Iowa Liberal sucks.

Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 @ 11:41 pm | Politics

It’s the baby, I swear.

President dared mention oil subsidies tonight and took on the repeal monkeys. Wonder which will generate more outrage?

Of course, what should produce outrage is the symbolic earmark and discretionary spending fluff that won’t come close to paying for the “bipartisan” tax cut deal Obama just signed. It was nice of him to get in front of the Republicans in 2012 and signal that he’s against extending it beyond that year, but he only gets the credit if he doesn’t cave again. Maybe he doesn’t understand, but with Republicans it’s always time for more tax cuts. He won’t get a better deal.

Overall, though, he did well. The fact that the comments thread over at CSPT is babbling about teleprompters should tell you plenty.

-hw

16 Responses to “Iowa Liberal sucks.”

  1. liberal shark Says:

    SOTU: What a difference two years makes

    Obama talked about reducing the deficit two years ago and again last year. The difference between then and now? It has gone up, way, WAY up!

    Obama talked about creating jobs in 2009 and 2010. Where are they? So the difference between then and now? The unemployment rate is up, not down, since the King took office.

    Obama in 2009: “Now is the time to jumpstart job creation, re-start lending, and invest in areas like energy, health care, and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down. That is what my economic agenda is designed to do, and that’s what I’d like to talk to you about tonight. It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.”

    Obama in 2010 SOTU: “People are out of work. They’re hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.”

    Obama 2011 SOTU: “We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what’s best for the economy, not politicians.”

    and

    “All these investments — in innovation, education, and infrastructure — will make America a better place to do business and create jobs.”

    That’s a lot of talk, a lot of talk about spending. Obama has spent our money (now being called an *investment*) at unprecented levels already, and we have very little to show for it.

    And then there’s this gem from tonight’s speech: “Now, the final step — a critical step — in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.”

    He said pretty much the same thing in 2009 and 2010 and did what? Spent money like a drunken sailor. He talks about not being buried under a mountain of debt with one side of his mouth, while proposing billions of dollars in new spending out the other side of his mouth. The freeze in spending he proposed is nonsense. Note that it’s not a cut. Note that basically amounts to saying, I won’t go 120mph with the spending, I’ll cap my speed at 90mph, the same speed I’ve gone the last two years. Never mind that we need to obey the speed limit of 60mph. And never mind that this so-called freeze applies to only 7-12% of the overall budget.

    It’s clear, Obama will continue to harm this country. There’s been a difference in two years all right, but not in a positive way.

  2. Henry Whistler Says:

    “He talks about not being buried under a mountain of debt with one side of his mouth, while proposing billions of dollars in new spending out the other side of his mouth.”

    Ah, but trillions in tax cuts is cool, right?

    Did you hear about applying oil subsidies to clean energy? What did you think of that one?

  3. cbmc Says:

    ha, are those dudes really going to talk about Teleprompters after their hero Bachmann stared about a foot to the right of the camera for her entire response? takes stones, I’ll give ’em that

  4. Jerry Says:

    skip the blogging. others can do it. Only you can attend to the baby.
    Be sure to delete this post before your baby gets old enough to read.

    Happy Father’s Day.

  5. Henry Whistler Says:

    I’ve barely blogged in a week and he was sleeping. I also have a wife who splits duties, so no need to panic.

  6. Dana Says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    It was nice of him to get in front of the Republicans in 2012 and signal that he’s against extending it beyond that year, but he only gets the credit if he doesn’t cave again.

    So, President Obama wants to lead the Democratic Party into the 2012 elections on a promise to increase taxes? Good luck with that!

    2012 will start with everybody getting a 2% reduction in their take-home pay, as the one year cut Social Security tax cut expires; people will notice that. Then y’all will be going into the 2012 elections with a tax increase promise. What a good plan that is!

    And, since all tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives, it will be the Republicans who pass tax cut legislation, well before the election, and we’ll see the spectacle of the Democrats in the Senate blocking it, or, if they don’t, President Obama vetoing it, all before the election.

    Can you say, “President Palin?” 🙂

  7. Henry Whistler Says:

    Dude, running on doubling taxes would be smarter than running Palin. It’s not a good idea to let people know you’d be fond of the idea, Dana. It discredits anyone who possesses it.

  8. cbmc Says:

    just stopping by this thread where HW & I get along before I go over to the other one where we’re probably still fighting

  9. Dana Says:

    Mr Whistler wrote:

    Dude, running on doubling taxes would be smarter than running Palin. It’s not a good idea to let people know you’d be fond of the idea, Dana. It discredits anyone who possesses it.

    We were told that about Ronald Reagan, too.

  10. Henry Whistler Says:

    If you’re going to compare Palin to Reagan, you might as well go dig up his corpse and take a dump in his mouth.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/republican-consultant-ed-rollins-sarah-palin-youre-no-ronald-reagan/

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-13/opinion/begala.palin.reagan_1_sarah-palin-speech-civic-engagement?_s=PM:OPINION

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805704575594772776292394.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

    You ought to be a bit more discerning, Dana, rather than concluding that every politician Democrats don’t like must be actually super great. After all, if you’re wrong and she really is a petty idiot, would we suddenly be nice to her?

    The problem, Dana, is that you guys keep elevating this idiot while the more sensible among you are defecting. The more people are exposed to Sarah Palin, the lower her ratings get, no matter how hard you guys keep clapping.

  11. Dana Says:

    Actually, it seems to me that y’all are deathly afraid of Mrs Palin. It seems that every liberal site is bound and determined to trash her, both frequently and often.

    For someone y’all say can’t win, you sure seem to put a lot of effort into trying to make her lose. And that, too, is reminiscent of how the Democrats treated Ronald Reagan.

  12. Henry Whistler Says:

    Yeah, any sensible person would be afraid of Sarah Palin being President, Dana.

    I know you’ve got this stuff hard-wired in your head that it’s really all about winning/losing elections. But some of us are actually concerned about what would happen with Snooki Palin in the White House. I mean, who couldn’t you run within the same paradigm? The more atrocious the candidate, the better in your mind!

    It’s telling that you can’t actually say anything to defend Palin herself. It’s all, “She pisses off liberals, so that ain’t bad!” stuff. Nothing that would convince anybody she had an ounce of sense in her head or was remotely qualified for the presidency.

    Dana, it’s getting to the point where you’re a minority among Republicans on this one. Almost nobody thinks she’s qualified, and that’s the actual fact that you’re using to determine she’s qualified!

  13. AJKamper Says:

    Man, HW took my response. Hell, yes, I’m scared of Palin being in the White House, and in a way completely different than of, say, Mitt Romney or even Haley Barbour. The latter would be mere ideological opposition: the former would mean the election of a complete incompetent.

    Really, Henry said better what I’m trying to say, but I thought I’d add a ditto.

  14. Dana Says:

    Sarah Palin got it right concerning the SotU speech:

    Well, speaking of last night, that was a tough speech to sit through and try to stomach because the president is so off base in his ideas in how it is he believes government is going to create jobs. Obviously, government growth won’t create any jobs. It’s the private sector that can create the jobs. His theme last night in the State of the Union was the WTF, you know, “Winning the Future,” and I thought OK, that acronym, spot on. There were a lot of WTF moments throughout that speech.

  15. Thomas Tallis Says:

    It’s awesome how if anybody else used “wtf” in a public statement Dana & cohorts would feign outrage over “profanity” and talk about how unseemly it is for public figures to be so base, but when their crush does it, she’s super-clever

  16. Henry Whistler Says:

    Yeah but she can say the GOP dogma (never any specifics with her, of course), so she is qualified to be president to Dana. The WTF line is apparently a classic knee-slapper. Snooki Palin graded on the curve!