Sunday, January 31, 2010
We had a lot of good shows this month.
We invite you to check out some of our shows.
Check out Joel Akerman's family story:
Check out our show about the Massachusetts election:
We spoke with Clifton about Sen Reid's comments:
Check out our interview with Amb Enrique Hubbard, former Dallas consul now living back in Mexico:
Saturday, January 30, 2010
According to reports, the TV audience was down from a year ago:
"President Barack Obama's television ratings may be the latest indication that his popularity is slipping, despite his move to push job creation to the top of his policy agenda." (Reuters)
That's bad news for a man who wants to fix everything with a speech!
Unfortunately, Pres BO is overexposed and has made too many speeches.
Furthermore, his promises are unfulfilled, and that adds to a creeping credibility problem.
First, he said that the stimulus saved millions of jobs.
Second, he proposed a health care plan that no one understood.
And now he attacks Supreme Court justices and gets the case facts wrong.
The public is tuning out Pres BO and that's not good for a politician!
P.S. Rasmussen has more bad news for Pres BO:
"The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point.
However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans.
Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure.
Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.
The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.”
Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false."
Friday, January 29, 2010
We spoke with Dan Rieh about Pres BO's speech.
Dan writes a very popular blog: Riehl World View
Check out Dan's post on Pres BO's attack on The Supreme Court last night:
"The WH's defense of Obama's remarks on a recent Supreme Court ruling doesn't cut it for a president, let alone someone who professes to be a Constitutional scholar.
It amounts to his saying, well, 80% of the law was bad, but since one element of it was good it should have withstood the Court's test.
Here is the show:
We learned on Friday that Pres BO is blinking regarding those trials in NY City:
White House asks Justice Department to look for other places to hold 9/11 terror trial
Chalk one for common sense and another consequence of Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts.
It was very stupid to hold this trial in NY City anyway!
We also learned on Friday about the total incompetence following the arrest of the Christmas Day bomber.
Charles Krauthammer has a great column this week:
"We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with
(1) the secretary of defense,
(2) the secretary of homeland security,
(3) the director of the FBI,
(4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or
(5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).
The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.
Perhaps you hadn't heard the term.
Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism.
In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.
Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case?
Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad.
Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?"
I guess not as Sec Napolitano admitted a few days later. See our post and video!What happens when you combine Political Correctness with incompetence?
You get this administration.
You put the American people at risk.
Who made the decision to hold the trial in NY City and to read a terrorist his Miranda rights?
The answer is AG Holder.....and it's time for him to go back to private practice where he can live out his "overseas contingency operation" fantasies and not put us at risk!
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Overall, it was too long! (70 minutes long!)
I heard much of the speech on the radio and Pres BO sounded flat.
Also, the constant applause was annoying.
First, he wants a spending freeze and a new jobs bill?
How do you do that?
Second, we hear that Washington is the problem.
Doesn't Pres BO live in DC and haven't the Dems been running this place?
Third, he hates earmarks....but didn't he sign a budget with 9,000 earmarks?
Fourth, he hates the blame game.....then he turns around and blames everybody for his situation.
Fifth, he wants to look ahead but can't speak two sentences without blaming Bush.
Frankly, when will this president say that he voted for much of the deficit that he inherited?
Didn't he vote for TARP? and the bailouts?
When will he say that the current deficit is his deficit?
Sixth, he doesn't want to litigate the past.....then he accuses his predecessor of torture?
Isn't that an insult to the CIA personnel that kept us safe?
Seventh, he wants to change the culture in Washington....then he attacks the Supreme Court shamefully!
Have you ever seen a president do that? Jake Tapper of ABC has a good post on these remarks.
Eight, what exactly did Pres BO propose to create jobs?
More college loans? And more "hope and change"?
Ninth, he preaches "free trade" but refuses to sign free trade agreements. By the way, The Washington Post called him on that one:
"He promised to "strengthen our trade relations . . . with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia" but did not commit to seeking ratification of free-trade agreements that are pending with all three.
Those agreements would create jobs but are unpopular with some unions and Democratic members of Congress. " (WP)
Pres BO's basic problem is that he believes that government is the answer to our problems.
Unfortunately, government can't fix 10% unemployment without a vibrant private sector.
Last, but not least, how can he spend so little time on national security? We've had two terrorist attacks (Ft Hood & Detroit) in the last 90 days.....how can he say so little?
How long are we going to remember this speech?
Will this speech impress those independents that Pres BO lost in recent elections?
I don't think so!
Pres BO is a magician without new tricks or rabbits in the hat. I agree with Peter Wehner:
"Barack Obama was, in short, trying to recapture the magic from his presidential campaign.
But that moment is gone with the wind.
The charm and aesthetic appeal have all but disappeared.
And so his words came across as not only stale but surreal.
It is as if Obama was speaking in a parallel universe.
What we are seeing play out on a very large stage, it seems, is a man of extraordinary self-regard having to deal with punishing political set-backs, with the fact that his high hopes have come crashing down around him. The nation has turned against his agenda.
They are turning against his party.
And they are tiring of him as well.
This is something he cannot seem to process.
So the president marches ahead, pretending up is down and east is west, embracing an agenda the country has rejected and that is doing terrible damage to his own party."
P.S. Here is our chat with Dan Riehl, blogger and political analyst:
Our friend Bill Katz posted this about Pres BO's speech:
"About 850 words of Obama’s 7,080-word address – around 12 percent of the total – dealt with foreign affairs.
In contrast, President George W. Bush in his last SOTU devoted some 2,200 words (38 percent of the total) to foreign policy issues.
That 2008 speech, Bush’s longest, was more than 1,300 words shorter than Obama’s Wednesday night address."
Yes, it was too long.....and there was very little mention of national security.
Check out our chat with Dan Riehl:
What do you do after 8 years in the White House?
How do you go from president to the guy down the street?
LORI STAHL of The Dallas Morning News has an update on Pres & Mrs. Bush.
Naturally, Pres Bush has kept a low profile, although he did come back for the Clinton-Bush Haiti fundraising project.
We have seen Pres Bush at sporting events, from throwing the first pitch at the Rangers' game or flipping the coin at the Cowboys' first game or attending a basketball game at Baylor.
My guess is that you will see Pres Bush take a higher profile although he won't criticize Pres BO publicly.
Bush's legacy? It's too early to judge his legacy but I like his chances to be seen as a strong president.
As time passes, we will see that Charles Krauthammer was right when he predicted that Pres Bush's stock would rise rather quickly once he was out of power.
This is Krauthammer a year ago: My money is still on Krauthammer!
Here are some videos of Pres Bush around town:
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Today, we spoke with Brenda Walker and Mario Yngerto.
Brenda recently wrote: Brenda has her own website!
Mario Yngerto commented on the US economy and how to spend money.
Here is the show:
It happens to every young hitter.
Sooner or later, the young hitter walks back to the dugout, shakes his head and realizes that they didn't pitch like that in AAA!
Like the rookie who can't figure out major league pitching, Pres BO has been rattled by reality.
We are watching a president who may be cracking up, specially now that the magic does not work anymore.
First, he can't control the economy the same way that he could control those crowds back in the "yes we can" days.
Second, he can't get anything done overseas despite all of those adoring crowds.
Third, his own party is now in disarray after Massachusetts.
Fourth, Pres BO can't deliver votes. In fact, the base is gloomy and did not vote in Virginia, NJ and even Massachusetts.
We can't send Pres BO back to AAA but we can elect a few more Republicans in 2010 and force the administration to live in the real world.
Speaking of the economy, check out our second segment with Mario Yngerto from Tuesday's show:
For years, we heard about the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Of course, Bush did not cut taxes for the rich......he cut taxes for people who pay taxes and that's a lot of rich people in the US.
In fact, the top 10% pays about 65% of our federal income taxes.
Like closing GITMO and holding meetings on CSPAN, a lot of Dems are now figuring out that running for office is a lot different than governing.
The WSJ has a great editorial today:
"In Democratic Washington, it's supposed to be an article of faith that the Bush tax cuts "on the rich" were a disaster and must be allowed to expire at the end of this year.
However, that means socking the economy with a record tax hike next January 1, and some Democrats are beginning to have second thoughts.
Harry Mitchell, a second-term Congressman from Arizona, wrote President Obama last week to urge him to extend the 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends that will revert to 20% and 39.6%, respectively, next year.
He also doesn't want the 55% confiscatory rate on estates restored, as it also would be in 2011.
"Given the unique economic difficulties we face as a nation, this is the wrong time to raise these taxes.
We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation," Mr. Mitchell wrote."
OK.....what is the left going to say about this one?
We noted that national security was the quiet issue in Massachusetts.
In other words, many people in Massachusetts do not understand all of this nonsense about giving terrorists a civilian trial.
We can add Dems to the list:
"Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jim Webb of Virginia signed on to a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder condemning the administration’s November announcement of a criminal trial in Manhattan.
“Your decision to prosecute enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is without precedent in our nation’s history,” the senators wrote.
“Given the risks and costs, it is far more logical, cost-effective, and strategically wise to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the military commissions.”
The letter “shows that there is growing support, especially on the Democratic side, against this decision." (Politico)
Besides Massachusetts, there is also the reality that Mayor Bloomberg is complaining about the estimated $200 million costs.
Also, there must be a lot of constituent anger.....can you imagine what a trial like this will do to traffic flow and offices nearby?
It's insane. It's nice to see that some Dems are starting to get it!
P.S. Check out our conversation with Brenda Walker about political correctness and national security:
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
This week, a weak Pres BO delivers his first State of the Union Speech:
Gallup at 47%
Rasmussen at 46%.
What will he say?
First, he won't be signing any "health care program" soon. You can kiss having the government take over health insurance away!
Second, he won't be closing GITMO.
He won't be talking about "promoting our values" by holding the KSM trial in NY City.
Third, he won't be discussing his "successful trip" to Copenhagen's climate change fiasco or how the Norwegian judges gave him the Nobel.
Fourth, he won't be talking about how his "international magic" or "love for BO" has led our allies to increase troops in Afghanistan.
Fifth, he won't be calling for any "one on one" talks with the leaders of Iran. (Let's hope that he supports the brave people of Iran who are standing up to a corrupt and murderous regime.)
Sixth, he won't be offering to campaign for Dem incumbents. Have you heard what happened to the Dems that BO campaigned for in Virginia, NJ and Massachusetts?
Seventh, he won't be talking about any withdrawal from Iraq.
On the contrary, the "anti-war" candidate is now heavily invested in Pres Bush's plan in Iraq. (Is that the mother of all ironies or what?)
Eighth, he won't be fulfilling his campaign promise to reverse the "don't ask, don't tell" ban in the military.
Ninth, he won't be proposing any serious immigration reform.
Tenth, he won't be discussing how his administration read "Miranda rights" to a terrorist who tried to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day.
Eleventh, he won't be preaching for "free trade", specially after his refusal to promote the Colombia Free Trade Agreement or his pandering to unions by closing the US to Mexican trucks.
Last, but not least, he won't be promising to hold any of the administration's business on CSPAN.
Overall, this is not going to be a happy speech for all of those who got intoxicated with so much hope and change.
How does all of that hope and change look now?
Conrad Black has a great analysis of Pres BO's problems:
"The president has three principal problems.
He is well to the left of the public and of what he promised the voters in 2008, and it is an old, passe leftism, that is authoritarian, deviously presented and was discredited in this country decades ago; the sort of nostrums that caused Bill Clinton and others to become 'New Democrats.'
He is increasingly perceived as having credibility problems and of being cold, cocksure, narcissistic and intoxicated by what he modestly called 'the gift' of his own articulation.
And as president, he has been quite, and quite surprisingly, incompetent."This is not going to be a happy year for "the yes we can screamers".
The voters have seen through BO and they don't like what they see!
Check this out: Just 43 percent would re-elect Obama
It gets worse:
"Among independent voters, only 30 percent would vote to re-elect Mr. Obama, and 60 percent say it is time for someone new."
P.S. Do you get the feeling that the public has seen through BO?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Has the the ghost of "populism" been visiting the Oval Office?
Question: Who exactly is going to pay this "fee" or tax anyway? Who ends us paying taxes on businesses anyway?
Can you say bank consumers? Businesses do not pay taxes. They simply pass them on to their consumers!
Larry Kudlow has a message for Pres BO: Bank Bashing Isn’t the Answer
Of course, irresponsible presidential statements have consequences:
"Stocks extended their losing streak for a third day Friday, dropping the Dow into negative territory for the year, as President Obama's proposed new restrictions on the financial industry continued to ripple through the market.
Today's descent was initially shallow but became steeper as the day went on. In the final hour of trading, the Dow and S&P were off more than 1.5 percent, while the Nasdaq was off more than 2 percent." (CNBC)
Furthermore, irresponsible presidential statements scare people, specially those who actually create jobs and start companies:"U.S. investors overwhelmingly see as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey.
The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.
The poll also finds a decline in Obama’s overall favorability rating one year after taking office.
He is viewed favorably by 27 percent of U.S. investors.
In an October poll, 32 percent in the U.S. held a positive impression." (Bloomberg)
What happens when a president goes out and makes outrageous attacks on the banking industry?
You scare investors and make the stock market drop! (Wall Street has its worst week in a year)
Jobs? Just ask Mayor Bloomberg of NY City:"President Barack Obama’s demand Thursday that Congress clamp down on the size of banks and their investments got major blowback from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said it could cause layoffs and hurt the city." (ED)
By now, everyone knows the events of December 25 and the "underwear bomber".
Nevertheless, it's obvious that some in the Obama administration "fumbled big time" when the young terrorist was arrested.
Guess who is now criticizing Pres BO's administration today?
The answer is The Washington Post's lead editorial today:
"The Obama administration had three options:
It could charge him in federal court.
It could detain him as an enemy belligerent.
Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.
It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call.
We originally supported the administration's decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration.
But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model." (WP)
Unfortunately, this administration is stocked with too many people who are at war with the Bush-Cheney anti-terror policies rather than terrorists.
"Underwear bombers" do not have rights, such as getting their Miranda reading or a public lawyer.
Scott Brown's in Massachusetts victory was about a lot more than health care.
There was also a "national security' angle to his victory, specially when he attacked the decision to treat the "underwear bomber" like some kid who stole a car in Detroit.
P.S. Check out my conversation with Bill Katz on Thursday. Bill discussed the growing concerns that the Obama administration is putting the nation in danger:
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
In case you missed it, today is the first anniversary of Pres BO's "closing GITMO" promise.
Of course, GITMO did not close.
And I don't see Pres BO closing GITMO anytime soon, specially after the role that national security played in the Massachusetts election.
In fact, Pres BO's Justice Dept today created "BO's Gitmo":
"The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday." (NYT)
Question: Didn't holding people indefinitely violate our values and hurt our image abroad?
It did during the campaign.
It does not today that Pres BO is responsible for national security.
Wonder how all of those jumping "yes we can" screamers feel today?
Friday, January 22, 2010
Six weeks ago, many Cowboys' fans reminded me of candidate Obama's "change, change and change".
How is all of that "change" working for the people who foolishly voted for Obama?
Today, Jerry Jones settled the issue and Coach Phillips stays.
No "change for the sake of change"!
Changing a coach is no panacea.
In fact, the Cowboys had several coaching changes between 1997 and 2007.....and did not win a playoff game.
Changing the coach is no panacea.
I'm not saying that Wade Phillips was my choice for Cowboys head coach three years ago.
However, Coach Phillips has won two East titles, rebuilt the team's defense and developed Tony Romo into a good NFL QB.
Keep in mind that ".....only one defense in the NFL allowed fewer points than the Cowboys this season." (DMN)
So the Cowboys have a coach. Now, they will plan the draft, sign a free agent or two and figure out what to do with Roy Williams!
We congratulate Coach Phillips and wish him well!
In my last post, I said that "Blame Bush" ended in Massachusetts.
In Virginia, NJ and Massachusetts, the Dem candidate (trailing in the polls) spent the last two weeks connecting the Republican candidates to Pres Bush.
And it did not work!
Bush is living in Dallas TX. He spends his time in our community. He is not on any ballot!
It's over! The public is holding BO accountable for the state of the country.
Nevertheless, it's interesting to remember what the world was like in 2001.
Rick Richman recalls the world that Bush inherited not long ago:
"......memories are short about what George W. Bush faced in his first year:
a recession caused by a burst Internet bubble;
the failure of the seventh largest company in the country (Enron) and one of the Big Five accounting firms (Arthur Andersen);
an attack on New York and Washington, D.C.;
a stock market that crashed and an economy that tottered; the need to mobilize the country for a war in Afghanistan; a failed “peace process” inherited on Inauguration Day (with a new Palestinian war against Israel already in its fifth month); etc.
The difference is that Bush did not spend his first year blaming Bill Clinton for the Internet bubble or the inherited recession, or the ineffective response to the first World Trade Center attack and the multiple attacks thereafter, or the bungled peace process."
Pres Bush reacted to his new job by accepting the responsibilities of the office and meeting the issues head on.
He did not blame Clinton for doing nothing about terrorism for 8 years. Instead, he took the war directly to the terrorists.
It's time for Pres BO to get over it and start governing!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Peter Wehner got this one right about the state of denial in "yes we can" land:
"They will blame Obama’s predecessor, Republicans in Congress, the conservative movement, angry white males, Fox News, Sarah Palin’s tweets, and the wrong alignment of the stars.
It won’t work.
Having created a myth, they must now live with its unmasking." (PW)
Jay Cost got it right too:
"To put it bluntly, the Obama White House has been politically inept in the last year.
It has made serious miscalculations, and today it is paying a price.
Ultimately, the reason for these errors goes back to the greenness of the Commander-in-Chief himself, who lacked executive experience and had little first-hand knowledge of the way Washington functions.
He put together a team too full of Chicago strongmen, campaign hacks, and sympathetic "Friends of Barack."
Accordingly, he and his executive staff were ill prepared for managing the government." (RCP)
Here is the good news: Year 1 is over!
Here is the bad news: Year 2 will be worse.
Unemployment will recover but not enough to justify the stimulus hype.
Iran, and the world's bad guys, are not on board for the "hope and change" express. (Russia says to start Iran nuclear plant in 2010...)
Worst of all, Pres BO has betrayed his base, the "yes we can" screamers who saw him as something unique. (Why didn't they show up in Virginia, NJ and Mass)
He is not unique at all. Reality has unmasked BO!
In fact, he is quite ordinary! He is just another politician from Chicago!
And year 2 will be ordinarily very difficult for all of those who invested their hopes in Obama-mania!
At 9pm, Martha Coakley conceded and the election was finally over.
Who would have believed Brown's 52-47% victory a month ago?
What happens now?
Pres BO can not deliver the votes. He didn't get the base out in Virginia, NJ and now Massachusetts.
The Dems have "a base problem" and every Dem politician should be scared to death.
Let's hope that the Dems understand the results.
I hope that they understand that the public thinks that buying votes and exempting union members was awful. (It may also be illegal but that's for another post!)
GITMO and the KSM trail in NY were also an issue.
You don't have to be a conservative Republican from Texas to understand that "underwear bombers" do not have rights under our constitution.
See It’s the Enemy, Stupid By Andrew C. McCarthy:
"Scott Brown went out and made the case for enhanced interrogation, for denying terrorists the rights of criminal defendants, for detaining them without trial, and for trying them by military commission.
It will work for other candidates willing to get out of their Beltway bubbles. "
Pres BO, Sen Reid and Speaker Pelosi need to clear their desks and start all over again.
And they should invite the Republicans to the meetings!
Or they are going to get their butts kicked again!
Here is the Wednesday morning show:
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
On Thursday, we spoke with Mario Yngerto, a local businessman.
Mario is also with the Republican National Hispanic Assembly, Dallas Chapter.
We are very happy that Mario will be doing commentaries on the US economy. Here is the show:
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
By now, we've heard all of the partisan predictions.
What will happen today in Massachusetts?
Let me go with Brown in a tight victory......we need to compensate for the fact that Dems have an "out the vote" machine in Massachusetts.
Nevertheless, Brown will win because the independents, who represent half of the electorate in MASS, are tilting his way.
What was the straw that broke the camel's back for me?
I will bet on the string of polls showing Briwn ahead and the anecdotes of voter intensity.
What happens if Brown wins?
"If you are looking for an analogy for a Republican victory in Massachusetts, the best one for Democrats may well be the stock market crash of 1929. Come Tuesday night, you could have Democrats jumping out windows and off roofs ..." (WS)
We don't know if Dems will jump from their roofs but many will reconsider their position on BO-Care!
Go Scott Brown!
Check our show on the MASS election:
Today, Massachusetts voters will wake up and vote.
No matter what happens, the big loser will be the Dem left that misunderstood the 2008 election and the US voters in general.
Gerald Sieb got it right:
"The Democratic party's problems, crystallized in the last-ditch scramble to save Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat in a special election Tuesday, can be traced to a simple mistake:
Many in the party misread voters' desire to switch parties in recent years as an ideological shift to the left." (WSJ)
Let us repeat: The US is a center right country.
However, too many Dems, specially the liberal wing in the House, saw 2009 as their 1965 or 1933.
The House liberals misread publc opinion.
The US is not a country looking to turn into an Euro style "cradle to grave" state.
On the contrary, most Americans think that we are overtaxed and would prefer less government services.
This is confirmed by the latest Wash Post poll:
"Fifty-eight percent said they favor a smaller government with fewer services, and only 38 percent said they favor a larger government with more services." (CNSN)
Yes, Scott Brown ran a good campaign and Martha Coakley didn't.
However, this is way beyond Massachusetts.
This is a rebellion against legislative overreach, the kind of "overreach" that exempts unions from taxes or gives senators special deals for their vote.
Monday, January 18, 2010
On Sunday, we made a donation for Haiti.
Like many churches, we had a special collection for the people of Haiti.
Also, I support Pres BO's actions.
He is doing as much as we can, from sending troops to coordinating assistance.
My big concern is this: Who is going to run Haiti?
We know that Haiti's government has no resources, soldiers and its police is stretched thin.
We know that Haiti has no infrastructure.
Who is going to assume responsibility for putting this country back together?
The US can not afford an extended stay.
Does the White House have a plan B? What happens after the rescue and the 24/7 TV reporters come home?
We posted this two weeks ago.
Who is going to step up and save the Dems from themselves?
Who is going to stand up on the Senate floor and kills this bill?
The health care bill is unpopular for various reasons:
1) Nobody understands it or how much it will cost
2) There are too many fishy deals, such as Louisiana and Nebraska.
3) How can union members be exempted from something that the rest of us have to pay for?
I understand that some people believe in a "single option".
I respect that.
However, this is the wrong way to do it.
What Democrat will stand up?
I don't know but he or she will earn the respect of a nation.
And he may even position himself as a potential president!
Are you listening Evan Bayh or Mark Warner?
P.S. The Washington Examiner has the right idea:
"As the clock ticks down to the final decisive vote in Congress on Obamacare, one question stands above all else:
Is there one Senate Democrat with the political courage to stand with the American people and say no?
Who among the 60 Senate Democrats will put the national interest above partisan politics and say to his or her colleagues that "We must start over and do this the right way"?
Regardless whether one favors or opposes a government takeover of the American health care system, the reckless manner in which Obamacare has been brought to this final decisive moment offers five indisputable reasons for casting a vote for principle and against blind partisanship." (WE)
Let me ask again: What exactly did BO's voters expect from a man who had no executive experience or had never run anything?
The AP has the right idea: After year, hope turns into disappointment
"Across the country, in Seattle, Glen Boyd had only just entered his own economic storm.
A couple weeks out of work as a DIRECTV salesman, the Obama supporter nevertheless watched the inauguration on TV with a kind of goose-bumpy, things-are-bound-to-get-better anticipation.
"I felt a tremendous sense of pride. I felt like he was the right guy. I felt a sense of optimism," recalls Boyd.
Now, a year later, Boyd writes this in his blog:
"We believed what the man said in all those 'yes, we can' speeches.
My one question is: Where are all those reassuring speeches now?"
"To say I'm disappointed by the Obama presidency thus far would be an understatement."
Forget "can," "change" and, above all, "hope."
The new word echoing in the blogosphere and beyond as Obama enters Year Two: disappointment."
The Washington Post, a newspaper that endorsed candidate BO, adds this:"A year into his presidency, President Obama faces a polarized nation and souring public assessments of his efforts to change Washington, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
Nearly half of all Americans say Obama is not delivering on his major campaign promises, and a narrow majority have just some or no confidence that he will make the right decisions for the country's future."
This is from Boston and Pres BO's trip to help candidate Martha Coakley:
"But the challenges to getting an enthusiastic turnout for Democrats in 2010 are huge. Young voters and left-wing Democrats have become frustrated with progress on the Obama agenda in Washington." (Boston)
We feel sorry for Boyd and the millions who invested their hopes and dreams in Obama-mania.
At the same time, we repeat our question:
What exactly did these people see in BO's resume to believe that he'd be anything other than a guy who was unqualified to be president of the US?
Did irrational wishful thinking trump rationality on election day 2008?
Yes it did!
P.S. Check out our Sunday show about Massachusetts:
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Believe it or not, Dallas was in the game at the start of the 4th quarter.
The Cowboys were down 17-3 and that's not an insurmountable lead.
However, something happened and it ended 34-3, including the last minute TD that did not make Minnesota look very good.
What's the point of running up the score with less than 2 minutes to go?
I agree with # 51 Keith Brooking:
""I thought it was totally classless and disrespectful," Brooking said.
"This is the NFL, that's not what this is about.
I don't think there's a place for that...
I was looking for Childress.
I didn't think it was right, but they've got to see us next year.
They've got to see us. You better believe I'll have that one circled on the calendar, but I say that, we get paid to stop them.
I don't care what's called, but sometimes I don't think there was much class in that decision to do what he did."" (DMN)
Cheers for # 51.
Did you see him screaming at the Vikings after the TD?
A lot of us back in Dallas were screaming along with him!
Here is the bad news: 34-3
Here is the good news: Romo and the core of this team is very young. They will be back!
What about Coach Phillips? He led this team to the 2nd round.
What would changing Coach Phillips do for this team?
Frankly, Coach Phillips was not the problem.
He wasn't playing on the offensive line that did not protect QB Romo.
I think that Dallas will look for a little youth on the offensive line and get a reliable field goal kicker.
And the Cowboys will be back because they are pretty close to going the distance!
And the Super Bowl will be played at the Cowboys' new stadium in 2011!
Wouldn't it be nice to see Dallas play the big game in Dallas?