think that we can without a doubt say that it is man made carbon dioxide emissions is ridiculous and unproven. No one has presented solid evidence to back this claim up. So why are we acting on it?

Especially in light of Climate Gate. And not to mention the overall distrust citizens have for the government. Why would we ever think they could successful halt climate change? They can’t do anything else right.

All I’m saying is the science is not settled. It might be settled on the fact that climate is changing, but it certainly isn’t settled as to why it’s changing. Let science figure it out and run it’s course, and then determine if there’s anything that can even be done to stop it.

–jb

The Cycle Continues

What got us into our current economic mess?

You’ll get different answers depending on who you ask. But if you’re asking me I can give you a pretty decent answer. Reckless lending by banks to borrowers that had no business taking out a loan for a home, those banks were pressured by the government in the name of housing fairness.

Add that to in-your-face government regulation and taxes, and you’ve got yourself an economic mess. Borrowers who took out too large of loans began to default, housing prices that were well above the average home price began to fall, and all hell broke loose.

But mistakes happen, that’s understandable. The key is that you learn from your mistakes. Unfortunately for the American people the government rarely learns from their mistakes, and this current administration is no different.

President Obama had a meeting with top bank executives to discuss how they could begin to rebuild the economy and give back to the people, considering they took taxpayer bailout money.

President Obama, speaking at the close of a meeting with top bank executives Monday, called on Wall Street to make an “extraordinary” effort to boost the U.S. economy in return for the largely repaid taxpayer bailout the banks took with few strings attached.

Hailing the success of the $700 billion bailout program, the president said he urged the financial industry to next boost lending to businesses and curtail bonus payments. He said he heard some positive proposals from the CEOs and now expects “results.”

The idea behind TARP was to stabilize the banking sector, because some banks were just too big to fail. The idea was that they would pay back the money borrowed from TARP and that would be that. But any fool knew the government would dangle the bailout in front of the banks’ faces, attempting to control them.

And what is it exactly they want them to do?

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” that the industry has to “accelerate lending to credible small businesses” and suggested Congress would take harsh action against the sector if it does not.

“People are not going to tolerate a situation where the bankers have a party, they pick up the tab and then the bankers pay themselves huge bonuses and they’re not lending,” Axelrod said, adding that bankers should be awarded with long-term stock as opposed to up-front cash bonuses.

For starters, what’s a “credible small business?” And secondly, doesn’t this sound familiar. Forcing banks to lend to people, regardless of the comfortability of the banks to do so.

The banks will lend to businesses if the banks feel comfortable lending. After all, if they don’t give out money, they can’t make money. They have an incentive to lend, but they know better than the government when to do that. They have to walk on egg shells right now because it’s not the most stable economic environment, lending to an ambitious small business might sound like a good idea, but it’s very risky, especially now. Banks will begin to give out money when they deem it stable enough to do so.

However, the Obama administration is eager to do something to make it appear they are attempting to fix the economy. Sure they want the economy thriving again, but it’s more important that the born again economy is credited to them. Ironically enough Obama was swept into office on the heels of a bad economy, and he might be swept out because of his inability to fix it.

–jb

Is Harry Reid in Trouble?

Harry Reid has been one of two U.S. Senators from Nevada since 1987, so could his incumbency really be in trouble after 20 years in office?

Possibly, at least it doesn’t look great for Reid.

For starters Reid hasn’t technically dominated his contests since being elected in 1986. He’s like the Texas football team of the Senate, winning close contests and making it all the way.

His first election he won by six points, his second election he pulled out a nine point victory, and in 1998 he only beat republican John Ensign, who would later become a Nevada U.S. Senator, by 428 votes. His first three elections were all under 10 point victories, they’re respectable, but I wouldn’t call it domination. I also wouldn’t say the GOP had lost all hope.

In 2004 he was able to completely dominate the race, winning 61% to 35%.

The key to Reid’s victories, and really any national politician’s victory in Nevada, relies heavily on three counties; Clark, Mineral, and Washoe. Clark County is home to Nevada’s largest city and tourist attraction, Las Vegas.

In his dominating 2004 election, Reid carried Clark and Mineral counties by over 30% and won Washoe County with 58% of the vote. Fairly dominating victories in the three most important counties in the state.

The reason Ensign was able to get so close in 1998 was because he snuck out a win in Washoe County and kept the race very competitive in Clark and Mineral counties.

So let that be known, a key to victory in Nevada rests heavily on a politician’s success in Clark County, after all it’s the most populated county in the state.

So why might Reid lose in 2010? For starters the poll numbers say he will, the latest polls show both potential republican challengers beating Reid by at least six points. The latest poll also shows 49% of Nevadans have an unfavorable opinion of Reid (only 38% hold a favorable view). The latest poll also shows that a majority of Nevadans are against Obama’s health care reform which Reid is attempting to run through congress.

But we all know how polls can be, especially with just under a year until the election. A lot can change, and the republican challenger hasn’t been selected yet. The GOP primary race has a field of six, but it really comes down to two people; Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian. Both have a business background, but I think only one can beat Reid; Lowden.

Remember what the key to winning Nevada is? Did you not pay attention? The key to winning Nevada is Clark County. If a republican has a chance of beating Reid they have to win Washoe County and come close, or win, Clark County.

Now what’s the one advantage incumbents have over newcomers? Recognition. Everyone in Nevada knows who Reid is, so the republicans have to put up a candidate that has name recognition.

Bearing those two things in mind, here’s why Lowden can take down Reid.

First, she was a state senator from Clark County. Clark County is heavily democratic and Lowden was able to win as a republican. She served in 1992 through 1996 so she’s not coming right from serving, but most older voters will recognize the name.

If they don’t recognize her from being a state senator, chances are they’ll recognize her from television. Lowden was a reporter and news anchor on KLAS-TV in Las Vegas. It just so happens KLAS has been the ratings leader in Las Vegas for quite some time, giving Lowden plenty of face time and recognition, not only in Clark County but the surrounding areas as well.

Lastly she was a businesswoman, and the economy and spending are the top issues on the voters minds. She was the President of Santa Fe Hotel and Casino and Executive Vice President for Sahara Hotel and Casino. No doubt she will tout her business background, and in this political climate, where voters feel disenfranchised and aloof from Washington mainstays, that will give her a huge advantage.

We might be a year out from Harry Reid’s reelection bid in Nevada, but if Lowden can pull off a victory in the Republican Primary there’s a good chance Reid will be in a big heap of trouble.

–jb

Crazy 2010 Travels

How about a quick look into my personal life? Sound like fun?

Don’t worry, it will benefit you as well.

I’m going to be traveling like a mad man starting in January 2010, and I had so much time on my hands today (typical lazy Sunday) that I took the time to calculate how far I would be traveling.

Let’s start with the beginning of the year. On January 2, 2010 I’ll board a plane for San Antonio, Texas to visit Logan, my co-host from The Current. I haven’t seen him since the summer so it will be nice to catch up and hang out for a couple of days. Plus, we might tape a show from down there, no promises but it’s certainly a possibility.

A few weeks later, during Martin Luther King weekend, I’ll be going somewhere, not sure where yet but I do want to take that long weekend to go somewhere within five hours of driving distance. Possibly Toronto, Canada.

February is where it gets busy, but also good for you.

Once again I’ll more than likely be going to the Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C. This time instead of attending I’ll be going as a media person to cover the event live on this blog, The Current Podcast, and The Spartan Review. Luckily I’ll be flying down there so I won’t have to endure the 10 hour drive, that will be February 12-14.

Then only a few days later, February 17, I’ll be in a car back to Washington, D.C. to attend CPAC. I’m going as a conference attendee but just like last year I’ll provide plenty of updates on the blog and twitter. Of the ten days between February 12-21 I’ll be spending eight, or so, of them in the D.C. area.

Finally I might be going to Florida in March, that’s not official, but that will be a personal vacation, like the one in January.

So that’s 8,322 miles in 70 days.

I can’t wait.

-jb

Unprecedented

Politico has a good article about how the Obama administration is wildly overusing the term “unprecedented.”

There’s one aspect of this story I’d like to point out. The Obama administration has spent a lot of time touting their “unprecedented” use of technology on the campaign and in their administration, and it’s really starting to bug me. Here’s a section from the Politico article…

It was also the first U.S. presidential event streamed to an Internet audience in China and the first with questions from the Internet. And it garnered the biggest viewership, with 55 million online hits alone — making its audience unprecedented, oneofficial said.

Of course it was the first U.S. presidential event streamed via Internet in China, the last time a U.S. presidential event took place in China was when Bush spoke their, and answered questions, in 2002. Believe it or not, and I know it sounds weird, that was seven years ago. We didn’t have the technological capacity, and China didn’t have the technological infrastructure, to stream an event like that online to that many people.

The same goes for the campaign. The last presidential campaign before Obama’s was in 2003-2004, that was right at the start of Facebook, so of course Obama is the first presidential to utilize social networking and technology to it’s fullest ability. He was the first one who ever had the opportunity. Although I will add he did a very good job of doing so, and the McCain camp did a poor job.

–jb

Lieberman Will Vote No on Public Option

Uh Oh.

Joe Lieberman said today that if the health care bill brought to the Senate floor contains a public option he will vote no.

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a “public option,” or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won’t vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.

So that’s a no vote for any public option “compromise” as well. I’ve always said that I think if any public option passes it will be in the form of a trigger option, but if Lieberman isn’t on board the democrats are going to have a tough time getting the votes to get the bill through.

Meanwhile the democrats are in a catch-22 on health care. New polling shows that if they don’t pass health care reform they stand to lose the midterm elections, however if they do pass health care reform, well, they stand to lose the midterm elections.

Our newest national survey finds that Democrats lead 46-38 on the generic Congressional ballot. But asked how they would vote if no health care bill is passed respondents split 40-40 between saying they would vote Democratic or Republican in next year’s election.

In some sense the Democrats may be in a damned if you don’t or damned if you do position on health care. Asked how they would vote for Congress next year if a health care bill with a public option is passed respondents said they would go Democratic by a 46-41 margin, still more narrow than before any hypotheticals about health care outcomes were introduced into the questions.

I don’t think it’s the idea of health care reform that is souring voters, I think it’s how it’s been handled. We haven’t had televised discussions on the subject, despite Obama’s promise. The public has not had several days to review the bill before it went to a vote, like Pelosi promised. The House created a huge bill (well over a thousand pages) and then jammed in through on a vote before it was even possible for a member to read it (let alone the public).

The Senate is following suit, although they have rules that will at least provide for debate. Even then Harry Reid had the bill, at over 2,000 pages, and had a vote to open debate on it within a few days.

Meanwhile this whole process extends back to August. We know this is going to take time Congress, we’d rather you do it right than do it fast. That’s speaking for the country, personally I’d rather them not do it at all, but I think the independents, who are lukewarm on the idea, are turning against the health care plan because of how secretive and selective the whole process has been.

It’s funny, just over a year ago health care was the headlining issue for the DNC, it was the one issue that most people could back them on, now it looks like it will be the death of a few senators and congressmen.

–jb

No Afghan Decision Before Thanksgiving

It was over a month ago that I first wrote about Obama and his decision about troop levels in Afghanistan.

Over a month. October 7 to be exact.

Now it’s November 20, Thanksgiving is less than a week away. And we are still waiting on a decision from Obama regarding troops levels in Afghanistan. This is despite the commander on the ground requesting additional troops. And this is the second commander in Afghanistan to do so (the first one “resigned”). What is taking Obama so long?

There has been a lot of talk lately that Obama’s plan was coming soon. Some said it would be 40,000 additional troops, some said it would be half of McChrystal’s recommendation, but at least it would be something.

But today the Washington Post is reporting that a decision will wait until after Thanksgiving, which means troops in Afghanistan will have to continue fighting an admittedly failed strategy for yet another week.

Because this increase in troops is akin to Bush’s troop surge in 2007, let’s examine the timeline of the two decisions (well one decision).

Bush’s Troop Surge – 2007
December 6, 2006 – Iraq Study Group Report suggestions a troop surge
December 11, 2006 – Bush meets with State department advisers (including the Secretary of State) to discuss the Iraq plan
December 11, 2006 – Bush meets with Iraqi experts
December 13, 2006 – Bush meets with Joint Chiefs of Staff
December 14, 2006 – American Enterprise Institute Report suggests a troop surge
January 10, 2007 – Bush announces the troop surge
Total time from the beginning of surge talk to actual decision – 35 Days

Obama’s Troop Surge – 2009
August 30, 2009 – McChrystal’s report on the Afghanistan war (including the need for more troops) is sent to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
October 2, 2009 – Obama speaks with McChrystal for 25 minutes aboard Air Force One, only the second time he had spoken to the commander since McChrystal assumed the position
November 9, 2009 – CBS News reports Obama plans to send 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan…but still no official announcement
November 15, 2009 – Obama gets irritated with a reporter when she asks about the hold up on the Afghanistan decision
November 20, 2009 – The Washington Post announces Obama will wait until after Thanksgiving to make his decision
Total time from the beginning of surge talk to actual decision – Who knows, but it’s been 89 days, and will at least be 96 days

So why was it that Bush was able to get a report about the troop levels in Iraq and within 35 days make a decision, but Obama has taken 96 days. And in reality it’s been longer than 96 days, the old commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, called for 55,000 troops back in February, and the Pentagon recommended an additional 25,000 in December of 2008.

I understand that Obama wants to think through this decision and be sure that he’s making the right choice, but there is a time limit. Remember, this is a war, and wars call for snappy on your feet thinking. Unfortunately Obama doesn’t seem to possess that trait.

–jb

What the Hell?

The single biggest mistake that Obama and the democrats have made in the health care debate has been instilling confusion in every American.

A new Rasmussen poll shows that 54% of Americans oppose Obama and the democrats health care plan. But what is their health care plan? Currently there are five bills that need to be combined before either chamber of Congress can vote on reform. And just today the White House said that a public option isn’t necessary for a bill to be signed by the President.

Obama continues to support the concept of a government-sponsored insurance option, but “he is not demanding that it is in” the final legislation, Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House adviser, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “He thinks it’s the best possible choice.”

He thinks it’s the “best possible choice” but isn’t going to demand it. Why not? If you honestly believe that a public option is the best way to reform health care, why wouldn’t you require it in the bill. You have a super majority, you have the democratic leaders in the House and Senate both siding with a public option. So why not make it mandatory?

What kind of health care reform do the democrats want? I honestly can’t answer that question. Some say a public option is a must, others say they would prefer the trigger option, some more conservative democrats don’t even want a public option. Meanwhile Americans are sitting at home watching their TVs and thinking, “what the hell is going on?”

As much as I would love to, I can’t take the Rasmussen poll seriously. There’s too much confusion out there about what health care reform the democrats and Obama want, there’s no way someone could honestly answer that question if they were on the fence.

It also doesn’t help that the majority of the health care meetings are behind closed doors. This is after Obama pledged multiple times on the campaign trail that meetings regarding health care would be broadcast on CSPAN.

If Obama and the democrats really want to sell the American people on massive health reform, they are going to have to figure out what they want first, and then articulate it bto Americans in normal terms, not in health care industry jargon that no one understands.

–jb

Selective Hearing

If there’s one universal trait that all men have it’s selective hearing. Men only hear what they want to hear, and tune out the rest.

Despite his super human political powers, Obama is not immune to the selective hearing disease. He too only hears what he wants to take in.

So is anyone surprised that when General McChrystal calls for more troops in Afghanistan, Obama tunes him out. After all when the former US Commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, called for more troops he “resigned” a short time later. I said at the time that Obama was playing politics with the war and ignoring his commanders, it looks like I was right.

How can Obama ignore the call for more troops now? He’s had two Generals on the ground tell him more bodies are needed, he must listen to them.

Oh but wait, Obama’s a dude, he has selective hearing, a massive case of selective hearing.

It was reported last week that before their meet up on Air Force One in Copenhagen, Obama had only spoken with McChrystal once since he had become the US Commander in Afghanistan, that’s one time in 70 days.

To make up for their limited interaction Obama spoke with McChrystal on Air Force One while it was on the ground in Copenhagen. The discussion lasted 25 minutes. What could they possibly have talked about, The White Sox?

And now, after Obama has ignored two commander’s calls for more troops, the left is criticizing McChrystal for his PR handling of the strategy in Afghanistan.

“Let me say this about about General McChrystal, with all due respect,” Pelosi said, according to a transcript sent my way by a Pelosi aide. “His recommendations to the president should go up the line of command. They shouldn’t be in press conferences.”

In the interview last night, Pelosi hit McChrystal for his public declaration. “I think that that’s not where this debate takes place,” she said. “The president gets the recommendations of the military.”

Uh, Obama did get the recommendations of the military. McChrystal put together a 66-page report back in August detailing what the new strategy should be and how best to avoid failure. Obama’s response was to avoid McChrystal and speak with him only when he had a little time after a failed pitch to get the Olympics in Chicago.

If Obama is genuine in his effort to fix Afghanistan and if he truly believes that victory is possible there, he should listen to the advice of his generals on the ground. Twice now they’ve asked for more troops and twice Obama has turned the other cheek. His handling of this war is gravely irresponsible. If Obama believes that pulling out of Afghanistan is not an option than he should fight to win, put as many troops there as necessary to get the job done quickly and efficiently.

–jb

The Current #151

The Current #151
Tuesday September 22, 2009
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Logan Sparrow

Segments – These are three select topics from our full 75 minute show. The full show is available at the bottom of this post.

Obamathon
It was a massive Obamathon on Sunday as the Barackstar hit up all of the Sunday morning talk shows (with the exception of Fox News). What did our President say? Well, not much. Only one anchor had the guts to ask him about ACORN and Obama ran away from the topic like a scared schoolgirl.

It’s not just the Rich who Drink Soda
Obama said this week that the option of a “sin tax” on soda is not off the table. Wait a second, wasn’t Obama the one that promised no tax increases for anyone making under $250,000? Does the middle class not drink soda?

Talking with Crazy People
The Obama administration made two major foreign policy shifts this week. The first was halting the missile defense shield, the second was showing willingness to talk with North Korea one on one. Why does the Obama administration think the six party talks can actually work?

FULL EPISODE

DOWNLOAD
64kbps | 96kbps

Subscribe in iTunes

Subscribe via RSS

Links to Stories