Friday, August 27, 2010

Obama's Direction

News is out today that Q2 GDP is a lot worse than the unexpectedly bad numbers that were reported just several weeks ago. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

The GDP number for the second quarter got revised sharply downward by a third today, dropping from the initial estimate of 2.4% last month to 1.6% in the intermediate revision. The number represents a hard rebuke to White House attempts to paint a rosy long-term economic picture, as the anemic growth rate may indicate even more trouble ahead for joblessness

You know what this calls for . . . an Obama speech!

Of course.

Over to you Jim Geraghty:

The White House seems really convinced that if they say “moving in the right direction” enough times when discussing the economy, the voters will give them some sort of credit, or at least not notice that the economy has mostly sputtered over the last two years, and really for the last three

Geraghty also provides a handy list of GDP growth over the past 10 quarters.

This calls for a chart!


So that's the direction Obama considers to be the right one?


In Defense of Obama as a Movement

In his nightly “Quotes of the Day” post at Hot Air, Allahpundit calls our attention to this Washington Post article:

Michael Kazin, a history professor at Georgetown University, has studied political activism for decades. But two years ago, he thought he was participating in a unique political movement, one not organized against an idea or a war – like most he has seen or been involved with – but in support of a specific candidate: Barack Obama…

But Kazin, like many other liberal activists who once shared that view, says he may have been too optimistic. As conservatives, led by talk show host Glenn Beck, prepare for a rally in Washington on Saturday – another sign of the increased activism on the right since Obama’s election – some liberals say the energy of the campaign on their side has dissipated and is not matching the energy and passion “tea party” activists have captured on the right.

In an interview, Kazin said, “I was a bit optimistic in the glow of victory,” adding that “the campaign had the aura of a movement, but in the light of day it was not a movement.”

Wait. What?

Obama *not* a movement?

I disagree!

The problem for folks such as professor Kazin is that they’re relying on their lying eyes.

I have long maintained that Obama is a movement. It was this Ace of Spades post back in 2008 that convinced me, bringing me into agreement with liberal Oliver Willis:

Obama: Smells Like a Movement

It was at that point that I saw the light recognized the odor:

And as lefty Oliver Willis quipped about Obama, Smells Like a Movement. Oh, yeah a big movement. A toilet-stopping, get-the-plunger, why-didn't-you-courtesy-flush, where-the-hell are-the-matches movement.

Follow your nose. The Obama Movement has been BS all along.

Sunday, August 1, 2010

The Big Difference Here Is...

Back in January, we had a report that certain Democrats were urging President Obama not to underestimate the surge Republicans could mount in the 2010 elections. However, Obama seemed to have little concern. He was, afterall, the unprecedented President Barack Obama. In one meeting, Marion Berry (D-AR), who is not running for re-election, recounted his visit with the President:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

That was then, this is now. Oh how the mighty (full of themselves) have fallen:

WASHINGTON — As lunch was served in the Roosevelt Room of the White House one day last week, President Obama assured the nine Democratic members of Congress sitting around the table that he would do anything he could to help them survive their fall elections.

Even, he said, if it meant staying away.

“You may not even want me to come to your district,” Mr. Obama said, according to guests, nearly all of whom hold seats that Republicans are aggressively seeking.

Those poor Democrats heading into the fall elections. But don't fear -- Nancy Pelosi is here to save the day!

Three months before what certainly will be brutal House elections, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is again the happy campaigner, vowing to defend “every grain of sand” of what she’s built in Congress and predicting this August will prove kinder to Democrats than a year ago.

Perhaps she was channeling her inner Churchill ("we shall fight them on the beaches!"), but as James Taranto said: "Breaking News From Matthew 7:26" (and 27)

26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.

But verse 27 surely is evidence of global warming -- so let's Blame Bush.

[VIMH: So Bush is who we should hold responsible should the Democrats lose their majorities in Congress...]
I like the way you think. Ironic,isn't it?