It's November 30, and I have to put something up to have put something up in November.
Well. I don't have to. But I've never gone an entire month without a post, so here goes, courtesy of my dad:
FROM THE WAYBACK MACHINE: You know who likes moose? Both Obama and Palin like moose, that's who.
As much fun as we've been having with President Goldman Sachs, let's not let Obama hog all the spotlight.
Goldman Sachs doesn't just love Obama -- they love Democrats on the whole.
From a post in April of last year:
At NRO, Robert Costa runs down the Democrats' relationship with Goldman. "An impressionistic study in cronyism", indeed. Costa concludes his piece:
Close up, it looks disconnected and blurred, but if you step back, the shape of it all falls into focus: Democrats hoard Goldman cash, Goldman hoards Democrats, and the American people lose.
You can't spell Goldman Sachs without a "D".
If Occupy Wall Street was a genuine grassroots movement genuinely outraged by the idea that banksters own the government, then they would never vote for a Democrat again.
A special word of thanks to Instapundit for the six (so far!) times he's linked this post from 2008:
That post in 2008 was based on the reporting of Sharyl Attkisson (now of Fast and Furious reporting fame) detailing how Obama was raking in more money from Wall Street, especially Goldman Sachs, than was John McCain. And it was where this logo was birthed:
The point being now -- if Occupy Wall Street was a genuine grassroots movement genuinely outraged by the idea that banksters own the government, then they would be marching on the Obama White House.
You can see all the President Goldman Sachs posts by Instapundit here.
--------------
UPDATE: Seven!
To hear some talk about it -- the next speech, debate, poll, controversy, hit piece, campaign ad, press release or gaffe will decide the entire GOP primary.
Let's take a look back to the 2008 election cycle -- specifically this timeframe during that cycle.
We should vote for a candidate based on his electability!
From November 2007 through January 2008 -- McCain was the most electable Republican against the eventual Democratic nominee. How'd that work out?
The thing is -- McCain was way back in the pack at this point in 2007.
So-and-so is the frontrunner in [insert early primary state here]! And what's-his-name is toast!Iowa, RCP Poll Average, November 1, 2007:
At this point in the 2008 cycle, Romney's lead in Iowa was double that of eventual winner Mike Huckabee, 28% - 14.5%. McCain, who didn't put a lot of emphasis on Iowa, was at 8%. By the time the caucus votes were tallied, Huckabee more than doubled his Nov 1 poll percentage.
New Hampshire, RCP Poll Average, November 1, 2007:
At this point in the 2008 cycle, Romney's lead in New Hampshire was nearly double that of eventual winner John McCain, 29% - 16.4%. By the time the primary votes were actually cast, McCain nearly doubled his Nov 1 poll percentage, and Rudy Giuliani, who was second in the Nov 1 poll, had his percentage more than halved.
South Carolina, RCP Poll Average, November 1, 2007:
At this point in the 2008 cycle, Romney's lead in South Carolina was 7 points over eventual winner John McCain, 19.3% - 12.3%. At this point, eventual 2nd place finisher Mike Huckabee was at 6.0%. By the time the primary votes were actually cast, McCain more than doubled his Nov 1 poll percentage, and Huckabee more than quadrupled his.
But this time it's different!
Sure, and the last time was different. Except it wasn't. And the next time will be different too! Except it won't be. But this time......blah, blah, blah.
Trying to be the first one to call the race is exciting punditry, and can probably garner a person attention and hits for being provocative. But as for pundits, polls and the press being reliably predictive at this point? Blah, blah, blah.
So. About Dick Durbin's rant about BoA charging $5 a month for customers using a debit card...
Holding up a plastic debit card on the Senate floor this afternoon, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., had some advice for Bank of America customers angry about the new $5 monthly fee: leave.
“Bank of America customers, vote with your feet, get the heck out of that bank,” Durbin said on the Senate floor. “Find yourself a bank or credit union that won’t gouge you for $5 a month and still will give you a debit card that you can use every single day. What Bank of America has done is an outrage.”
Via Protein Wisdom, I notice that Citi announced changes to its fees today:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The fees keep coming. Citi is the latest big bank to slap customers with a round of fee hikes. This time, on its checking accounts.
Starting in December, customers who hold its mid-level Citibank Account will be charged $20 a month if they fail to maintain a minimum balance of $15,000 in their combined accounts. Previously, account holders had to carry a minimum balance of $6,000.
At the same time, customers who have the bank's EZ Checking account will start being charged $15 a month if they don't carry a minimum balance of $6,000.
...
Citibank said it chose not to charge a debit card fee because its customers did not want it. "There's a reason why we structured it this way," said Catherine Pulley, spokeswoman for Citi.
Now, unlike Bank of America, Citi is not raising fees directly for debit card use. But they are raising fees, and the timing is undoubtedly related to the Durbin Amendment going into effect. In some ways you might say they are trying to obscure the connection.
Which is perhaps unsurprising. Citigroup Inc is the third largest contributor to Dick Durbin's campaign committee.
Also not surprising will be Dick Durbin's presumed silence about Citi as compared to his ravings about Bank of America . . . who is number 58 on the list of Dick Durbin donors.
Four years ago today, a reporter observed Obama without the traditional flag pin worn by just about every politician in America. When asked about it, Obama gave this answer:
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."
The following summer (as noted in the last post) Obama gave a Major Speech on Patriotism, in large part to defend against the idea that he wasn't sufficiently patriotic. Of course, in the fashion of a true cheap political stunt he gave the speech in Independence, MO - days before the 4th of July!
And speaking of fashion, Obama was wearing a flag pin.
From Ed Morrissey’s Obamateurism of the Day at Hot Air, Obama presumes to lecture Republican candiates:
“You want to be commander-in-chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it’s not politically convenient,” the president told the crowd in reference to a recent Republican debate.
Ed uses Obama’s time in Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church as an example of Obama not standing up for what is right when it’s not convenient. He also notes that the booing was no more than a few of people out of a few thousand in attendance, not to mention that it is unlikely the candidates would have even heard the boos anyway.
Well. A little bit closer to the topic at hand – standing up for those who wear the uniform when it’s not politically convenient -- let us revisit the ”General Betray Us” episode:
When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) cancelled a campaign trip to Rock Hill, S.C., his web site said it was “due to crucial votes in the Senate concerning the ongoing war in Iraq.”
So, why did Obama miss a key vote denouncing MoveOn.org’s recent advertisement about Gen. David Petraeus? The ad stirred outrage nationally for suggesting Petraeus was a lackey for the White House and disloyal to the country. “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” it asked.
…
Aides to Obama had no immediate response to queries about why the senator took a pass on the Cornyn vote, but the senator made his objections clear."The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements,'' Obama said. "This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq."
So Obama chose not to stand up for General Petraeus when it was politically inconvenient – Obama was in a hotly contested Democratic primary in which Moveon.org and the left/liberal faction of the party they represent was key to his prospects.
But hey, it’s not like Obama never stood up for Petraeus. Because he did. At a . . . wait for it . . . politically convenient time – during the general election:
Barack Obama yesterday landed a right hook on one of his biggest left-wing supporters yesterday - blasting MoveOn.org for labeling Gen. David Petraeus "General Betray Us."
Obama, in a patriotism speech in Independence, Mo., hit the Web site for taking out an ad in The New York Times last year that targeted Petraeus, then the top US commander in Iraq.
While not naming names, the Democratic presidential candidate - who had been heavily supported by the Web site in his primary race - said, "A general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.
"We can no longer afford these sorts of divisions."
Many of Obama's Senate colleagues already felt the same way - and had expressed their anger at the ad back in September, when they voted to "strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of" Petraeus.
Obama skipped the vote.
The Betray Us ad was September of 2007, Obama’s speech denouncing moveon.org was July 1, 2008.
It is classic Obama – leading from behind.
And Obama self-righteously lecturing Republicans on standing up for men and women who wear the uniform when it's not politically convenient, even as his own history shows that it is something he himself is not willing to do is another bit of classic Obama – cynical hypocrisy.
It’s who he is, it’s what he does.
WHOEVER’S PROGRAMMING HIS TELEPROMPTER MUST BE A GOP MOLE: L.A. Times: New gaffe: Obama hails America’s historic building of ‘the Intercontinental Railroad’.
Let's include a partial quote from Andrew Malcolm at the link:
“A railroad between continents? A railroad from, say, New York City all the way across the Atlantic to France? Now, THAT would be a bridge!"
Indeed. But this was no one-time slip up.
A trip down memory lane based solely on searching whitehouse.gov...
February 10, 2009:
We always had the best infrastructure. We were always willing to invest in the future. You know, somebody -- Governor Crist mentioned Abraham Lincoln. In the middle of the Civil War, in the midst of all this danger and peril, what did he do? He helped move the Intercontinental Railroad. He helped to start land grant colleges. He understood that even when you're in the middle of crisis you've got to keep your eye on the future. (Applause.)January 22, 2010:
When we passed the Recovery Act, these aren't all a bunch of government jobs. These are jobs that private contractors contract with the state or the city or the county to build roads and highways, the same way that we built the Interstate Highway System and the Intercontinental Railroad System.May 1, 2010:
It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who said the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. He would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges.March 4, 2011:
I mean, think about it. My favorite Republican, Abraham Lincoln -- happens to be from my home state, but he was a pretty good President, last I checked. (Applause.) He was a guy who invested in the interstate -- in the intercontinental railroad, and in land grant colleges, and in the National Academy of Sciences -- in the middle of the Civil War.September 22, 2011:
We used to have the best infrastructure in the world here in America. We’re the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad, the Interstate Highway System. We built the Hoover Dam. We built the Grand Central Station. So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads?
I like the theory of a GOP mole. I want to believe the theory of a GOP mole. However, simple ignorance seems sufficient as an explanation for the oft-repeated and never corrected gaffes.
You may want to sit down for this, because it may come as a shock. President Obama did not take my advice on his Jobs3 speech last night to a joint session of Congress.
I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I am.
Instead, Obama went green. That is, he recycled almost the entire speech from stuff he's said before.
The main thrust of the speech? "Pass this bill!"
First we must ask, what bill? The idea that there is a bill waiting on Congress to pass that Obama and the White House have crafted is as imaginary as the 3.5 million jobs the first stimulus created or saved. As imaginary as the strawmen Obama builds and burns in every speech he gives.
Second, just as the speech itself is recycled, so too is the demand to "pass this bill". Obama did the same thing with the first stimulus bill -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Back then we saw headlines like this:
So after such strident demands back then, how did things shake out once ARRA was passed? I'm glad you asked.
ARRA made it out of Congress on Feb 13, the same night Obama and the First Lady hosted a concert honoring Stevie Wonder at the White House and one day before Obama and the First Lady had a wonderful Valentine's Day dinner in Chicago. It was four days before Obama signed the act into law.
That's how important it was to pass that bill now! Concerts and dates took precedence over actually signing the bill into law.
We can be assured that the disconnect between his words and reality are every bit as true now when it comes to passing this (heretofore non-existent) bill as it was in 2009.
Obama gives his After Labor Day Special Pivot to Jobs, Jobs, Jobs Speech tonight in front of a joint session of Congress. It took a little wrangling between the White House and Speaker of the House Boehner's office to agree to a date. Obama originally preferred to speak last night, during the Republican presidential debate, but was suaded by the fact that he was powerless to make that happen to move it to tonight.
Of course, tonight is also opening night for the NFL, so Obama made the lead from behind decision to move his speech to 7pm Eastern so as only to interfere with the pre-game festivities and not the game itself.
One might say that Obama kinda stepped in it with the whole scheduling thing.
If I were advising the president, here's the speech I would suggest he give. It's 25 seconds from beginning to end -- only 6 seconds if you exclude the formalities of the intro and ending. It never once uses the words "I" or "me", it never once tries to blame Bush (or Congress or DC or natural disasters or some vague, anonymous "they") for the problems he has created, it uses no meaningless platitudes nor offers grand but vacuous promises. In other words, it's unlike any speech Obama has ever given.
I think if Obama gave this speech, he would go up at least 5 points in the polls.
It seems like it was just yesterday that Obama was decrying "tax breaks for corporate jet owners". It wasn't. It was the end of June.
But it was just yesterday that news leaked about what would be in Obama's prime time Thursday pivot speech to jobs, jobs, jobs (h/t Ace).
You know what's reported to be part of his plan?
Extending the tax break for corporate jet owners:
Obama also is expected to continue for one year a tax break for businesses that allows them to deduct the full value of new equipment. The president and Congress negotiated that provision into law for 2011 last December.
Here's a reminder of Obama's old and busted view on "tax breaks for corporate jet owners":
Now that's Change Pivot You Can Believe In!
President Obama cut his vacation short by a day because of Hurricane Irene.
The article by AFP gave us this headline:
Obama takes charge at hurricane command center
Here's a photo of his appearance:
President Obama takes charge at the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC) set up at the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) headquarters in Washington. To lead the discussion, President Obama asked if Irene was a Category Fore.
Today a powerful and dangerous Hurricane Irene is making its way up the Atlantic coast.
Four years ago today, interestingly enough, then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama was in New Orleans castigating President Bush from the pulpit for the way the government had responded to Hurricane Katrina two years prior.
Obama began his visit to New Orleans, his fourth since the storm, at a service at First Emanuel Baptist Church on Carondelet Street. The crowd warmed to him as he alluded the Sermon on the Mount, with its admonition to Christians to build on a rock of faith in order to withstand life's storms.
Obama said the federal government needs to rebuild New Orleans on a new foundation [...]
He said Hurricane Katrina exposed the Bush administration's failure to focus on domestic problems as it pursued an expensive war in Iraq. He said the storm was a call to correct historical social inequity.
"For all our wealth and power, something was not right in America," he said. "Our foundation was not built on a rock."
It is easy to criticize when someone else is in charge - easy to say that you would be better than that person if you were in charge. Obama took that easy route four years ago.
I truly hope Obama has it easier now than President Bush did during Katrina, and that Irene weakens or changes course such that it does much less damage than many are currently predicting. I hope no one is in any position to use Obama's response to Irene in as politically motivated a way against him as he did against Presdident Bush.
Not every word that comes out of President Obama's mouth is a lie:
Obama delivers statement on the S&P downgrade:
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly behind his podium, while in front of him and behind the cameras a page held steady his teleprompter.
Today's delicacy -- fried grouper (from the same fishing trip that produced the amberjack tacos). Plus a fried jalapeno from the garden.
It really doesn't get any better than that.
ROGER SIMON: THE MAN WITHOUT A PLAN:
President Obama’s been taking a lot of flak lately for not having a plan. First it was about Libya, but now — even more importantly because, as we know, all politics is local (until it’s not) — about the budget.
The latest White House porte-parole Jay Carney has consequently been taking all kinds of in-coming himself about “where’s the President’s budget plan,” “why doesn’t he have a plan,” etc.
Not having a plan? The reason Obama is left as a spectator as Boehner and Congress gets down in the mud and ...well... dig this thing out of the ditch?
Because this is his plan:
Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection:
John Podhoretz notes that Obama is trying to talk the markets into a panic
as part of Obama’s political strategy (emphasis mine):An enraged Barack Obama just took to the nation’s airwaves to announce his effort to strike a deal with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has fallen apart. Perhaps for the first time in American history, this president is literally using this press conference to create a financial panic over the weekend about the opening of the markets on Monday. He is warning of disaster on Monday. Clearly, he wants to use this as leverage to frighten the GOP into passing the plan proposed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, which will push the debt ceiling problem into 2013, but it’s still an entirely new and astonishingly reckless gambit.
I agree with the analysis with one big exception, the use of the terms “first time” and “entirely new.”
Jacobson then recounts Obama's efforts during the stimulus discussions in early 2009, and his reaction at the time.
Let me recount 2008 -- and while it is certainly not a president doing so, but rather Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer -- Democrats have before used talking the markets into a panic as part of their political strategy.
Schumer, a senior member of the Senate Banking Committee, who used his position of authority to communicate to the OTS and the FDIC that he was "concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers," and that IndyMac "could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly."
Everything might have been fine had Schumer stopped there, but Schumer (being Schumer) took the additional step of releasing the letter to the press.
IndyMac Regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision: "The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.”
Senator Reid: "a major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows -- that's on the verge of going bankrupt,"
But with investors already on high alert after the Federal Reserve's rescue of insurance titan American International Group Inc. on Sept. 16, and with the credit crunch still making funding difficult for even the largest U.S. financial companies, Reid's comments were the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a grease fire. MetLife plunged $7.19, or 15%, to $40.96; Hartford dived $12.20, or 32%, to $25.91; and Prudential slid $7.15, or 11%, to $57.65.
My last post was amberjack tacos. Tonight's menu? Venison backstrap.
Simple recipe. Simply delicious.
Cut backstrap into 1 inch thick medallions and marinade in beer for four hours.
Ok, sure, add some extra virgin olive oil, a little soy sauce, a few cloves of roughly chopped garlic and a ton of pepper of the black, white and red variety.
Heat the grill until it's pegged.
Slowly place each of the six medallions on the grill. Slowly.
By the time you have ...slowly... placed each medallion on the grill, it is time to turn them -- again, slowly -- one at a time. Once each has been turned, you have enough time to take the bowl in which they were marinading to the kitchen for a quick rinse. But that's it. A quick rinse and get back quickly to take the medallions off the grill. We're going for a sear on the outside and not much more*.
Take the medallions off the grill and put them on the plate. Top each one with a slice of goat cheese and let rest for as long as your itchy fork hand can take it.
Place plate next to laptop on the table out on the deck for continuous blogging.
E a t.
Please don't ask if I ate all six medallions in one sitting.
-------------------------
*Please understand I have a constitution that tolerates food cooked rare/raw to a greater extent than most. I am describing how I cooked my meal, not prescribing how someone else should cook his. I would strongly recommend anyone else letting the medallions cook for several minutes more per side than I describe here.
Let's update the old proverb for today.
"Give a man a fish and he'll eat today. Teach a man to fish -- and take him fishing -- and he'll still be eating fish in July."
There are few things in life better than eating fish you caught yourself. I made some amberjack tacos today:
We caught this fish and many, many others during our spring break trip in April to celebrate my wife's parents' 50th anniversary. Good times, good times.
Still paying dividends.
By the way, forget my pic above, if you're interested in real chef-ery, please visit my sister in law's blog TheChefinMyHead.
And specific ChefinMyHead post from spring break HERE. One of the amberjacks in those photos was in my tacos and is now in my belly. Probably the one with the biggest smile.
