Obama's lame way to handle press

Do you know the president has a list of preselected journalists for questions during his press conferences? How lame is that?

The Commander-In-Chief of the world's best military is afraid of screwing up in front of the free press?

Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee

In a surprising development and a blow to the Obama administration, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) has decided not to be part of the President's cabinet due to policy disagreements. I applaud Sen. Gregg's action based on his principles -- in times like this we need more politicians like him!

Of course, the Leftosphere now labels him "right-wing."

Jim Tedisco poised to enter House

New York Assemblyman Jim Tedisco (R) is leading in the polls against opponent Scott Murphy (D) to fill the House seat vacated by Kirsten Gillibrand. Although this doesn't affect much of the House politics, it's still a small victory for Republicans. The election is set for March 31.

For more information and to contribute to his campaign, click here.

Obama's first press conference

The Leftosphere is reignited with pre-presidential passion after President Obama's first press conference where he addressed most of today's economic crisis. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive says Obama "delivers ideological knockout to GOP":

At his press conference Monday, he shredded Republican arguments against the stimulus package and made the best case by a President in decades for affirmative government intervention in the economy.

“With the private sector so weakened by the recession,” he said, “the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back into life. It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs.”

Listen to Obama's remarks very carefully. Notice how he portrays the federal government as our savior? Yes, the private sector has weakened, but please don't falsely paint a rosy picture about the federal government's resources -- these resources come from private sectors! Without the private sector and individuals, the federal government is nothing.

Can the government really break the "vicious cycle"? It's doubtful that billions dollars more government spending will help. All that does is further sink America into debt that even our children's grandchildren won't see it paid off.

To me this press conference showed an agitated Obama attempting to rekindle his pre-White House celebrity status, doing what he does best: rhetoric talk.

The stimulus could ruin your health care

Betsy McCaughey of Bloomberg is raising a flag about health provisions in President Obama's stimulus bill:

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

So not only does Big Brother want access to all your medical treatment data, but it also wants control over how the doctors perform procedures and diagnosis. The scary thing is that although Tom Daschle no longer gets to be the HHS Secretary, his soul lives in this bloated bill.

Worse yet:

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.

Again, the ghost of Daschle appears, and he wants the government to be the brains of the health care provider instead of the doctor's. What is government health care like? Just look back to the debacle of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 2007 scandal. (Thankfully, things have improved there after the bad publicity.)

Somebody wake me up, please!

Judith Warner at the NYT needs professional help. And journalistic guidance.

Sen. Arlen Specter, Obama Kool-Aid drinker

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) is one of the few Republicans who voted for the stimulus bill. He takes his case to the American people with an article in the Washington Post. He starts off resonating President Obama's sense of urgency:

I am supporting the economic stimulus package for one simple reason: The country cannot afford not to take action.

This is simply false. I think it's the Obama administration, the Federal government, that cannot afford not to take action to stimulate the government. The bill won't stimulate the economy much, but it sure will expand the government. The Republican Senators who voted along with the Democrats to support this bill are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid.

Our enemies continue terrorism even as Obama ends War on Terror

Even if the Obama administration doesn't agree with Bush's War on Terror, we know what the terrorists think: starting fires in Australia and beheading a Polish geologist.

Do you feel safe?

Lean, mean, talented Obama?

President Obama demands passage of the stimulus package. Now he's on the offensive, pointing fingers at Republicans for the "same old distractions." The leftosphere (the left-leaning blogosphere) is falling in love with Obama all over again because of his partisanship:

I will note that compared with the solid but lacking passion speech that the President gave earlier in the day at the Department of Energy, this speech truly demonstrated the enormous talents of the President. This was the Obama that spoke from the heart, not the cool, calm, collected one we often see and hear. This speech had cadence, it had fire in the belly, it had soul. He spoke to me as an American and as a Democrat. This is the real deal. This is how politics is played. To win by getting things accomplished.

Oh, please: the "enormous talents" of the President?! Since January 20, I haven't really seen much talent from the President except his ability to deliver speeches (but we'd already known that since the campaign).

Does he have a talent for party leadership? Not from what we've seen with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, marching to the beat of her own tune in the House, completely ignoring Obama's message of bipartisanship.

Does he have a talent for reaching across the aisle? Certainly, but the failure of his negotiation skills was exposed when the House Republican members stood united to oppose the stimulus package.

Does he have a talent for picking good cabinet nominees? Look at what happened to Bill Richardson, Timothy Geithner, Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis, and possibly more candidates.

The honeymoon is definitely over.

The action Democrats need, Obama's fear-mongering

That ought to be the title of President Obama's article in the Washington Post. The President laments:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.

First of all, nobody is saying that tax cuts is the only solution to this crisis. The opposing Republicans just want more tax cuts -- let it be a significant part of the stimulus. The Democrats just want to spend, spend, spend.

Obama tries to re-ignite the flame of change during his campaign, but you know what? Season's over. Now he's in the White House so he better own up to the mistakes and criticisms. Obama is not delivering a message of change. Here he is delivering a message of fear.

Reid says he has enough votes

These past few days we have seen more hot air come out of the Democratic Senate leadership than me after eating five cans of beans.

Okay, so you've got enough votes, Sen. Reid. So go pass your precious spending bill. Just remember, there will be a reckoning in the 2010 election.

Obama cabinet nominees would've been better off with FairTax

How come nobody is talking about how ridiculously complicated and ineffective the U.S. tax code is in light of the tax troubles from Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner? Oh wait, Ken Hoagland is.

If we had gotten rid of the IRS and implemented the FairTax, then Senators wouldn't bother with vetting nominees on unpaid taxes and these hearings would've been more pleasant. Okay, less of a circus.

Another cabinet nominee in trouble

I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for President Obama. Now his Secretary of Labor nominee Hilda Solis is under scrutiny for possible illegal lobbying actions.

Is Obama's inexperience starting to show its ugly head?

Obama downgraded from Messiah to Hero

Officially, too, from whitehouse.gov.

Strike two: Daschle out

Strike one: Bill Richardson withdrew from Commerce Secratary candidacy.

Strike two: Tom Daschle today withdraws from Health and Human Services Secretary over a $100,000 tax "mistake."

So far President Obama's cabinet nominees and their approval have seen many bumps in the process...

Wealth-envy galore

Wall Street certainly bears the blame for a significant portion of today's economic meltdown, but seriously, they aren't the real problem. Regardless, this has brought about the wrath of anti-capitalists, socialists, and wealth-envy sufferers. Here we have Eugene Robinson clamoring over Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-MO) rant about overblown executive compensation:

McCaskill introduced a bill to limit compensation at any company receiving bailout money to $400,000 -- the salary of the president of the United States. It's hard to improve on her words: "We should have done it in the first place. But I don't think any of us thought these guys were this stupid. I don't think any of us believed that they would take billions of dollars in bonuses while their institutions were literally days from being wiped out. But they did. And we've learned our lesson."
...
Things have changed. No longer does it seem reasonable -- if it ever did -- that the average CEO makes 344 times as much as the average worker, as estimated last August by the Institute for Policy Studies and the nonprofit group United for a Fair Economy. No longer does it seem acceptable that John Thain, the since-ousted Merrill Lynch chief who ordered those accelerated bonuses that so irked McCaskill, would spend $1.2 million of his fast-sinking firm's money to redecorate his office -- and then, with Merrill's losses being revealed as even greater than feared, request a bonus of up to $10 million for himself.

No longer does it make any sense to reward those who work in the financial industry so lavishly compared to the way we compensate those who, say, build tractors or write software or teach our children. Salaries should be reasonable and bonuses -- much more modest ones -- should be reserved for those who actually, you know, make money. If some of Wall Street's vaunted "talent" balks and flees, terrific. It was "talent" that got us here.

What are these people smoking? So there are several big financial institutions on the brink of failing because of poor management, and the management has changed after receiving bailout funds from the government, and now Sen. McCaskill wants to cap their yearly salary to $400,000? What sane executive would want the job?! Isn't it more important to offer competitive compensation to attract good executives to revive the companies? By introducing such a bill, it seems Sen. McCaskill, with the support of columnists like Robinson, want Wall Street to utterly fail. Maybe they prefer a government-run Wall Street.

Big shot executives like John Thain now have a big stain on their resume. That's part of how capitalism works. The market will decide how much somebody like Thain is worth. Don't bring the government into it.

Obama names GOP senator for Commerce Secretary

After being let down by New Mexico Gov. and former presidential candidate Bill Richardson, President Obama now wants Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to join his administration as Commerce Secretary. Gregg is a fairly low-profile Senator, but evidently is a well-trusted Republican politician.

By luring away a Republican in the Senate, of course, generates a lot of buzz whether President Obama and the Democrats are playing a political hand to achieve the elusive 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is a Democrat, and typically the governor appoints a replacement from his own party. However, Gov. Lynch has pledged that another Republican would be named to fill Gregg's seat. Would Lynch mess with the balance of power in appointing a RINO (Republican In Name Only)?

Additionally, is Gregg's appointment as Secretary of Commerce a back-scratching to Senate Republicans regarding the passage of the massive stimulus bill?

Celebrating Blogroll Amnesty Day (BAD)!

Thanks to Jon Swift for bringing Blogroll Amnesty Day to my attention! Today we nanobloggers (yes, smaller than microbloggers) are going to pretend we generate thousands of page views per hour and attract millions of visitors in a day...

Check these out:

• The Asian Conservative - Shares the same cause as this blog except with far greater manpower and experience!
• Back to the Constitution Coalition - These guys have the right idea in mind. We need to pay more attention to the Constitution indeed.
• Engrish Brog - If this blog doesn't have you LOL there's something wrong with you.
  

Let history be a lesson about government's impact on Depression

History is the best teacher, even in Economics. Let's not repeat what we already know.

Republican opposition to stimulus is Democrats own fault

All right, the ordeal about House Republicans' united front against the stimulus bill is getting more interesting now as columnists like E. J. Dionne are lobbying President Obama to abandon his bipartisanship efforts to win opposition support:

That's why last week's unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan was so important. For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.

Worse from Obama's point of view, Republicans have used the stimulus fight to drive a wedge between the president and his loyal troops in Congress. Some Republicans argued that while the White House was trying to reach out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were insisting on a "partisan" bill -- even though the measure was largely based on the administration's own proposals.

The truth is that House Republicans appreciated very much the attention given to them by the President. Although their negotiations with the White House failed to produce a stimulus package they could support, they had only good things to say about the President's efforts in reaching across the aisle.

The root of the problem isn't with President Obama. It's with the House Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pushed the bill forward without opportunity for more bipartisan debate. The bill is worth $900 billion in taxpayer money! She went to the press to pound on the Republicans' unwillingness to support it. In other words, while the President was working hard as a politician, Pelosi was running wild as a maverick.

That's the problem when a party hasn't been in power for so long and all of a sudden finds itself running multiple branches of government. Everyone is going to have a power and ego trip. If the Democrats are after some Republican votes, then they must resolve some internal issues between Obama-Pelosi-Reid.