Posts Tagged ‘obama administration’

For the last several days you have been hearing the media talk about how there is trouble in Republican Land. Harry Reid is saying how the speaker has to abandon the Tea Party (My latest in the Examiner on the subject is To Tea or not to Tea btw) Schumer is going on about “extremism” and CNN is going on and on about how unpopular or ineffective the Tea Party is.

Yet for all of the noise you are hearing what do we see?

Les Gosule at the Twin City Tea Party 3-28

Locally a good turnout at the tea party meetings to see Sheriff Lew Evangelidis talk about his first 100 days, Les Gosule on Melissa’s bill and a plethora of Tea Party activities in the works.

 

For a dying movement clearly in Central Mass things are still happening.

Meanwhile on capital Hill here come the cuts 33 billion:

Biden confirmed the new target on spending cuts, putting the best face on the deal for Democrats and in his trademark style, trying to add a little punch to the administration’s stance— still hampered by Obama’s detachment from the budget fight.

But I thought all of these cuts were “draconian” and “extreme“? If this is the public number where will the final one be? Yet it is democrats trying to put the “best face on it”.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin the Unions are leaning on small business:

Members of Wisconsin State Employees Union, AFSCME Council 24, have begun circulating letters to businesses in southeast Wisconsin, asking them to support workers’ rights by putting up a sign in their windows.

If businesses fail to comply, the letter says, “Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

Hey, I thought the Unions were winning and the Governor was unpopular? If you are winning why play the “Nice business you’ve got there, shame if anything would happen to it.” card.

And the Democrats who are so sure publicly that the budget confrontation will roll back those 63 seats the republicans gained are suddenly not so sure:

NOW, THE DCCC HAS BEEN FORCED TO FOCUS ON ONLY 14 DISTRICTS: “The Democratic Party is taking aim at 14 freshmen Republicans in the House, of 87 elected, whom it deems the most vulnerable…We’re way too early in the cycle to start trying to predict what the results will be on Nov. 6, 2012. “But it’s pretty remarkable that we’re not hearing much talk about Democrats retaking the House in 2012,” Geraghty says.

14 seats they think the republicans and Tea Party folk are so unpopular they can pick up a whole 14 seats?

But why worry, after all President Obama is still polling well…isn’t he?

President Barack Obama’s approval rating and prospects for reelection have plunged to all-time lows in a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

Yeah but he’s The one™. We in the MSM know republicans are in trouble and not democrats, because if Democrats were in trouble they’d have to receive open government awards in secret or something.

President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.

How can this be? After all it’s not like he’s like Johnson or Nixon secretly putting the CNN into foreign countries to overthrow people or something?

And I’d be willing to bet that these CIA operatives aren’t the only American boots pennyloafers gators shoes of indeterminate structure on the ground in Libya. We’ve previously reported on the insertion of A-10′s and B-1′s into the conflict. Typically, such aircraft require some tactical assistance on the ground. That’s usually Air Force enlisted personnel; it’s a segment of the AF special operations called combat control.

I haven’t linked to Andrew Sullivan in ages, but his reaction is simply so funny that it deserves a link:

It’s so surreal, so discordant with what the president has told the American people, so fantastically contrary to everything he campaigned on, that I will simply wait for more confirmation than this before commenting further. I simply cannot believe it. I know the president is not against all wars – just dumb ones. But could any war be dumber than this – in a place with no potential for civil society, wrecked by totalitarianism, riven by tribalism, in defense of rebels we do not know and who are clearly insufficient to the task?

Andrew as a certain Time Lord once said: “you can’t be a successful crook with a dishonest face, can you?”

So to those in the GOP who are worried about fighting back because the media says we’re in trouble I say this:

“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”!.

Update: Here is the solution for democrats. Tax increases! That’s going to fly really well.

You actually have people on Morning Joe debating if it is a war and Pat Buchanan used the line above to answer the question.

The most amazing thing is listening to Donny Deutch and Charles Blow talking about leaving too soon after fighting is done will leave a vacuum.

Do ANY of those people remember what they said about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Reading the speech of the president I’m wondering, if Gaddafi didn’t say aloud that he would have kill the people of Benghazi would we have intervened? In Iraq the mass graves were found by us after we were there, were those mass graves acceptable because we didn’t see them? It is the images not the mass graves that offended him.

And I find the false implication that we didn’t have allies in Iraq offensive, but it’s necessary for this president as a fig leaf for the left.

I have to say I’m with Pat here, if we are in, we should be in to win, period.

Update: The Obama doctrine: “We will intervene to prevent pictures that make me look bad.”

Update 2: Instalanche: hi all. Lots to See here. SEE: Byron York talk Al Qaeda in Libya while Susan Rice talks arming them, SEE racial incidents involving dems not worth covering. SEE that happiness is a clean Fedora. And remember Saturday 10 to noon on AM 830 WCRN’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio is the battle of the Bloggers: Robert Stacy McCain vs Little Miss Attila on Feminism and conservatives. Don’t miss it!

Update 3: How bad does it have to be for the left when even Joe Scarborough is calling BS on them.

If Obama and his liberal supporters believed Qadhafi’s actions morally justified the Libyan invasion, why did they sit silently by for 20 years while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands?

And how do they claim the moral high ground in Libya while not calling for the immediate invasion of Syria? The monstrous Bashar al-Assad regime is slaughtering his own people by the hundreds. More killings are sure to happen as that corrupt regime teeters on the brink of collapse.

For the American Left nothing is immoral if it is done by The One™.

Says Mrs. Clinton. Michael Totten who apparently knows more about Syria than anyone in the administration is picking his jaw up from the floor:

He’s actually a totalitarian state sponsor of terrorism with American, Israeli, Lebanese, Iraqi, and Syrian blood on his hands. And some of that Syrian blood is still warm on the streets.

and as Gateway pundit reminds us:

And, don’t forget that for years this “reformer” Assad allowed terrorists on his soil who had been moving, arming, and funding foreign jihadists traveling through Syria into Iraq in cooperation with al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

The actual difference is that one is an Iranian satellite who’s opposed us in Iraq and the other gave in to us when it came to WMD after Iraq fell.

Of course as Israel matzav writes it could be a question of fear:

Though no one is yet talking about a no-fly zone over Syria, Obama administration officials acknowledge the parallels to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Some analysts predicted the administration will be cautious in pressing Mr. Assad, not because of any allegiance to him but out of a fear of what could follow him — a Sunni-led government potentially more radical and Islamist than his Alawite minority government.

Frankly we aren’t in a position to intervene in Syria even if we want to, but why not simply be ambiguous? Just say: “All options are on the table.” Make Syria and Iran sweat? Make Assard think he has to give concessions?

This is what comes of judging based on what others want than our own national interest. 2012 can’t come fast enough.

One of the strangest bits of what is going on in Libya is watching people describe what is going on.

At my weekly game night I went around the table with the guys and asked the opinion of the people there. About 60% didn’t care for it thinking it was not our business, another 40% not only approved but they had an interesting take, they insisted what we were doing wasn’t a war.

By an odd coincidence that is exactly what the French are claiming too:

“We are not at war with Libya, we are protecting the civilian population,” said Fillon and added, “Our objectives are very specific… to protect the civilian population, excluding explicitly any occupation forces.”

Nope it’s nothing at all like a war, I would think the Libyans might disagree.

Exit question: As things are getting interesting in Syria what are the odds of seeing the UN or anyone else support “protecting the civilian population” there.

Police fired live ammunition and tear gas Sunday at thousands of Syrians protesting in a tense southern city for a third consecutive day, killing one person and signaling that unrest in yet another Arab country is taking root, activists said.

I suspect we will be hearing crickets over there.