About This Blog
Vote For...Generic Republican !
A new Gallup poll showed that 44% of the electorate would vote for any Republican nominee over President Obama in 2012. Only 39% would vote for Obama. That's good news for the Republicans, eh ?
Not quite. It's only one poll, and while the public may prefer Mr. or Mrs. Generic Republican over Obama, the GOP can't run a nameless, faceless candidate. They have to run an actual person, and once a name is attached to the Republican candidate, things poll much differently. When Obama is polled against Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Paul, Cain, Palin, Bachmann, or Huntsman, Obama beats them all.
Hmmm. Anyone heard from Chris Christie lately ? Ah, no matter. The election is nearly a year and a half away, so polls don't mean much now. Why did I even bring it up ? I don't know. An awful lot can happen between now and election time.
Obama Ignores White House Office Of Legal Counsel
According to the New York Times, President Obama ignored the legal advice of his own Office Of Legal Counsel (OLC), which told him the Libyan War required the consent of Congress under the War Powers Act. When the OLC told Obama his pursuit of the war was illegal, Obama did what any law-abiding President would do, he simply sought out other legal advice and found lawyers who would tell him what he wanted to hear - that the Libyan War was not a war, that dropping bombs on Libya does not constitute hostilities, and that the President wasn't violating the law. Here's Senate Majority Leader and human disinformation machine, Harry Red (D-NV), running with the ridiculous:
As they say, you can always tell when Harry Reid is lying...his lips move.
Senate Votes to End Ethanol Tax Credits
By a vote of 73-27, the Senate voted in bipartisan fashion to support Sen. Diane Feinstein's (D-CA) bill to stop subsidizing ethanol. Well, knock me over with a feather. I didn't think Congress would agree on anything between now and November 2012. Tea Partier and head of Americans For Tax Reform, conservative Grover Norquist, said the agreement violated Republicans anti-tax pledge unless it was paired with a tax-cutting amendment, but Grover should take a chill pill. I view this as a step in the right direction. I detest crony capitalism, where the government picks winners and losers in business. That's why we have so many lobbyists and special interests in Washington D.C. jockeying for their slice of the pie. It leads to corruption. I favor low or no taxes on all business endeavors to stimulate the economy and produce jobs, but I don't like one set of rules for Business A and a completely different set of rules for Business B. Now, if we could only get rid of the other thousand or so subsidies and replace it with a level, pro-growth playing field...I can dream, can't I ?
Obama Regulatory Expansion Indefensible, Says...Obama's Chief Of Staff !
White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley took heat from business executives Thursday for the Obama administration’s regulatory expansions. Daley also said he didn’t have any good answers for some of what President Obama is doing and expressed frustration about the “bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend.”
“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” Daley said at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) meeting.
Daley couldn’t answer basic questions and continually faced criticism from the executives in the room. The business leaders even applauded each other’s criticism of the administration. “At one point, the room erupted in applause when Massachusetts utility executive Doug Starrett, his voice shaking with emotion, accused the administration of blocking construction on one of his facilities to protect fish, saying government ‘throws sand into the gears of progress,’” wrote Peter Wallsten and Jia Lynn Yang in the Washington Post.
I don't know what the deal is with Obama blocking construction to protect fish. My best guess would be that Obama's daughters really like the movie Finding Nemo. I bet Daley has some 'splainin' to do when Obama returns from the golf course.
AARP says what ?
I must be hallucinating this morning. The AARP just said...
AARP, the powerful lobbying group for older Americans, is dropping its longstanding opposition to cutting Social Security benefits, a move that could rock Washington's debate over how to revamp the nation's entitlement programs.
The decision, which AARP hasn't discussed publicly, came after a wrenching debate inside the organization. In 2005, the last time Social Security was debated, AARP led the effort to kill President George W. Bush's plan for partial privatization. AARP now has concluded that change is inevitable, and it wants to be at the table to try to minimize the pain.
First, the AARP signed onto ObamaCare, with it's Medicare cuts and rationing boards, and now this. It wouldn't even take a feather to knock me over with this news. I can't figure AARP's game here. Anyone have a theory ?