Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) publicly called President Barack Obama a liar during his health care address to a joint session of Congress. He unequivocally apologized at his first opportunity.

What has most surprised me about the aftermath is how muted is the criticism of Wilson, and I think this fact is quite instructiive, and will address why this is so after a review of the recent history of “liar” labeling.

Within about 72 hours of the Fall of Saddam, the leadership of the Democratic Party broke the post-911 unity and turned on President George W. Bush when stockpiles of WMD were not discovered. They variously accused him of lying about Saddam’s possession of WMD in order to trick us into war or stated that he ”misled” us into war. The latter is polite beltway speak for lie. Using the “misled” term allowed you to drink cocktails with McCain and Graham in Georgetown.

No matter that one who actually did mislead a nation into war would be guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors deserving of Impeachment or worse. No matter that there was no evidence of same. Thus was launched the “Bushlied Era” of American history when the Democratic Party made arguments for free that Saddam’s lawyer, OBL and Iran would have paid them to make. Thus did the Democrats embolden our foreign enemies to fight on until their pansie asses gained power so that they could ultimately prevail in the War on Terror.

I have never forgiven the Democrats that lied about President Bush. None admitted their lies and asked for forgiveness.

I have never forgiven the Democrats that acquiesced in the lies by their silence.

And finally, I have never forgiven the Republicans that remained polite in the face of the lies, so much greater is their love of themselves and the Senate than of their Country.

I am left with a very low opinion of the elected politicians in Washington and have very low expectations of them.

Decorum rules that forbid calling liars what they are what Edmund Burke and Martin King referred to as how the doing of nothing by good people allows evil to triumph.

Hence, my joy that a man in Washington finally called out the 20-year pew-parked butt in Jeremiah Wright’s Hate America Church for what he is.

And, btw, if anyone is offended, I apologize.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

In one of his latest columns, George Will calls for the United States to leave Iraq. Coming as it did on the heels of his call for us to leave Afghanistan, a friend of mine e-mailed, “… what next… support the Single Payer?” Many conservatives, of course, feel the same way- Peter Wehner ripped Will in a tasteless fashion after his Afghanistan piece on Commentary’s website, for example, and National Review’s The Corner was dominated by responses to Will on Wednesday. My aforementioned friend even wrote a very good column on why we should stay in Afghanistan in response to Will’s piece.

 I, however, agree with Mr. Will regarding Iraq. I joined the Army National Guard in 2004 with full readiness to go to Iraq. I knew our mission was just and right, and our leaders were fixing their strategic errors (not bringing enough troops in, not securing Iraq’s borders and alienating the Sunnis, to name but a few). However, five-and-a-half years after entering the military, I believe it’s time for the United States to leave the country. To clarify, I say this not as a soldier- as a soldier, I follow my Commander-in-Chief’s orders, and if I am told to go into Iraq I will do so proudly for my country (in the interest of full disclosure, I have not been to any overseas station). As a private citizen, however, there is a point where honor and national pride stop being forces that drive a nation to conflict, and instead drive a nation to different, better tactics and self-survival. We cannot have national pride and honor if we are so spread out (and our military so diminished by bad policies) that we fail to defend ourselves, our allies and our world. In other words, we cannot give what we do not have, and we do not have the military, political or economic ability to stay in Iraq for any length of time.

The fact is that we went into Iraq to defeat Saddam Hussein, gain a strategic ally, destroy or capture weapons of mass destruction and diminish the threat of Islamic terrorism. We succeeded in three of the four missions, and found out there were (probably) no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq at the time of invasion (given Hussein’s secretive and deceptive ways, I will always suspect the odds of weapons being in Iraq in 2003 to be fairly good). After 2007, when we introduced the surge and corrected our tactics under General David Petraeus, things got back on track. The Iraqis have had elections, there is some stability in the country, and the nation’s military and police are gaining legitimacy and strength.

Will is correct- we need to leave Iraq for a whole variety of reasons. For me, it comes down to that our mission is accomplished, the Iraqis have started on a path of stability and, most importantly, we cannot afford to continue spending lives, money, resources and political capital like they grow on trees.

 If we want to do the kind of good many conservatives want to in Iraq regarding issues such as national security, defeating terrorism and taking out dictators, here are a couple of other ideas we should convince our elected representatives to make legal: first, to drill here in America and off our shores. Secondly, build nuclear power plants at a prodigious rate. Thirdly, build wind farms (such as the one the late Ted Kennedy opposed in Cape Cod because his constituents said they would ruin their property values), which would eliminate 80% of Cape Cod’s electricity, according to a report on wind farms a classmate did in college. These policies would lower gas prices immensely- breaking the backs of the dictators in the Middle East and causing them to have to negotiate with us in good faith. They would also severely diminish the monetary supply of terrorists, who make money every time we fill up the tank, as well as taking apart the political capital Hugo Chavez has with both his citizens and South America.

The opportunity for the kind of regime change we want in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries does not have to happen through the kind of slap-dash military action we have pursued over the last few years in Iraq. The aforementioned policies would do a great amount of good for American foreign policy while creating jobs in a recession and lowering costs for all Americans on everything from gas to food to electricity. A last benefit would be our heightened ability to create a more efficient, streamlined and less costly military that accomplishes its mission without spreading itself so thin that our suicide rates continue to climb to record rates and our troops continue to die for an less-than-effective method of empowering America and the world. America SHOULD be helping itself and the world through military involvement where necessary…but it is no longer the most effective method through which to bring about the kind of changes this world, and America, need in Iraq.

I made it into Salt Lake tonight for the American Liberty Tour’s workshop tomorrow after a Morning rally.

I  had a good drive other than a 40 minute delay heading out to Provo to spend the evening before taking in the best improv Comedy around at Comedy Sportz Provo. The recent flap at the State of the Union played an interesting role in one of the improv games.

A comedy sportz is called, “Objection!”  One actor begins to make an argument. Another player can take their place by thinking up something to counter what’s been said. They do this by standing forward and saying, “Objection!” and stating their objection.

Tonight, they changed it from “Objection” to “Presidential Speech.” The plot of the game changed slightly so that instead the player is the President delivering a speech on a non-serious topic. Another player can interject by saying, “You lie.” Not sure this change will last.

Anyway, I hope to bring back some more useful tibdits from tomorrow.

The push for a government takeover of our nation’s health care system appears to be threatening the electoral prospects of yet another Democratic Senate candidate. This time it is New Hampshire Democratic Congressman and Senate hopeful Paul Hodes (NH-02).  If the election were held today, a new poll from NowHampshire.com/Populus Research poll finds that Hodes would lose a hypothetical election against an unnamed Republican:

When asked if they were more likely to vote for Democratic nominee Hodes or his Republican opponent, 52% of likely General Election voters surveyed on the night of September 8th said they would vote for the generic Republican candidate. Only 39% said they would vote for Hodes. Nine percent were unsure.

Hodes is seeking the senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican Judd Gregg.

Worse for Hodes, after a bruising August recess in which he was criticized by Republicans and even liberal editorial pages for refusing to meet with his constituents in a traditional town hall setting 45% of those surveyed said they disapprove of the job he is doing in Congress. Thirty-six percent approve of the job he is doing. Nineteen percent are unsure.

“New Hampshire voters are realizing that liberal Congressman Hodes’ big government spending habits are taking our country in the wrong direction,” said Republican National Committeeman Sean Mahoney, who is sometimes mentioned as a potential candidate for the senate seat Hodes is also seek.

Other potential GOP challengers include Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and former GOP gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne.

PPP (D) South Carolina 2nd Congressional District Survey (‘You Lie!’ Edition)

Do you approve or disapprove of Congressman Joe Wilson’s job performance?

• Approve 41%
• Disapprove 47%

Among Independents

• Approve 38%
• Disapprove 51%

Among Republicans

• Approve 68%
• Disapprove 21%

Do you approve or disapprove of Joe Wilson’s actions at Barack Obama’s speech to Congress on Wednesday night?

• Approve 29%
• Disapprove 62%

Among Independents

• Approve 25%
• Disapprove 66%

Among Republicans

• Approve 48%
• Disapprove 41%

Does Joe Wilson calling the president a liar make you more or less likely to vote to re-elect him?

• More likely 35%
• Less likely 49%

Among Independents

• More likely 30%
• Less likely 53%

Among Republicans

• More likely 56%
• Less likely 21%

If the candidates for Congress next year were Democrat Rob Miller and Republican Joe Wilson, who would you vote for?

• Rob Miller 44%
• Joe Wilson 43%

Note: Wilson defeated Miller 54-46 in the 2008 election.

Among Independents

• Rob Miller 47%
• Joe Wilson 39%

Among Republicans

• Joe Wilson 75%
• Rob Miller 14%

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 50%
• Disapprove 46%

Note: Obama’s approval rating is pretty good, given his nine point loss there last fall.

Among Independents

• Approve 52%
• Disapprove 43%

Do you think that Barack Obama was lying when he said his health care plan would not cover illegal immigrants?

• Yes 42%
• No 46%

Among Independents

• Yes 42%
• No 50%

Among Republicans

• Yes 69%
• No 17%

(more…)

The Hill reports that the President has “been laying the foundation” to allow Senate Democrats to invoke reconciliation:

By offering Republicans olive branches during his address to Congress on Wednesday, Obama has set up a win-win situation. If GOP lawmakers embrace compromise, a healthcare bill would pass Congress easily. But the more likely scenario is that Republicans will continue to oppose Obama’s plan, and the president later this fall will be able to note he tried to strike a deal with the GOP but could not.

That will set up a Democratic argument that Senate leaders have been forced to use a partisan budget tool known as reconciliation to pass a health bill through the Senate by a simple majority, instead of 60 votes. Under the budget plan they passed earlier this year, Democrats could invoke the reconciliation process on Oct. 15.

With Obama vocally calling for bipartisanship, Pelosi and Reid softening their hardline support of a public option and high-level Democrats offering to include tort reform and swearing off taxpayer funding for abortions and healthcare for illegals in a final bill, the Dems clearly want to portray themselves as the “reasonable people” eager to compromise and Republicans as stubborn ideologues in love with the “status quo”.

With over 40 House Democrats publicly opposing a government-run plan, should the GOP call the Dems’ bluff and continue opposing such a plan, even if it contains the aforementioned concessions, in the hope that public disapproval of H.R. 3200 will persist? After all, once government programs begin, they rarely see short lifespans, suggesting difficulty in repealing the bill’s contents in the future. Or should Republicans take this opportunity to secure tort reform and support a plan with co-ops, instead of a public option, and seek an additional concession or two, such as cuts in non-defense discretionary spending? What does everyone think?

Mrs. Peel has a nice post on health-care over at her blog:

There’s a little blurb going around Facebook:  “No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.”  These individuals are supporters of Obamacare.

Hate to break it to you, folks, but your argument is based on a number of faulty premises, which naturally lead you to an incorrect conclusion.

Faulty Premise #1:  Our system is in crisis.  As expressed in the blurb, people are dying and/or going bankrupt due to a lack of universal healthcare.

That isn’t happening.  It just isn’t.  And certainly not on anything like the scale implied.

In America, hospitals do care for those who can’t afford to pay.  Their bills are subsequently paid by the taxpayer.  In my case, I am paying for free health care for the indigent on Galveston Island via my property taxes.  There are also many Catholic charity hospitals across the nation.  If people need care, they can get it….

Faulty Premise #4:  If someone doesn’t have health insurance, it’s because he’s poor and needs help.

The actual number of people who can’t obtain health insurance is not 47 million or even 30 million.  Of the people who don’t have health insurance, some are young, healthy people who don’t think they need it, some are rich people who pay cash for everything, and some are illegal aliens who get free care anyway.  Of the remaining poor people, most are already eligible for Medicaid and/or S-CHIP and haven’t enrolled.  The number of people who legitimately can’t get health insurance is very small, and does not justify overturning the entire system – as discussed in FP#1, people do get care.

Read the whole thing (all 6 premises she rejects), but I’m particularly tied of hearing the 6th faulty  premise:

Faulty Premise #6:  There is a right to health care.

No.  No, there isn’t.  It’s not a natural right granted by God, and it’s not a legal right granted by the Constitution.  There is absolutely no right to health care.  Check geoff’s explanation for the details.

Positive rights in general are pretty dubious. If I have a “right to health care” I must have a right to someone else’s services.  Here’s a thought experiment: what if all doctors decided they wanted to retire to the Hampton’s and work on their golf game?  What if all med students decided to go into finance?  Do I still have a right to health care?  If so, how does the government enforce it?  Are they enslaving people into the medical profession to treat the rest of us?  Because if they aren’t, it’s nonsensical to talk about a right to health care.  Rights are things you have independent of what other people decide to do.

And they’re universal in the sense I’m bound to respect the same rights I demand you respect.  Again, it’s ridiculous to talk about health care in this fashion.  If I owe you health care and you owe me health care, where does that leave us without bringing in a potentially unwilling third party?  Must we all be doctors?  So I don’t take this “rights” language very seriously.  It breaks down under any examination.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

911

My morning walk in downtown Covington, Georgia brought me into a laundromat to see pictures of the a burning World Trade Center tower that I had just heard reported on 750 WSB-AM had been slammed into by an airplane.

Staring at the small dusty television above the front-loading washers, I saw a second plane strike the remaining Tower. My first thoughts were of the safety of my oldest best friend in a federal building in downtown Atlanta and my newest best friend in a newspaper office in nearby Decatur. I had lived in the Atlanta Metro area for four months before 3000 Americans died at the hands of Islamist terrorists on September 11, 2001.

No more 911s after 911

I could hardly have imagined then, that eight years later there has not been another similar attack on American soil. It hasn’t been luck, and it surely hasn’t been because, as the “911-Truthers” variously claim, that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were co-conspirators with Osama bin Laden; carried out the attacks independently of OBL; or purposefully allowed the attacks knowing they were imminent.

No, the reasons for the past eight years of peace are due to the diligence of the Bush Administration if defending the Homeland and taking the fight to the Islamist enemy in its homeland.

Let us review a number of the most important steps taken by the Bush Administration:

President Bush told Attorney General John Ashcroft (pictured): “Don’t let this happen again.” He didn’t. The Justice Department immediately rounded up over 800 visa overstays from Muslim/Arab countries. This may have been the main reason there were no immediate follow-up attacks after 911 by sleeper cells.

The “Gorelick Wall” erected during the Clinton Administration to prevent the sharing of intelligence lest a terrorist not be read his Miranda rights, was torn down.

The United States removed the Taliban and, thus, Al Qaida’s nation-state safe haven.

Two high-level captured terrorists, including the mastermind of 911, had their noses swabbed and squealed like pigs so that Los Angeles was spared its 911. Liberal panties wadded up at the thought, but thanks to the nose-swabbings, the panties weren’t incinerated.

A terrorist nation that had defied the United States and the UN for a decade continued its defiance of WMD inspectors; fired on US planes; provided medical care and safe haven to Abu Nidal other terrorist; rewarded suicide bombers of innocents on public TV; and otherwise violated a ceasefire that American soldiers died to achieve. This same Saddam Hussein had also tried to assassinate President George H.W. Bush and openly trained terrorist hijackers in his Iraq. He used WMD against his own people and fired missiles at Israel.

The United States removed the dictator and accepted Libya’s surrender. Tens of thousands of al Qaida’s trained for jihad on American soil sped to Iraq instead to repel the Great Satan. Tens of thousands of terrorists went to join the 73 virgins courtesy of the Armed Forces of the United States and purple-fingered freedom fighters in Iraq. They never made it to the Fruited Plain, despite the launching of the “Bushlied” era by the press and the Democratic Party.

The truth that any group of “truthers” concerned with 911 can be sure of is the past eight years of peace in the Lower Forty-Eight, Alaska and Hawaii.

God bless George W. Bush, the FBI, CIA and the armed forces of the United States. No thanks to 911-Truthers and other enemy emboldeners.

I refer to the formerly obscure 911-Truthers because of the recent rearing of their ugly heads in the form of the resignation of President Obama’s “Green Czar” and the curious press blackout before the resignation and even more curious denial techniques by some examiners, especially those here in Atlanta. I suspect that to speak too much of Jones would remind too many of Obama and Rev. Wright.

The supremely talented Athens Liberal Examiner disappointed this Braves-Gamecock with her cursory mention of his signing of the outrageous document accusing our government of either knowingly allowing the 911 attacks or actively conspiring in them. Jones claims a lack of reading comprehension before his John Hancock was applied. Katy Burtner didn’t see fit to mention any of his other outrageous statements that include blatant racism, which he has not denied. Guess he didn’t get the post-Skip Gates memo.

But we are told what a great “green jobs” hero (Another Atlanta examiner proclaims he created all of 25 jobs! Not enough to man a Major League Baseball team, but probably a spectacular stimulus per dollar compared to the ObamaDems’ $780B version that was to save us from 8% unemployment, but I digress in the face of the 9.7% rate…) he is, but the main claim to fame is that an organization he founded got some advertises to boycott FNC’s Glenn Beck show.

Jones resigned. Beck is still on the air.

I will give credit to my Georgia Bulldog colleague, on the eve of their fight with my Gamecocks between the hedges, in her generous perspective on statements by Beck concerning disdain for 911 and Katrina whiners. Good job.

But doesn’t today’s anniversary make clear just how much we owe to those that have defended us since 911? And how outrageous it is that a man like Van Jones could be appointed to serve a President of the United States sworn to defend our nation?

And, finally, how outrageous it is that this Commander-in-Chief seeks to punish those that defended us ex post facto?

I just hope that none of those schools that refused to cancel reading, writing and arithmetic for the Dear Leader speech (Obama at first advertised the speech as an opportunity to support President Obama, not America), don’t find themselves the target of Obama’s pitchforks.

Wait till next year

[Post-script: After this past weeks Atlanta Braves disaster, we are suspending the Braves-Gamecock sports column for needed mourning and rest.]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Rasmussen Colorado Senatorial Survey

• Ryan Frazier (R) 40%
• Michael Bennet (D) 39%

• Michael Bennet (D) 43%
• Ken Buck (R) 37%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Ken Buck 35% / 20% (+15%)
• Michael Bennet 41% / 34% (+7%)
• Ryan Frazier 26% / 24% (+2%)

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 35%
• Somewhat approve 16%
• Somewhat disapprove 7%
• Strongly disapprove 41%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 34%
• Somewhat favor 15%
• Somewhat oppose 6%
• Strongly oppose 42%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 29%
• Worse 44%
• Staying the same 18%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 45%
• Cost will go down 32%
• Stay the same 14%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 62%
• Reduce the deficit 8%
• No impact on the deficit 20%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 59%
• Somewhat likely 15%
• Not very likely 21%
• Not at all likely 2%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 52%
• Federal government will not do enough 38%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 9. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Rasmussen Connecticut Senatorial Survey

• Rob Simmons (R) 49%
• Chris Dodd (D) 39%

• Tom Foley (R) 43%
• Chris Dodd (D) 40%

• Chris Dodd (D) 43%
• Sam Caligiuri (R) 40%

• Chris Dodd (D) 42%
• Peter Schiff (R) 40%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Rob Simmons 53% / 32% (+21%)
• Sam Caligiuri 32% / 32% (0%)
• Tom Foley 33% / 35% (-2%)
• Peter Schiff 27% / 35% (-8%)
• Chris Dodd 40% / 59% (-19%)

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 44%
• Somewhat approve 15%
• Somewhat disapprove 9%
• Strongly disapprove 30%

How would you rate the job Jodi Rell has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 17%
• Somewhat approve 38%
• Somewhat disapprove 26%
• Strongly disapprove 17%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 34%
• Somewhat favor 18%
• Somewhat oppose 8%
• Strongly oppose 38%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 33%
• Worse 41%
• Staying the same 18%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 43%
• Cost will go down 24%
• Stay the same 26%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 58%
• Reduce the deficit 13%
• No impact on the deficit 23%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 54%
• Somewhat likely 16%
• Not very likely 23%
• Not at all likely 3%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 47%
• Federal government will not do enough 44%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 10. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

CBS News Health Care Survey (Post-Obama Speech Edition)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 52% (40%)
• Disapprove 38% (47%)

Do you think Barack Obama has clearly explained what his plans for health care reform would mean, or hasn’t he clearly explained that?

• Has explained 42% (33%)
• Has not explained 43% (61%)

In general, do you mostly agree or mostly disagree with the health care reform proposals Barack Obama laid out in his speech last night?

• Mostly agree 60%
• Mostly disagree 33%

In the next few years, if the proposals for reforming health care that President Obama laid out in his speech last night are adopted, do you think they will make health care in the United States better, make health care worse, or won’t they have much impact one way or the other?

• Better 43%
• Worse 25%
• Not much impact 18%

From what you’ve heard or read, do you think the health care reforms under consideration in Congress will mostly help you personally, will mostly hurt you personally, or don’t you think they will have much of an effect on you personally?

• Help 22% (19%)
• Hurt 27% (30%)
• No effect 42% (45%)

Do you think it’s possible or not possible to expand health care coverage to more Americans without increasing the budget deficit?

• Possible 42% (45%)
• Not possible 52% (49%)

Would you favor or oppose increased regulation on private health insurance companies, such as limiting the amount insurance companies can charge patients for out-of-pocket costs and limiting the ability of insurance companies to deny people coverage?

• Favor 73%
• Oppose 21%

As long as the federal government provides subsidies or tax credits to low-income people, would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance?

• Favor 54%
• Oppose 41%

Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

• Favor 68% (57%)
• Oppose 27% (35%)

Do you think President Obama’s proposals for reform would increase competition in the private insurance market, decrease competition, or would competition mostly stay the same?

• Increase 46%
• Decrease 19%
• Stay the same 26%

Do you think Barack Obama is trying to work with Republicans in Congress in order to reform the health care system, or isn’t he?

• Work with Republicans 65%
• Not work with Republicans 29%

How likely do you think it is that Congress will pass and President Obama will sign into law a health care reform bill by the end of the year?

• Very likely 19%
• Somewhat likely 42%
• Not very likely 25%
• Not at all likely 11%

Survey was conducted September 10 among 648 adults first interviewed August 27-31. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 39% (I); 37% (D); 24% (R). Results from the poll conducted August 27-31 are in parentheses.

Rasmussen Colorado Gubernatorial Survey

• Scott McInnis (R) 44%
• Bill Ritter (D) 39%
• Some other candidate 7%

• Josh Penry (R) 40%
• Bill Ritter (D) 41%
• Some other candidate 7%

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Scott McInnis 42% / 22% (+20%)
• Bill Ritter 47% / 42% (+5%)
• Josh Penry 28% / 25% (+3%)

How would you rate the job Bill Ritter has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 15%
• Somewhat approve 34%
• Somewhat disapprove 20%
• Strongly disapprove 29%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 9. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Inside the numbers:

In a contest with Ritter, McInnis carries 90% of the GOP vote and closely splits the votes of those not affiliated with either party. Penry, in a race against the incumbent, earns 86% of the Republican vote and trails among unaffiliated by six points.

On days of remembrance, there  are cynics and general contrarians like me who have a hard time getting swept in the melodrama. Alan Jackson simply is not my style, nor are quilts of faces of victims.

In fact, I do not think of September 11th as a day for mourning.

I think of it as a day for anger. We must remember the victims, of course, but more importantly, we must remember our purpose. And that purpose should stir one to justified, righteous anger.

And that anger is compounded by the fact that a majority of Democrats have now forgotten what angered us on that day. They have lost that sense of outrage they felt when the towers crumbled. They have lost track of why we must be patient in this new style of warfare. They are prepared to once again let the Taliban assume power in Afghanistan.

We remember so that we do not make the same mistakes again — but the Democratic leadership in Congress is ready to let them. John Murtha even goes so far as to cite “limited funds.” We rack up a twelve trillion debt due to broken entitlement programs, but we can’t set aside time and money to fight a necessary and just war? These are the priorities of one of the major parties? What has become of the Democratic Party, once home to men like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy?

This is not a strictly political issue, but a moral one, and a true test of leadership. President Obama has been remarkable in his judgment of this issue thus far. No matter how much we may fight him on the economic front, we stand behind him fully in his judgment concerning Afghanistan. We count on him now as our last vanguard against a citizenry’s weary patience and hazy memories. His party has forgotten. Let’s hope he doesn’t, too.

If you have not already, please read my recent piece, Why We Must Stay In Afghanistan, which concerns the nature of contemporary warfare

From CNN:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The U.S. Coast Guard tried Friday to prevent a boat from entering a security zone on the Potomac River not far from the Pentagon, where President Obama was at an event commemorating the September 11 attacks.

There were reports on police scanners that the Coast Guard fired 10 rounds of ammunition, but those reports could not immediately be confirmed. It was not immediately clear from the reports whether they referred to warning shots.

The incident took place between the Memorial and 14th Street bridges, in a zone that had been blocked off because of the ceremonies.

Obama had departed the Pentagon shortly after 10 a.m. ET. Reports of the incident came in shortly after 10 a.m. ET.

The Coast Guard Command Center said it had no immediate information.

UPDATE: Coast Guard says it was a routine training exercise, blames CNN for causing panic.

Alan Jackson really captures the spirit of September 11th better than any singer with this song which debuted in November, 2001.

I was driving home from college and heard about the first plane hitting on the radio. I saw the towers fall live  on Fox News while sitting in my parents’ living room.

However, I won’t forget where I was or what I was doing on the morning of September 11^th. At 8:45 am, I had just finished my shower and was getting ready for school. I was a student at the local university, and had my first exam of the semester that day. I had just moved back in with my parents for the fall. I remember walking into my parents room and seeing the newsflash that one of the towers was on fire. Neither Matt Lauer or Katie Couric, who was then still the co-host of NBC Today, were exactly sure what happened. A plane had apparently hit one of the towers, but not even the anchors completely understood what was happening.

My father, who usually didn’t so much emotion for events such as this, was transfixed by the events. I learned that his best friend from high school worked in one of the towers, and he hoped that he was not hurt in the blast (he did not make it out alive).

It was at that moment, as I curiously watched the events on television, that I watched the second plane crash into the building as it happened. I remember shouting ”Holy s—” as the side of the building exploded.

I remember watching people jump to their death.

An hour or so later, I drove to school to take that exam. The female professor walked in and said, “I’ve heard something is going on in New York, but we’re going to go ahead and have our exam.”

I made it through the first two questions, but it was no use. I just got up and walked out, and had to drop the class. I did see my grade posted, and I had gotten a 0 on the test, but it didn’t seem important.

This is not a day for politics. It didn’t matter whether those who died had voted for Al Gore or George W. Bush in the previous election. It didn’t matter if they were die hard liberal or conservative. The political ideologies of the victims were irrelevant to the perpetrators. All that mattered was that they were killing Americans.

One important lesson I learned that day was to let go of my anger at those who I disagreed with. We all shed tears for those who died, whether they were Democrat or Republican.

Never.

On the heels of yesterday’s joint address to Congress, President Obama plans to make remarks regarding the financial crisis on Monday:

“He will discuss the aggressive steps the Administration has taken to bring the economy back from the brink (and) the commitment to winding down the government’s role in the financial sector,” the White House said in a statement.

This should be a good one. The President will probably boast that the so-called stimulus “saved” hundreds of thousands of jobs. Also look for grandiose proclamations that the stimulus has worked better than expected, as Vice President Biden has publicly stated (nevermind that stubborn little detail that the administration told us unemployment would not exceed eight percent if they passed the bill, when in reality it now stands at nearly 10 percent).

Update: As predicted, the Obama White House has already begun talking about the “successes” of the stimulus:

President Obama’s economic advisers estimated Thursday that the economic stimulus package has saved or created about 1 million jobs, drawing immediate criticism from Republicans.

…The analysis, required by the stimulus law, supported Obama’s June claim that the stimulus had created or saved 150,000 jobs and would create or save 600,000 more by September.

Even if you take those last couple numbers at face value, I don’t understand how 150,000 + 600,000 = “about 1 million”. Have I missed something here?

Today, Chris Cillizza wrote an interesting post about the future of the “Ron Paul Revolution”. He specifically focused on the Senate campaigns of Rand Paul and Peter Schiff:

Rand Paul, who is running for the Senate in Kentucky and is the son of the Congressman, has already raked in $822,000 despite the fact that nearly the entire GOP establishment in the Bluegrass State has lined up behind Secretary of State Trey Grayson.

Peter Schiff, an economic adviser to Paul’s presidential campaign and a likely candidate for Senate in Connecticut, has raised $998,000 for his bid — despite the fact he has yet to officially declare.

Both men have employed the “money bomb” approach (encourage donors to all give on a certain day to post large 24 hour totals) to fundraising that Paul pioneered in 2008.

…He called the Paul movement “legitimate” and “real”, noting that the Campaign for Liberty — an organization formed in the aftermath of the campaign and on which Paul serves as honorary chairman — had raised $4 million since its founding in February.

“These are people who want to return to our traditional values of self reliance and liberty,” added Benton.

Cillizza then goes on to cite polling that shows Rand Paul running strongly against establishment-favored Tray Grayson and Schiff running less impressively against Rob Simmons in their respective primary races. He then concludes by asserting, “…while the [Ron] Paul message is VERY appealing to a small group of voters, it doesn’t sell well when presented to the broader electorate.”

Reuters reports that officials in the legislative and executive branches of the federal government have become concerned about possible fraud with stimulus funds:

As billions of dollars from the economic stimulus plan pour through the U.S. economy, members of Congress, the administration and regulatory agencies are increasingly worried about the risks of fraud.

… “These funds must be disbursed quickly,” said Maine Senator Susan Collins, the highest ranking Republican on the committee. “Striking the right balance between speed and caution has been a challenging task.”

Collins said the Justice Department is training more than 10,000 federal, state and local officials to monitor stimulus contracts for collusion and bid-rigging.

The Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog, told the panel it is worried the auditing process the federal government requires states to use for stimulus-related programs may not catch misspending.

Hopefully, the media will bring themselves to cover stories of stimulus fraud, instead of just turning a blind eye toward them.

Lastly, according to Politico, Tim Pawlenty has struck a distinctively federalist tone in the Obamacare debate:

Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty urged fellow governors on Thursday to more frequently assert state sovereignty over the federal government and suggested that the country may increasingly see states suing the federal government.

Asked by a caller about the option of asserting the Tenth Amendment as a tactic to reject a successful health care overhaul by President Barack Obama during a tele-town hall organized by the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty said, “that’s a possibility.”

Speaking generally about the tenth amendment, Pawlenty said the country has not had “a proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue in the 1980s.”

“You’re starting to see more governors, me and governor [Rick] Perry from Texas, speaking out on this and asserting our tenth amendment rights,” Pawlenty said on a call listened to by more than 12,000 people.

“Asserting the tenth amendment may be a viable option,” Pawlenty said, adding that there may be “more of those claims and maybe even lawsuits if need be.”

I wholeheartedly concur with the Governor that “a properal federalism debate” has become long overdue. Here’s to hoping Pawlenty will continue to stress federalism in the coming months.

Update: After making his original tenth amendment comments, the Governor has clarified them:

In a telephone interview on Friday, however, he seemed to step back from his statement, saying it was not meant to imply that he would file a lawsuit asserting that the program is a violation of the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which in part defines state and federal powers.

“What I was simply trying to say is the country hasn’t had a clear debate about federalism,” he said.

The Republican leadership in D.C. desperately require spokesman like Senator Crist to help promote a pragmatic, pro-growth agenda.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Words of wisdom from the former Governor of Arkansas. 

If you listened to the President’s speech last night, chances are that you are more confused than ever.  Sure, the President tried to reboot his crashing health care plan.  The problem is the same as he has always had.  Mr. President, no one knows what health care plan you are talking about.  You can’t ask the American people to buy a pig in a poke. 

The President trotted out some new buzzwords for us to use such as “market exchange,” “competition,” “rugged individualism,” and “tax credits.”  He even said he wanted a bi-partisan bill, mentioning prominent Republicans by name.  Unfortunately, he has forgotten once again that the American people want substance over style. 

I think we all would agree that some health care reform is a good idea.  The President hammered away on things like requiring insurers to cover preventative care, or doing away with pre-existing condition limits.  He even talked about letting states do pilot projects to reduce frivolous malpractice lawsuits.  Those are things we have been fighting for.  We are glad there are some things we can agree on. 

But he also admitted that he wants mandated health insurance, even though he said 95% of small businesses would be exempt.  The President continues to advocate for his “government run” health care option.  These kinds of statements in last night’s speech make it clear that the President is still determined to force his vision of health care reform down the throats of the American people.

He doesn’t give the American people enough credit.  They are not buying his outrageous promises – promises that we won’t have to give up our current plan, promises that his plan will actually reduce the deficit.  We are too smart to really believe that a new government run health care plan won’t have bureaucrats trying to come between us and our doctors, or that it will be anything other than another government program that will cost us billions of dollars.

The President’s biggest problem last night, however, is that as he spoke last night and made so many great promises, he forgot to read what Congress is getting ready to vote on.  He talked as if the process is just starting.  It isn’t.  We are trying to decipher 1000 page bills and 600 page bills, and no one, including the President can explain any of it.

It’s time to hit the reset button Mr. President.  Let’s start all over. 

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Democracy Corps (D) New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

If the general election for Governor were held today and the candidates were: Democrat Jon Corzine, Independent Chris Daggett, and Republican Chris Christie, for whom would you vote?

• Chris Christie 41% (43%) [40%]
• Jon Corzine 38% (41%) [35%]
• Chris Daggett 10% (7%) [10%]
• Undecided 10% (8%) [15%]

Among Independents

• Chris Christie 45%
• Jon Corzine 25%
• Chris Daggett 16%
• Undecided 14%

How certain are you that you would vote for that candidate?

• Strong Christie 25% (25%) [24%]
• Weak Christie 16% (18%) [16%]

• Strong Corzine 24% (24%) [22%]
• Weak Corzine 14% (17%) [13%]

• Strong Daggett 2% (2%) [8%]
• Weak Daggett 8% (5%) [7%]

Favorable (Warm) / Unfavorable (Cool) {Net}

• Barack Obama 55% (57%) [54%] / 32% (30%) [30%] {+23%}
• Democratic Party 44% (45%) [40%] / 37% (34%) [39%] {+7%}
• Chris Christie 33% (35%) [32%] / 33% (34%) [31%] {0%}
• Republican Party 33% (32%) [29%] / 39% (43%) [43%] {-6%}
• Chris Daggett 5% (4%) / 11% (8%) {-6%}
• Jon Corzine 36% (37%) [32%] / 48% (48%) [47%] {-12%}

Thermometer – Mean Temperature

• Barack Obama 59.3 (61)
• Democratic Party 51.0 (52)
• Chris Christie 48.7 (48)
• Republican Party 45.5 (44)
• Jon Corzine 41.5 (43)
• Chris Daggett 40.1 (44)

Survey of 615 likely voters was conducted September 8-9. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 38% (40%) [37%] Democrat; 31% (29%) [34%] Independent; 29% (29%) [27%] Republican. Political views: 45% (41%) [41%] Moderate; 32% (31%) [35%] Conservative; 19% (23%) [19%] Liberal. Results from the poll conducted August 25-26 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 11-12 are in brackets.

Keep on pushing Obamacare Harry:

If we were skeptical of Reid’s vulnerability at the start of the cycle, we have become increasingly convinced over the last two months or so that he is as endangered as any Democratic incumbent seeking re-election in 2010. Reid’s inability to improve his standing in the polls, coupled with the deteriorating political environment for Democrats nationally and [Sue] Lowden’s impending entry into the race, are clear indications that his political problems are deep and will be difficult (though not impossible) to fix. Since the start of the cycle, this race has been in the Likely Democratic column, but we are moving it to Toss Up in anticipation of a very hotly contested—and likely nasty—general election.

Full story here.

PPP (D) North Carolina Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 45% (46%) [49%]
• Disapprove 51% (47%) [44%]

Among Independents

• Approve 39% (40%) [44%]
• Disapprove 56% (46%) [44%]

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 40% (39%)
• Oppose 52% (50%)

Among Independents

• Support 34% (43%)
• Oppose 55% (47%)

If there was an election for Congress today, would you vote Democratic or Republican?

• Republican 45%
• Democratic 42%

Among Independents

• Republican 40%
• Democratic 26%

Survey of 600 voters was conducted September 2-8. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 46% (44%) Democrat; 35% (37%) Republican; 20% (20%) Independent. Political views: 43% (38%) Conservative; 39% (47%) Moderate; 18% (15%) Liberal. Results from the poll conducted August 4-10 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 10-12 are in brackets.

Rasmussen New Jersey Gubernatorial Survey

• Chris Christie 46% (50%) [52%]
• Jon Corzine 38% (42%) [39%]
• Chris Daggett 6% (2%) [4%]
• Not sure 10% (7%) [5%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Chris Daggett 29% / 26% {+3%}
• Jon Corzine 45% (36%) [37%] / 54% (61%) [62%] {- 9%}
• Chris Christie 42% (48%) [49%] / 52% (51%) [42%] {-10%}

How would you rate the job Jon Corzine has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 13% (14%) [11%]
• Somewhat approve 27% (21%) [26%]
• Somewhat disapprove 21% (24%) [19%]
• Strongly disapprove 36% (41%) [44%]

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 34% (35%) [36%]
• Somewhat approve 19% (20%) [20%]
• Somewhat disapprove 16% (9%) [8%]
• Strongly disapprove 29% (35%) [35%]

Which gubernatorial candidate do you trust more on taxes?

• Chris Christie 46% (48%) [45%]
• Jon Corzine 31% (28%) [35%]

Which candidate do you trust more to cut government spending?

• Chris Christie 46% (49%) [53%]
• Jon Corzine 27% (23%) [21%]

Which candidate is more likely to crack down on government corruption?

• Chris Christie 44% (47%) [50%]
• Jon Corzine 32% (25%) [28%]

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 30%
• Somewhat favor 20%
• Somewhat oppose 14%
• Strongly oppose 33%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 29%
• Worse 45%
• Staying the same 20%

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 44%
• Cost will go down 21%
• Stay the same 27%

Is the health care reform legislation being considered by Congress likely to increase the deficit, reduce the deficit, or have no impact on the deficit?

• Increase the deficit 62%
• Reduce the deficit 8%
• No impact on the deficit 20%

To cover the cost of health care reform, how likely is it that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class?

• Very likely 54%
• Somewhat likely 23%
• Not very likely 15%
• Not at all likely 4%

In reacting to the nation’s current economic problems, what worries you more….that the federal government will do too much or that the federal government will not do enough?

• Federal government will do too much 48%
• Federal government will not do enough 40%

Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days?

• Excellent 0%
• Good 3%
• Fair 46%
• Poor 51%

Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

• Better 37%
• Worse 38%
• Staying the same 21%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted September 9. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 25 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 4 are in brackets.

Inside the numbers:

Results before leaners are included show Christie up by just four points. Among those who are certain how they will vote, Christie leads by six.

Rasmussen Survey on Health Care Reform Plan

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 27% (23%) [26%]
• Somewhat favor 17% (20%) [16%]
• Somewhat oppose 12% (10%) [9%]
• Strongly oppose 41% (43%) [44%]

How likely is it that the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats will become law this year?

• Very likely 13% (17%) [18%]
• Somewhat likely 34% (32%) [33%]
• Not very likely 27% (32%) [29%]
• Not at all likely 13% (9%) [10%]

If the health care reform plan passes, will the quality of health care get better, worse, or stay about the same?

• Better 29% (23%) [26%]
• Worse 48% (50%) [51%]
• Stay about the same 15% (21%) [17%]

If the health care reform plan passes, will the cost of health care go up, go down, or stay about the same?

• Cost of health care will go up 46% (52%) [51%]
• Cost will go down 22% (17%) [19%]
• Stay the same 23% (21%) [21%]

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted September 8-9. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 23-26 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted August 9-10 are in brackets.

Here’s the headline:

and here’s the fine print:

To be frank, it is surprising to me that they could only get a 14% jump from a sample that included nearly 30% more Democrats than Republicans (Dem 45%, 37% Indy, and 18% GOP).

So in a nutshell, the President preached to the choir last night and was moderately successful.

Bonus: When dissent was patriotic-



Hat-tip: Hot Air.

Did the President of the United States really just convene a joint session of Congress to announce that the time for bickering is over, that the health care issue is very, very important, that we need to take Real Action, that tort reform is (maybe) on the table (once Kathleen Sebelius looks into it), and that an individual mandate (hello, Mitt Romney!) is a must? Was that the big speech? Am I missing something?

Sadly, I don’t think so. That was amateur hour, plain and simple. My colleague Max Twain is right: presidents just don’t use their ability to address a joint session of Congress simply to make a political stump speech — it’s utterly unprecedented. And let’s be very clear: a stump speech is exactly what that was. That he needed to do that, of course, is confirmation of the position of weakness he finds himself in. He was doing what he always has done when he finds himself in a tough spot: he made a speech. The mission last night was to keep health care from becoming, well, his Waterloo.

And yet, it wasn’t even good: there was nothing groundbreaking proposed in his speech. He refused to commit either way on the government “option,” and I envision not one Congressman changing his mind either way on the still-non-existent proposal. Worse still, he used the speech for exactly the same purposes he condemned the right for employing — to bicker (you guys expanded the deficit, too, you know!), scare (people will die if I don’t get my way), and divide (don’t waste my time if you’re against this idea). To the discerning listener, portions of the speech were downright shrill at times. Unfortunately for Obama, we’re not in campaign mode anymore. Comforting platitudes and vaguely bipartisan overtones cannot win the day, because vagueness cannot be written into a bill.

The emptiness of the speech, as Obama might like to put it, was not about left or right. As a citizen, I found the speech to be completely pointless. This sort of vapidity is all-too-typical of the president, and it’s getting really old, really fast.

Citizens and commentators should send Obama a clear message tomorrow: go back to your office and come up with something substantive or stop wasting our time.

Sarah’s Facebook Page:

After all the rhetoric is put aside, one principle ran through President Obama’s speech tonight: that increased government involvement in health care can solve its problems.

Many Americans fundamentally disagree with this idea. We know from long experience that the creation of a massive new bureaucracy will not provide us with “more stability and security,” but just the opposite. It’s hard to believe the President when he says that this time he and his team of bureaucrats have finally figured out how to do things right if only we’ll take them at their word.

Our objections to the Democrats’ health care proposals are not mere “bickering” or “games.” They are not an attempt to “score short term political points.” And it’s hard to listen to the President lecture us not to use “scare tactics” when in the next breath he says that “more will die” if his proposals do not pass.

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” — so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat …. gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council — an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost … the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

It was heartening to hear the President finally recognize that tort reform is an important part of any solution. But this concession shouldn’t lead us to take our eye off the ball: the Democrats’ proposals will not reduce costs, and they will not deliver better health care. It’s this kind of “healthy skepticism of government” that truly reflects a “concern and regard for the plight of others.” We can’t wait to hear the details on that; we look forward to working with you on tort reform.

Finally, President Obama delivered an offhand applause line tonight about the cost of the War on Terror. As we approach the anniversary of the September 11th attacks and honor those who died that day and those who have died since in order to secure our freedoms, we need to remember their sacrifices and not demonize them as having had too high a price tag.

Remember, Mr. President, elected officials work for the people. Forcing a conclusion in order to claim a “victory” is not healthy for our country. We hear you say government isn’t always the answer; now hear us — that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

- Sarah Palin

It has been a dramatic and emotional 8 years in American politics.  After the 2008 campaign, I though I had seen it all, until this evening.

The man who just one day earlier presented himself as a role model for students across America, committed an unforgivable act in our House of Representatives.  President Obama was vague, he misled and he attacked from a pulpit that is supposed to be used to unify the country.  President Roosevelt must have turned in his grave after President Obama’s speech this evening. 

Our nation is not on a path to economic recovery.  We are going bankrupt, our currency is devaluing, we are in the midst of a global housing crisis, we have 10% unemployment, double digit under-employment, taxes are going up, essential services are being cut, the Chinese are becoming our loan shark, our manufacturing sector is near extinction, food prices are rising, our financial institutions are still carrying hundreds of billions of dollars of toxic assets, our business community is running scared, but most importantly, the emotional state of the nation is at a breaking point. 

People are looking for hope, optimism and leadership, not a regurgitated speech from the Democratic primary campaign.     

This is the speech President Obama should have given.

The last 5 minutes of part 2, is the best part of the speech.

_________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

The look on The One’s face when he was called out on his lies was well worth the brief apology given by Rep. Joe Wilson.  It’s Obama who should apologize for wasting the time of the American public with this shameful stump speech. This is not the kind of speech reserved for a joint session of Congress. This was a disgrace.

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.