Category Archives: Obama

Out of Touch

Posted on by
Reply

In his third press conference in 17 days, President Obama stood in front of the American people and told them what they were thinking.

He told the American people that they were “sold.” He told the American people that he was listening to them, and that republicans were more concerned with ideology and playing the Washington way.

Then he preceded to lie about what the American people believe.

Obama made the claim that 80% of the American people support raising revenues (fancy talk for tax increases) as a way to come to an agreement on the debt limit.

At best, the number is somewhere around 43%, according to a Gallup poll. A Rasmussen poll shows that “just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling.”

Well, there goes the argument that you understand the American people better than the Republicans.

There’s no doubt that everyone in this debate is in re-election mode. The 2012 election will be here before you know it, and it looks as though the debt limit talks are going to sway a lot of people one way or the other. Mitch McConnell has already stated that if the country does default it will have catastrophic results for the republicans electorally.

However, we have to remember, Obama has launched a re-election campaign, he’s in campaign mode as well. Is it any surprise that before this 17 day marathon of press conferences, Obama hadn’t held one since March? Of course not, the campaign wasn’t in full swing back then. Now, the debt limit is a major topic, and a major election issue, Obama needs to capitalize on it.

But he’s doing a rather poor job. He is the president, a deal should go through him. But instead Obama sat on the sideline until about four weeks ago. And now that he’s in the debate…well, it hasn’t gotten much better. It seemed a deal was close, then entitlements somehow got taken off the table and tax increases became a center piece. Instead of bringing people together, which was a campaign promise of his, it seems the sides are growing further apart.

Gosh, I thought Obama was the guy who would unite us and bring us together. We were tired of the bickering, that’s why we voted for him (well, I didn’t, but other people did). Has he come through on that promise at all? Or any of his promises outside of health care?

That’s a big, fat, no.

The administration is claiming that a deal will get done and the government won’t default, yet Obama himself opposes a short term solution that buys more time to argue the cuts. Wait, I thought default would send the world into a financial fireball, the likes of which won’t be seen for another fives years when global warming kills us all.

This is all politics, for both sides. They’re both stubborn, someone needs to step up, bring a real compromise to the table, and avert the crisis. Where are the real leaders at?

–jb

The Current #183 – Hit by a Truck

Posted on by

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Current #183 – Hit by a Truck
Sunday June 5, 2011
Hosts: Jacob Bodnar and Jared Weseman

STORIES
The Economy is not doing so well
May numbers well below projections
U6 numbers still very high, barely down vs. last year
Obama visits Toledo, tries to spin the numbers
Obama makes terrible analogies in Toledo
Government to lose $14 billion of auto bailout funds
WeinerGate continues
Weiner can’t deny the photo is him, and a bunch of other inconsistencies
yFrog says email serivces was not compromised
Lewd photo tweet sent from TweekDeck, which Weiner used directly before and after lewd tweet
Can republicans take Weiner’s district?
Summer of Common Sense – The Budget Part 1, Taxes Part 1
The tax code is way too long and complicated
So how do we fix it?
Obama Solicitor General: Don’t like health care mandate, earn less money

FOLLOW US
Jared’s Twitter
Jacob’s Twitter
Live stream Sundays at 7:30pm – Live.RedTIE.tv
Facebook Page
RSS Feed

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Osama Bin Laden Dead

Posted on by

Tonight is one of those nights you’ll remember where you were.

About ten years ago I was sitting in my sixth grade classroom, at a table with four other people when we had an announcement from the school principal. The announcement was brief, and simply instructed teachers to listen to their voice mail regarding a message about the World Trade Centers.

I had no idea what the World Trade Centers were. I distinctly remember the girl who was sitting next to me, who was from England, look at me and ask “what are the World Trade Centers?” I believe my response was “where World Trade happens?”

We learned quickly what it was and soon after watched them fall.

That was a day I’ll never forget where I was, today will be the same.

I was just working on getting the latest episode of The Current online when my roommate walked into my room and asked what this emergency statement from Obama was about. I had no idea what he was talking about so I quickly turned on Fox News.

Sure enough there was Geraldo Rivera telling viewers that the White House had called a 10:30pm news conference to discuss a topic that was unknown. Rivera and some other guy discussed how it might be about Ghaddfi being killed.

No way, both my roommate and I agreed Ghaddafi wasn’t a big enough kill to call a press conference in the middle of the night on a Sunday. This was either we’re going to war or we were attacked. Rivera and the other guy kept harping on Libya, but we knew it was bigger.

Around 10:15pm, twitter was blowing up with speculation that Osama Bin Laden may have been killed. The thought didn’t even cross my mind, I was at the point where I had just assumed the guy was going to die naturally before we ever caught him. Sure enough in the span of about 15 minutes CBS, CNN, the AP, and Fox News confirmed that indeed Osama Bin Laden was dead.

But that’s all we knew, he was dead. Was he killed? Or did we just find him dead?

News broke that he was killed by a U.S. missile and we had his body, which didn’t add up because if he was killed by a missile his body was more than likely in a million pieces. Then news broke that he was killed in Afghanistan, then finally it was settled; he had been killed by a ground attack in Pakistan.

Talk about your foreign policy implications, Pakistan has always been a touchy subject for U.S. foreign policy, but killing the most wanted man in the world was certainly an exception.

Obama’s address was an hour late, but once he announced Osam was dead, my roommate and I cracked open some beers and had a toast. This is truly an amazing night, a complete victory for The United States and a day that should not be forgotten.

People will harp on the fact that it took 10 years to kill Osama. And while that’s true, it’s also true we never gave up. We never lost hope, we never put a deadline on his capture. We would fight as long as it took to capture the man that had senselessly killed Americans for years. Our resolve should be celebrated, not criticized.

Furthermore, this killing isn’t about Bush, or Obama, or politics at all, it’s about America. It’s an event that should unite us in celebration. Fox News had Geraldo Rivera outside the White House where people were celebrating and chanting USA. About five minutes in, after many celebratory and patriotic messages from people outside the gates, two girls were put on screen that attempted to start a chant of “Obama.”

Shame on them.

This isn’t about the president, it’s much bigger than him. It isn’t even about Bush, it’s about America’s unforgiving resolve and dedication to justice. We will not be pushed around, and we’ll retaliate if we are. No one should be seeking credit for this, and no one should be handing out credit. It was a joint effort of two administrations that were both dedicated to capturing this senseless man. I was critical of Obama being able to pull the trigger on Osama; I was wrong. He clearly showed strength and diligence in this action, and the fact that the intelligence originally came in August 2010 proves that. He executed this operation perfectly, he should be thanked as well as the Armed Forces involved in the operation.

But let’s also not forget the work done by the Bush administration and his swift response to the attacks of 9/11. Without his persistence and dedication to finding Osama, this day would not have come. And of course, our Armed Forces who fought the Taliban in Afghanistan and worked tirelessly to retrieve and unearth countless droves of intelligence that culminated in this capture.

This is truly a great day to be an America. The vibe across the country will be electric tomorrow. The most wanted man in the world is now where he belongs; in hell. Let’s not worry about politics or who gets the credit, let’s celebrate, and rejoice that justice has been served.

4,000 Words, Not a Single Solution

Posted on by

In a 4,000+ word speech today, Obama manged to outline no new proposals for cutting the deficit, said that everything should be on the table in bipartisan discussions, then talked about why the republicans were wrong and said Medicaid and Medicare shouldn’t be on the table.

The speech was so long and so boring it appeared to put Vice President Joe Biden to sleep for a solid 30 seconds. Note to Joe: you’re the flippin’ vice president, they’re going to have a camera on you, is it going to take until year four to figure that out?

Obama’s plan didn’t need 4,000 words, I can explain it in just a few: some cuts, raise taxes, don’t touch Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security (after all it’s an election year.)

So, with the being said, let’s get into the meat and potatoes of Obama’s speech.

Claim #1

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

For starters, the spending problem goes back a lot further than the 1990′s, or even the 1980′s. This thing traces back to the 1930′s. We never seemed to have consistent debt problems until FDR’s New Deal. That’s not a coincidence.

Furthermore, it certainly wasn’t the wars and the prescription drug program that drove us into this fiscal crisis. We certainly didn’t do ourselves any favors from 2001 to today, but on January 20, 2001 the national debt was still at $5 trillion. So we had a problem long before Bush came to Washington. Even going back to January 20, 1993 the national debt was still at $4 trillion.

The idea that the Bush tax cuts made the problem worse is a fabrication. Fact is from 2003 to 2006 federal revenues grew by about $625 billion according to the CBO.

And the idea that the tax cuts went to “every millionaire and billionaire” in the country is extraordinarily misleading. The Bush tax cuts, for the 15,000th time, went to EVERYBODY. And the largest rate reduction went to the lowest earners, who went from a 15% rate to a 10% rate. The tax rates in 2001 were: 15%, 27.5%, 30.5%, 35.5%, 39.1%.

The rates in 2003 were, and still are today: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%. The lowest earners got a 5% rate reduction, while the wealthy got a 4.1% reduction.

Also, Obama actually makes a very good point here…well, he does in theory. He says we added millions in spending early on last decade with no way of paying for it. Which is partially correct, after all tax revenues did increase. However, he begins to spell out the fundamental problem with tax increases in this statement. Just because you increase revenues does not mean that politicians will begin spending within the constraints of those new revenues.

For instance, you raise revenues by $1 trillion. What’s more likely to happen, the government runs a surplus and begins paying off the debt, or the government finds more things to spend money on to the tune of $1 trillion? It’s clearly the latter. We’ve raised revenues in the past and it never seems to fix the problem, that’s because there’s a good number of politicians who just turn around and start spending that money, instead of putting it towards paying down the debt.

Claim #2

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security. Programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans’ benefits, and tax credits for working families take up another 20%. What’s left, after interest on the debt, is just 12 percent for everything else. That’s 12 percent for all of our other national priorities like education and clean energy; medical research and transportation; food safety and keeping our air and water clean.

This is all very true, so why not do something about entitlements? To this point Obama has been mum about cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. I’m sorry, he hasn’t been entirely mum about Social Security, he claims it’s not in a crisis, despite the fact that it will go bankrupt this year.

By the way, all those college kids that voted enthusiastically for Obama, I want you to look Obama in the face when he inevitably comes to your campus, and ask him if you’ll be getting a social security check when you retire. Because he’ll say yes and be lying to you. Ask him why he thinks the program isn’t in a crisis when, if we don’t do anything about it, our generation won’t be getting social security because it will bankrupt the government.

So after Obama explicitly said that we cannot just focus on the 12% in discretionary spending, that we have to put everything on the table, he then attacks the GOP’s proposal to…well, put everything on the table. He claims that the GOP’s budget and it’s reform of Medicaid and Medicare will “lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.”

Really Obama? Medicaid and Medicare have been around since 1965, that’s a total of 46 years. We’ve been a country since 1776, or 235 years. Which means we’ve had Medicaid and Medicare for about 20% of this country’s history. So no, reforming Medicaid and Medicare would not lead to a fundamentally different America than we’ve known throughout most of our history because throughout most of our history we haven’t even had Medicaid and Medicare.

He goes on to paint a little bit of a fearful image, “It’s a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapse, we can’t afford to fix them.”

But, gee, I only thought Glenn Beck was a fear mongerer. Look, the idea behind cutting the deficit is so we can repair our bridges and our roads. The idea to not having a $1.6 trillion deficit (like Obama’s last budget had) is so we can address those issues.

He goes on for about another three stanzas whining and crying about how this vision is an America where we have no health insurance and no car insurance and no butterflies and no candy, no apples, no automobiles, no sunny days, no clowns, no balloons, and we all live in a cloudy world where it rains 23 hours out of the day and we have to drag ourselves out of bed in the morning because the republicans took away any reason for us to ever want to leave the house again.

This speech was a campaign speech. It was not a policy speech, it was not a let’s fix this speech. It was pretend. He extended an arm across the isle for about five seconds until he quickly yanked it away and said, “gotcha!” He claimed he wanted everything on the table, and then quickly took off Medicaid and Medicare and didn’t even mention Social Security. There was no new proposals or policies, he again avoided any mention of policies from the debt commission, which he put together. And his only solution seems to be higher taxes, despite the fact that we’re still recovering from an economic collapse.

At least the Republicans put together a specific proposal that would cut the deficit. Obama has no specifics, he has broad ideas, but nothing solid.

Let’s be honest, if Republicans weren’t putting pressure on him to cut spending, he wouldn’t. This speech would have never happened and we would be continuing down a path of amazingly outrageous debt and high taxes. That’s the Obama way.

He’s serious about one thing, and one thing only. Getting re-elected and gaining more power. Let’s make sure he doesn’t get his wish.

–jb

Obama Quote of the Day + Taxes!

Posted on by

“Mr. Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was.” – Obama speaking about the new Nobel Peace Prize Winner. Yeah, no shit Obama, you deserved the Nobel Peace Prize just as much as Ben Affleck deserved an Oscar for…well, anything he’s done.

By the way, take a look at that statement, it was full of self posturing and patting on the back from his victory. Good job Obama, talk about yourself while congratulating a Nobel Prize Winner…stay classy.

Meanwhile the chatter on the Hill right now is about taxes. Obama and the GOP had come to a resolution that would see all of the Bush tax cuts continue and a reduction in the estate tax, meanwhile unemployment benefits would be extended. It was a HUGE win for the Republicans and, not surprisingly, Pelosi and the democrats did not like it. So they voted, behind closed doors, against the compromise.

It’s at this time I’d like to remind everyone that if Congress can’t agree on something EVERYONE’S taxes go up on January 1st. Not just the rich’s taxes, everyone’s taxes.

So to all you middle class workers, this is how much the democrats care about your well being. While the Republicans and Obama had come to a resolution that would keep your taxes at the current rates, and everyone else’s for that matter, the democrats just can’t let the rich keep control of their own money. So they’re currently blocking legislation that would keep your tax rates low in order to play class warfare.

Let it be known, the democrats care more about taking money from the wealthy than giving a break to the middle and lower class.

By the way, everyone’s justification for raising taxes on the wealthy is just laughable. I believe it was Andrea Mitchell that said Warren Buffet and Bill Gates say the rich should pay more taxes, and therefore their taxes should be raised. Okay, good for them, how about they write a fat check and donate some money to the government, no one is going to stop them from doing that. And since when did Warren Buffet and Bill Gates run the country and policy making, if we listened to them wouldn’t that just be giving MORE power to the rich?

-jb

The Problem is You Don’t Understand

Posted on by

We’re a couple days removed from the GOP’s historic retaking of the House, and the democrats now have to determine what exactly motivated voters to kick them out of office in a resounding way.

As I posted before, I believe this election was about the democrats and Obama, not republicans. And specifically I think it was about the agenda and policies that Obama is putting forward. That’s why most of the areas Obama campaigned in went to the republican, it was a direct repudiation of Obama’s policies.

Unfortunately for the country, Obama doesn’t see it that way.

After suffering a “shellacking” in the midterm elections, President Obama acknowledges what many have seen as his chief weakness – failing to sell the importance of several legislative milestones to the American people.

“I think that’s a fair argument. I think that, over the course of two years we were so busy and so focused on getting a bunch of stuff done that, we stopped paying attention to the fact that leadership isn’t just legislation. That it’s a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone,” Mr. Obama told 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft in an exclusive interview set to air Sunday.

“Making an argument that people can understand,” Mr. Obama continued, “I think that we haven’t always been successful at that. And I take personal responsibility for that. And it’s something that I’ve got to examine carefully … as I go forward.”

So they didn’t lose because of policies, they lost because they didn’t communicate those polices to the American people well enough? That seems unlikely Mr. President.

The reason the democrats lost was not a lack of communication on the White House’s part, it was a lack of listening.

Health care is the major piece of legislation that democrats have to hang their hat on. The American people were solidly behind the democrats on this issue in the 2008 race, and before the economy took a tumble it appeared that would be the defining issue. But the democrats did something remarkable, they took an advantage on the health care debate, and squandered it away by ignoring the opinions of the people they represent.

When Nancy Pelosi brought health care to the floor for a vote, 54% of Americans were opposed to the legislation. Most of that disdain for that law had to do with the way the democrats shoved it down everyone’s throats, writing it behind closed doors and quickly voting on it before any legislator or citizen had an opportunity to even read the first 100 pages.

But even after people have had a chance to hear what is included in the bill and read it for themselves, they still oppose it. 58% currently favor a repeal of the law. Meanwhile the Obama administration would like you to think that you only favor a repeal because they haven’t done a good enough job of explaining it to you. It’s a rather condescending remark.

The American people understand the health care law, they’ve had to time to read it, and despite how apathetic people might be when it comes to the polls, they are engaged when it comes to their health, if they favor a repeal, those 58% I’m sure understand the law and are seriously concerned about its effects on premiums, insurance, and the deficit.

The democrats lost because they forgot to listen. They forgot why they are in Washington. It’s the same reason the republicans got booted out in 2006, they began listening in 1994 and then their hearing slowly faded away. I truly believe that republicans have learned from that, at least I hope they have. But as of right now it seems the democrats hearing is still too bad to get the message.

–jb

Obama’s India Tab UPDATED

Posted on by

UPDATED: There’s been a lot of chatter about the stuff that is laid out in this article, and a lot of debunking going on. As of right now a senior official in the Pentagon and an Obama administration member have said that the trip will not cost $200 million, however they fail to provide an actual number, citing “security reasons.” I’m not sure what sensitive security issue would be breached by simply laying out to the American people how much this trip is going to cost and what is going to make it cost that amount. What happened to transparency Obama?

Furthermore the Pentagon debunked the 34 warships by saying that’s 10% of the Navy, and that would simply be nutty. I have to say, that makes sense, 34 is rather far fetched, so I’ll let that one slide. But with this administration, $200 million a day seems well within the realm of possibility to me.

Imagine this.

You’re on The Price is Right, you’re in the showcase, your prize is a ten day trip to India, your wager? $20,000.

Oh sorry, you’re about $1,999,980,000 off, you lose.

The trip is worth $2,000,000,000 because what Drew Carey didn’t tell you is that accompanying you will be 34 warships, a helicopter, two jets, a fleet of 40 cars, 3,000 people and you’ll be booking 800 rooms at The Taj Hotel and The Hyatt.

Want to change your guess?

Obama is about to embark on an 10-day trip to Asia, the main attraction of the trip is a stop in India. The trip is estimated to cost taxpayers $200 million a day, or $2 billion total. Last I checked the national debt is at $13.7 trillion. And while $2 billion is peanuts in comparison, it’s not exactly the type of fiscal responsibility the American people are looking for.

But Obama has to be traveling for $2 billion for good reason, right? Wrong. There’s not a whole lot of substance in this trip, it seems the main reason is so Obama can view the Festival of Lights. India’s Foreign Secretary has said that they don’t expect a “big bang” from the President’s visit…

Nirupama Rao said Mr Obama’s visit will expand strategic ties between the two countries leading to a more “productive” partnership.

“We are not at a stage in our relationship perhaps for another big bang but certainly there will be positive outcomes [from the visit],” Ms Rao told a meeting in Delhi.

“We will see concrete and significant steps in wide range of areas that will expand the long-term strategic framework in a way that we can create productive partnership for the mutual benefit and [will be] equally important to give substantive content and shape to the global strategic partnership,” she said.

So it’s not as if there’s an urgent foreign policy issue that must be dealt with immediately, and if there was, isn’t that the role of the Secretary of State?

The Obama administration will argue that the 34 warships and 40 cars and 3,000 people are necessary to keep Obama safe. Yeah, I understand that, but my argument is, if the Indian Foreign Secretary says there’s “no big bang” to come out of this visit, why even go?

Ask any Secret Service member what the best way to protect the President is and they’ll tell you simply, to not put him in dangerous situations. There’s one bullet proof (no pun intended) way to protect the President and that’s not to put him in harm’s way. India isn’t exactly the safest place on Earth right now. Just today there were four gun battles between Government forces and Muslim rebels. That’s doesn’t exactly give off a safe vibe.

Furthermore, Obama’s foreign policy platform in his campaign was that of leveling with other nations and not trying to act like a cocky superpower. He rejected the idea of “cowboy diplomacy” and said we had to engage with other nations. Explain to me how bringing 34 warships, a helicopter, two jets, 3,000 people, and reserving the entire Taj Hotel exudes an aurora of humility and nonsuperpowerness (yes, I just made up a word).

I almost don’t want to discuss the fiscal insanity to this trip because it’s such low hanging fruit. Obama’s talked about having to control the deficit, but his actions haven’t followed his words.

He claimed he made exceptions for the stimulus and health care. He brushed those aside saying we had to address those issues, regardless of the ever increasing national debt. But how can he justify a $2 billion trip to India? Sure, it might be peanuts in comparison to our overall problem, but the only way we’re going to solve our fiscal crisis is by cutting back on everything, not just items that eat up considerable amounts of the national revenue. Everything has to be looked at, and we can’t spend frivolously (and believe it or not I would consider a $200 million a day trip to Asia frivolous). Ask any family that is struggling to make ends meet in this recession and they’ll tell you everything has to be looked at, even small things like eating out are cut.

If we maintain this mindset that small budget items are okay because they’re small budget items, we’re never going to solve this problem. Let’s face it, any reconciliation on Social Security, Medicare, and Defense Spending is not in our immediate future, and those are the biggest budget eaters. So if we don’t look at the $2 billion, $5 billion, or $10 billion programs we’re never going to reduce spending.

I understand the idea of strengthening ties overseas. But this trip is by no means necessary, it is an enormous waste of money, and that should be something both sides can agree on.

–jb

GOP Tidal Wave Last Night

Posted on by

I’m sure most of you know by now that the GOP had quite the success in last night’s elections. The republicans were able to gain 60 seats in the House, and six seats in the Senate.

Some liberal pundits have been trying to spin the story this morning by saying they had success in the House, but failed in the Senate. How unfair is that? They still gained six seats, and they picked up big seats in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. How is that a failure? The verdict is still out on Colorado and Washington as well.

Sure they failed to gain Nevada and California, but those were two tough seats with some of the toughest incumbents in the nation. And it’s not as if the GOP lost those seats, they simply failed to gain them.

However, I’m going to stress this until January so the republicans hear it loud and clear, this election was not about republicans, it was a repudiation of the Obama agenda and the liberals who were attempting to ruthlessly push it down our throats without so much as reading the legislation they were passing. This race was about broken promises and lies. Nancy Pelosi pledge no new deficit spending and bipartisanship, instead we got massive deficit spending and bills being written behind closed doors without republican input.

Meanwhile, races across the country show that people are fed up with Obama and his agenda. Look no further than the White House schedule for the President and Vice-President for proof on that.

11/1 – Joe Biden campaigns in Vermont for Shumlin who is running for governor. As of right now that race is too close to call, Shumlin is up by 3,000 votes with 24% left to report.

11/1 – Joe Biden goes to Delaware, and yes Chris Coons did defeat Christine O’Donnell, but let’s be honest, that had more to do with O’Donnell than Biden showing up, clearly she was not the correct nominee for the GOP

10/29 – The President goes to Maryland, and the republicans picked up a seat in the first district where Andy Harris defeated incumbent democrat Frank Kratovil by 14%

10/29 – While the President is on the East Cost, the Vice President goes to Iowa to campaign. There democrat incumbent Chet Culver lost the governors race to Terry Branstand by 10%

10/29 – The President that went to campaign for Tom Perriello in Virginia. This might be the one race that proves that this election was a rejection of the Obama agenda. Perriello, the democratic incumbent, lost 51-47%. It was the one House race that the President specifically campaigned for.

10/27 – Biden campaigns for the Pennsylvania 7th District for democrat Bryan Lentz. The seat was open, unfortunately for Biden the republican Meehan defeated Lentz by 11%

The President also made numerous stops in Ohio, he actually might have been there more than any other state. On top of that analysts routinely call Ohio a miniature model of the United States. Let’s take a look at how Ohio turned out…
Senate - Republican Rob Portman defeated Democrat Lee Fisher 57% to 39% to take Ohio’s open Senate seat.
House - Republicans defeated a democratic incumbent in five Ohio districts (OH1, OH6, OH15, OH16, and OH18). After yesterday’s election only five districts of Ohio’s 18 are controlled by democrats.
Governor - Republican John Kasich defeated Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland 49%-47% to win the gubernatorial election.

Clearly this race wasn’t about electing republicans, it was about throwing out the politicians that deceived the American people and supported Obama’s agenda. So what should Obama do now? Only two yeas into office and his super-majority has suddenly disappeared. He was comfortable in Washington when he didn’t have to deal too hard with the House and the Senate, but now nothing is going to get passed in the Senate, and the House is controlled by the opposite party. So what can be done?

Obama needs to wear a wristband that says WWCD (What Would Clinton Do?) After the 1994 election Clinton came out and said we don’t care about the next election, we care about getting things done, and he proceeded to work with the newly elected republicans to pass legislation and make meaningful fixes. I don’t agree with everything Clinton did and I certainly don’t agree with his political philosophies, but you have to respect the guy for not being an ideologue.

Obama must do the same, today at 1pm when he gives his press conference it cannot be filled with the same old “we’re going to work together because this is the United States of America.” That’s old stuff, we’ve heard that before, and guess what? It didn’t happen. Obama talked bipartisanship throughout his entire campaign, and he failed at it, as did the democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. Obama has to be specific and he can’t retire the same old lines from the campaign trail.

Here’s my prediction. Obama will come out today and recycle his bipartisan lines. He’ll talk about how we must work together to make the future great, he’ll talk about being willing to work with the right on issues, and then he’ll proceed to do none of that. I firmly believe that Obama is a narcissistic ideologue that has his plan for the country and is not willing to budge. And I think we’re going to see two years of efficiency and attempted progress in the House, that will be thwarted by a split Senate and a narcissistic President.

Maybe I’m riding the tidal wave from last night, but I think last night setup the sinking of the President’s ship in 2012.

–jb

Obama on the Bomb Threats

Posted on by

I’m suppose to be on vacation this weekend, and on vacation I mean I’m heading to Pennsylvania for the Michigan-Penn State football game Saturday, that’s a vacation for me.

But I have to comment quickly on the bomb ink cartridges that have been popping up today.

For starters what is happening is awful, and I’m glad it’s being addressed, but I will say it right now, Obama has called these “credible terrorist threats” and that may be true, but he made this assessment less than 24 hours after everything began, and I’ll say it now, if it wasn’t election week, he would have waited longer to make that distinction.

However, let’s put that aside, because I do think it is a credible terrorist threat, the link I want to draw is with Yemen. Let’s remember, the executive order the President signed early on in his tenure, it was to close down Guantanamo Bay. Now let’s remember where the majority of released inmates at Gitmo go upon release; it’s Yemen.

And now let’s remember where these packages are coming from; Yemen. The President is now seeing the circle of terrorism here, and he is continuing to learn that closing Gitmo isn’t that easy and it can’t be done overnight, his first lesson in that is the fact that Gitmo is still open after it was promised it would be closed by the end of 2009.

Terrorism and foreign policy aren’t easy topics, but Obama treated them as such. He said he would immediately end the wars, he didn’t. He said he would close Gitmo, he didn’t. But imagine if Gitmo was closed by the end of 2009, this latest attempted attack could have been much worse.

One more thing I’d like you to remember, Obama has only been in office since January 2009, the intelligence groundwork and procedures that are being used to detect these threats are a product of the Bush administration. Obama and the left will try and take credit for it, and truthful no one should be “taking credit for it.” But if anyone is responsible, it’s George W. Bush, his tough response after September 11th have lead to the impeccable threat detection we have today.

Now I’m going to go to sleep, and wake up for some football tomorrow.

–jb

Lazy Mainstream Media

Posted on by

The media and how news is reported is changing.

More stories are breaking online, more citizens are becoming at-home journalists, and the blogging community as a whole is gaining more legitimacy.

But one event comes around and quickly changes all that. One day the folks at CNN are embracing new media, boasting about their twitter accounts and YouTube accounts. The next day they’re slamming blogs for posting false videos and deceiving the public. They’re trying to drive both ways on a one way street.

By now everyone knows the controversy of Shirley Sherrod. If you don’t, here’s your nutshell; there was a video of her online where she basically said she ignored a white farmer (she’s black by the way). The Obama administration fired her, it took a couple of days but the mainstream media uncovered that it was not true. Now the Obama administration has egg on their face. The end.

And now CNN thinks that bloggers should be regulated. Uh yeah, not kidding.

Anchors Kyra Phillips and John Roberts discussed the “mixed blessing of the internet,” and agreed that there should be a crackdown on anonymous bloggers who disparage others on the internet.

“There are so many great things that the internet does and has to offer, but at the same time, Kyra, as you know, there is this dark side,” Roberts said. “Imagine what would have happened if we hadn’t taken a look at what happened with Shirley Sherrod and plumbed the depths further and found out that what had been posted on the internet was not in fact reflective of what she said.”

Well John Roberts, that’s kinda your job, so I’m glad you decided to actually do it for once. And beyond that it’s kinda the Obama administration’s job to fully investigate an accusation before just firing someone. As a matter of fact that’s standard practice throughout the world of employment. You fire someone after you’ve verified that what you’re firing them for is true, and not made up, or in this case edited.

But it continues.

But Phillips replied that the mainstream media “can’t always do that.”

“There’s going to have be a point in time where these people have to be held accountable,” Phillips said. “How about all these bloggers that blog anonymously? They say rotten things about people and they’re actually given credibility, which is crazy. They’re a bunch of cowards, they’re just people seeking attention.”

Phillips demanded to know what Andrew Keen thought needed to be done. Keen, author of “The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture,” who suggested that there needs to be an internet “gatekeeper,” had been interviewed by Roberts and quoted in the segment.

“Well what Andrew talked about with me was this idea of a gatekeeper but there are huge first amendment rights that come into play here – freedom of speech and all that. And he said the people who need to be the gatekeepers are the media to check into these stories,” said Roberts.

Phillips wanted to go even further, asking if “there’s going to come a point where something’s going to have to be done legally” about anonymous bloggers.

“There has to be some point where there’s some accountability. And companies, especially in the media have to stop giving these anonymous bloggers credit,” she said.

Does your head hurt like my head hurts after reading that?

For starters what exactly would a “gatekeeper” to blogging do? Read everything before it is published online? That would be an extraordinary infringement on the first amendment. But I don’t really think that’s what they’re getting at here. It seems like they believe the blogger “gate keeper” is essentially the mainstream media, and they’re right.

For the most part blogs have a very narrow and small readership. There are a few blogs that have massive readership, but generally speaking those blogs tend to do some decent research and background before they publish, and if they don’t they probably have a reputation for not doing so. However, the blogging community as a whole has been legitimized by the mainstream media. The MSM reports on info that’s been posted to blogs, sometimes without verifying it. Honestly, I don’t think it’s a good thing.

Yeah, it’s great that “at-home” journalists are getting recognition, and I certainly believe that most of them are good reporters with good intentions that research their material. But it’s a slippery slope for the MSM to go down. They literally have millions of people eating out of their hands. Anything they say on air automatically has the benefit of the doubt. Therefore they have a duty to the people to report the facts and only after they’re verified.

However, instead of looking at blogs as a great resource to get leads that they can then verify, they’ve treated it as other people doing their jobs, and they’ve grown lazy, oftentimes just reporting what the blogs have and calling it fact. Never give blogs the benefit of the doubt. That was the first mistake the MSM made. Do your own research and verification, that goes for readers too.

So instead of “regulating” the blogs, the MSM should just fact check them. Are they going to be wrong sometimes? Yup. And they’re allowed to be, it’s their right, get over it and do your job.

–jb