In their own words: Obama can’t govern and Biden doesn’t do anything

American Thinker

Neil Braithwaite
In 2007 Barack Oobama said, “You gotta break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics.  Maybe you eke out a victory with 50-plus-one but you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as president but you can’t — you can’t deliver on health — we’re not going to pass universal health care with a — with a 50-plus-one strategy.”

When President Obama embraced what he calls the, “fifty-plus-one pattern of presidential politics,” to pass a health care bill, he admitted that he “can’t govern.”

Last February, President Obama tapped Joe Biden to oversee the $787 billion stimulus package saying, “The fact that I’m asking my vice president to personally lead this effort shows how important it is for our country and future to get this right,”

At last weeks health care summit, Joe Biden was overheard telling a participant, “It’s easy being vice president – you don’t have to do anything.”

Now Americans knows why the $787 billion stimulus package isn’t working and the country is going to hell in a hand basket – the President can’t govern and the vice president forgot he had a job to do.

America is not in a position to have leaders that either can’t or don’t do their jobs.


Tennessee disapproval of Obama nearly doubles in a year

Hot Air

Much like the rest of the country, the Volunteer State has soured on Hope and Change, but the results in Tennessee are certainly dramatic.  A year ago, Barack Obama has approval ratings of 53/27 among adults in a state John McCain carried by 15 points, the most sympathetic survey sample for Democrats.  Today, that has changed to 42/51, and Obama has gone underwater on almost all issues as well:

Fifty-one percent of Tennesseans disapprove of Obama’s job performance in the latest poll, up from 46 percent in the fall and 27 percent in spring, according to Dr. Jason Reineke, associate director of the MTSU Poll and an assistant professor of journalism at MTSU.

“Significantly, dissatisfaction with Obama has spread from Republicans to include independents,” Reineke added. “Last fall, 43 percent of independents disapproved of Obama. Today, that figure has risen to 61 percent.”

The overall 51 percent disapproval represents a slim majority at best, considering the poll’s error margin of plus or minus four percentage points. Nonetheless, the poll‘s complementary findings that 42 percent approve of Obama and 7 percent are undecided indicate beyond reasonable doubt that more Tennesseans disapprove of Obama than approve of him.

It’s even more obvious when looking at Obama’s approval on the issues, expressed in this survey as “confidence”.  On the economy, Obama gets 46/52.  Fifty-eight percent of independents are worried about their economic future, and among those, 69% disapprove of Obama’s performance.  With the 42% less worried about their future, only a bare majority of 51% approves of Obama’s performance — not exactly a ringing endorsement.

On health-care reform, the numbers look even worse.  Much of the survey took place before the health-care “summit,” although a few days of surveying took place afterward, and clearly it didn’t help.  Confidence in Obama on what had been a signature Democratic issue has dropped to 35/63.   Only 22% want the bills in the House and Senate to proceed, with 53% wanting a do-over.  Even Tennessee Democrats have had enough.  Only 49% want their party leaders to continue, with 48% wanting a do-over.  Almost two-thirds of independents (63%) agree with the do-over, with another 18% saying that Congress should drop the issue altogether.

Obama may not care too much about the collapse of his approval ratings in a state he lost by a wide margin anyway, but Tennessee Democrats will be in real trouble in 2010 in both national and state races with these results.  That may become a problem in many state elections in a year where the state legislatures that will run redistricting will be chosen.


For the Record: Harry Reid Lied to Jim Bunning

Red County

As you’ve no doubt been reading this morning, Senator Jim Bunning “backed down” on his attempt to get the Senate to actually–GASP!!– pay for the extension of unemployment benefits rather than tossing it as just one more log on the national debt bonfire.

You are probably also under the impression that what got the Kentucky Senator to relent was an agreement with the Majority Leader that there would be an up-or-down vote on Bunning’s amendment. True.

But what didn’t happen was that vote itself.

Instead, the Democrats used a procedural tactic late last night to deny Bunning that up-or-down vote–the one Harry Reid had agreed to. That’s right: Reid flat out lied to Bunning, then Barbara Boxer pulled the rug out from under him. In an excellent post, Robert Romano with Americans for Limited Government explains:

Finally, last night, it appeared that Bunning had prevailed when he accepted a deal that would have allowed an up-or-down vote on the amendment that would have funded the deal. In the lead-up, Bunning made the case for the very pay-go rules that had just been enacted into law by the Democrat majorities of Congress.

Bunning relished the opportunity, and in a statement after the deal was reached, he said, “I hope Senate Democrats tonight vote for their own pay-fors and show Americans that they are committed to fiscal discipline. I will be watching them closely and checking off the hypocrites one by one.”

Obviously concerned about the prospects of Bunning’s up-or-down vote actually succeeding, and Bunning walking away victorious, Democrats sought to deny Bunning his opportunity to hold Congress to its word. At the eleventh hour, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) broke the deal, raising a point of order against the consideration of Bunning’s amendment, which would have paid for the unemployment benefits and other programs by repealing a $24 billion “black liquor” tax credit subsidy.

Bunning at first looked like a deer caught in headlights, but quickly recovered, requesting that the Senate waive Boxer’s objection by a Yay or Nay vote. The amendment was then defeated by a vote of 53 to 43, upholding the Boxer objection. Senate Republicans rallied to Bunning’s defense (not one of them voted to uphold the objection), and were joined by Democrat Senators Russ Feingold, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman.

Even Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who earlier had accused Bunning of “hurting the American people” for his stand, voted to waive the objection so that Bunning would get his up-or-down vote on his amendment.

After being betrayed on the floor of the Senate, Bunning issued a statement, saying, “Democrats tonight showed their true colors by going back on their word on the agreement I had reached with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on my amendment to fully pay for the unemployment extension and other federal programs. Instead, Senate Democrats used a procedural gimmick so they would not have to vote on my pay-for amendment. What are they so afraid of?”

Answer: they’re afraid of just about everything these days, including a 79 year-old retiring Senator from Kentucky and his wild notion that spending ought to be paid for. Keep up the good work, Mr. Bunning



Flopping Aces

On Obama’s first day in office he signed a memorandum touting the virtues of the government transparency and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

Unfortunately, like so many other things where Obama is involved, his words regarding transparency were…just words.

The Chamber Post, an Internet blog site, sent in a FOIA request regarding global warming records.

This is what they received in response:


And the Government wonders why The People don’t trust them.


Is Obama Selling Judgeships?

Power Line

There has been a lot of buzz about President Obama appointing Scott Matheson, Jr, to a vacancy on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals at the very moment when he and Nancy Pelosi are leaning on Matheson’s brother, Jim Matheson of Utah, to switch his vote on Obamacare. Some have not hesitated to suggest that Obama may be selling judgeships for health care votes.

As to the Matheson nomination, I think the criticism is not well-founded. That doesn’t mean that Obama didn’t have one eye on Congressman Jim Matheson when he selected Professor Scott Matheson for the 10th Circuit. No one will ever know, probably. But Professor Matheson would be an ideal choice for Obama even if he didn’t have a brother in Congress. He is a law professor at the University of Utah, a graduate of Stanford, Oxford and Yale Law School, a professor (briefly) at the Kennedy School at Harvard, an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Governor of Utah, and a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah. His credentials are unimpeachable and, more important, comprise the sort of resume that Democrats love. Best of all, Professor Matheson has just written a book on Presidential usurpations of constitutional authority–my paraphrase–titled Presidential Constitutionalism in Perilous Times, which contrasts President Obama favorably with George W. Bush and generally offers up a conventionally liberal view on the powers of the executive.

Thus, President Obama could not have found a more suitable nominee, from a liberal Democratic perspective, than Scott Matheson. It would be unfair to assume that he selected Matheson in order to influence his brother; on the contrary, if Matheson had no siblings at all he would be an ideal liberal judicial candidate. So I think we must acquit President Obama of that charge.

What is sad, however, is that Matheson will replace Judge Michael McConnell, who resigned from the 10th Circuit to teach law at Stanford. Judge McConnell is a friend, or acquaintance anyway, and is one of our great conservative legal thinkers. Among other things, he is without a doubt the foremost expert on church and state under the American Constitution. Elections have consequences, and one of them is that brilliant conservative judges like Michael McConnell are replaced by competent liberal judges like Scott Matheson. Beyond that, though, we have no basis to criticize the Matheson nomination.


Obama czar’s shocking communist connections

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

John Holdren

John Holdren, President Obama’s “science czar,” served on the board of editors of a magazine whose personnel were accused of providing vital nuclear information that helped the Soviet Union build an atom bomb.

The magazine, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, has a long history of employing socialist and communist sympathizers, including during the time of Holdren’s employment in 1984, reports the New Zeal blog.

Holdren is assistant to the president for science and technology, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and co-chairman of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists began publishing regularly in 1945, when it was founded by former physicists from the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bomb.

Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.

In 1994, Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, named Szilard and Oppenheimer as key sources of crucial atomic information to the Soviet Union.

“The most vital information for developing the first Soviet atomic bomb came from scientists engaged in the Manhattan Project to build the American atomic bomb – Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard,” wrote Sudoplatov.

Complete Story: