Obama Press Conference

Obama Press Conference

November 5, 2008

President Elect Barack Obama called a press conference early this morning to announce his plans to run for re-election in 2012.

While the campaign could “take him away from the oval office more often that he’d like,” he expects to be able to make himself available for any important matters that come up while he is out on the campaign trail.

(Parody) (Or is it?)

Congrats!

To those who have won, I offer my congratulations.

You have been given the opportunity to prove to the American People--and the world--that your ideas will work. (this time)

It is up to you to prove your detractors wrong.

We'll be watching

Who really made the mortgage mess?

No matter who you would like to blame for the mortgage mess, you had best read this from American Thinker.  I have only begun to follow up on some of the details (and can't possibly get to all of it anytime soon) but if even half of it is true, it's extremely damaging to Democrats.

Warning: It's long.

It starts like this...

Obama's economic narrative of the mortgage crisis ignores the facts. He has put free-market capitalism at the root of the current mortgage industry debacle, denying the real history of government interference in thatmarket.

And proceeds to cover every major relevant event from 1968 to 2008.

Read it.

A second look at 'Kato' Kaelin

Rep Mike “Kato” Kaelin wants’ to sell himself as better than sitting state senator Sheila Roberge based almost entirely on the notion that he’ll actually do something.

So while in part one I reviewed what Kato wants to do (or has already done) to taxpayers with his environmental and energy policies—which is to make it more expensive and less desirable to live here while wasting our tax dollars–in part II I want to look at choice bits of his voting record to see if his opus—that is, his idea of doing something, is really what New Hampshire needs. (Hint: The answer is no) 

You've heard the one about jobs Americans wont do, to justify amnesty for illegal immigrants?    I guess one of the jobs Kaelin wont let NH Americans do is arresting illegal immigrants.  When he had a chance to vote to kill a bill that would prohibit police officers from enforcing federal immigration laws, he voted to keep it alive.  One of only 63 house members to do so.

Mike Kaelin voted to kill CACR 24, which would prevent the state from instituting an income tax which would have made it that much harder  to pass runaway spending that was just looking to tax income as a new revenue stream.

Kato voted to make energy more expensive for everyone in New Hampshire with RGGI, the Regional Green House Gas initiative.   Sure, he'll troll out the canard that "after the state has laundered a tax through the energy companies, it might just give some back as rate releif." (He won't be that honest but it will mean the same thing.)  Sorry, Kato--I've seen the budget mess.  You guys spend money like drunken sailors, and there is no way you'll be giving us any money back,  even if there is any left after State government gets its cut.

Of course business in New Hampshire--whom he swears he's here to help, will have higher expenses with RGGI.  I guess what he really means by "helping small business," is he'll be helping them pay more for energy, hire fewer employees, and charge their customers more for goods and services.

Mike doesn’t much care for parental rights when it comes to education or the local control of education, voting to kill CACR23, CACR9, CACR 21, and CACR 29.

He made your insurance more expensive with a government mandate on dependent coverage.  He wanted to fine you for releasing a balloon.  He want’s to limit you to the government run schools by opposingalternatives, and he even voted to add a state tax to your milk.

I guess when Kato say’s he’s prepared to do something, he means to increase wasteful spending, screw you out of your income, and then give you fewer choices.

Now why the hell would we want that?

From the Milford Cabinet East

The Merrimack Journal is entitled to its opinion, even if it doesn’t actually have one of its own. In this weeks edition the editors (of the Milford Cabinet) prove me right again by endorsing only democrats for Governor, Congress, and the Senate. This is a natural extension of the Cabinets love affair with Obama, whose endorsement the Journal printed—I believe it was last week—almost verbatim (only edited for space) from the Milford Cabinet version published the week prior.

But to their credit, and in the interests of unbiased Bias, the Merrimack Journal did offer us this one nostrum in advance of their endorsements.

“…we encourage all voters not to take our word for it, but to invest the time and effort to learn about the candidates on their own.”

Sounds to me like they had a gun to their heads; too bad they couldn’t take their own advice.  They go on to suggest that Jeanne Shaheen...

 “was a popular centrist in Concord and we expect her to stay that way in Washington.”

So you see the problem right away. If you listen to Jeanne, or read her policy positions, there is nothing in evidence to suggest that she was, is, or plans to be a centrist in Washington. The Journal screwed the pooch on the first endorsement, making things worse by suggesting that it wasn’t an easy choice to make. Had you looked at her record and her policies with a critical eye (instead of with a big brown one) you’d have never called her a centrist. She’s a Reid-Pelosi liberal and not a wit smarter than either.

Carol Shea Porter…

“…has represented the state with integrity, and she deserves a return trip to Washington."

If the state is California they might have a point, but there is no significant evidence that she was voting for New Hampshire, or that integrity had anything at all to do with it. It is much more obviously the case that she was begging for attention from mother-Pelosi, voting for inclusion into the exclusive left leaning donkey-matic liberal maker2008.  She would never be effective without Nancy, and Pelosi returned the favor of 98% of her votes by snubbing most if not all of Shea-Porters own efforts.   If Carol had integrity she would not have reduced herself to some lick-spittle lap dog.  Carol couldn't even be bothered to piddle on Nancy's shoes.

Sheep-Porter stuck to her dog-eared script for two years in the House ignoring any efforts to regulate and de-fang the GSE’s which have now tanked the economy--so Carol fufilled her bit-part in the latter part of the democrat leaderships persistemt stonewalling and in-action on eight years of attempts at regulation. 

Then of course there is the matter of taking thousands in campaign cash from the PACs of criminals like John—“how about some more pork with that"--Murtha, and Charlie— “You want me to pay taxes on that”--Rangel.

But my favorite endorsement has to be that of John Lynch, though it is hardly a glowing appraisal. Like this line...

“…voters can be sure he won’t get in front of anything that doesn’t have overwhelming support.”

That’s leadership for you. Lynch is a leader behind many men, an invertebrate, incapable of applying simple management skills to control the democrat mob in the legislature. The Journal exacerbates its ignorance—in contradiction of its own preamble to “invest the time and effort”—to claim that Lynch...

“would still be a good counterbalance to the legislatures more liberal initiatives.”

Hello! Is this thing turned on? He already had a bite at that apple Einstein.

How’s this for good balance. A multi-million dollar surplus disappears to be replaced by a budget that grew half a billion dollars. We have a deficit that is projected to grow from 200-500 million depending on who’s lying to who about how it’s not as bad as it looks.

Some of the other liberal tendencies Lynch failed to counterbalance the first time around include robbing people of personal property rights, stealing our parental rights, increases in 23 taxes or fees, and other gross forms of fiscal malfeasance. The list of his failures on that point alone is enormous. He’s the rubber chicken executive, a punch line; they are the pimps and he is their whore. Someone should draw a line from each corner of  his mouth down to his chin, and attach some strings to each of his joints.

‘Good counterbalance’ to what!?

And to make it even more farcical, their argument against Joe Kenney is that “having Kenney’s conservative agenda in the corner office (with what they expect to be a continued democrat majority in the legislature) would be a recipe for gridlock”, like compared to Lynch that’s a bad thing.

Gridlock would be a huge improvement.  In fact it would be change I can beleive in.

The Journal’s endorsements lack any evidence that they even bothered to take their own advice seriously. While that may in fact be the case, let’s just hope their readers have enough sense to “not take their word for it.”

One final point for my liberal friends preparing to dust off the pithy, “If you don’t like what they print then don’t read it” comments.

Don't bother.  I'm only going to ask you if you support anyone who favors the fairness doctrine over "Just don't listen to talk radio." Tit for tat, and all that.