More IPCC Errors Exposed

The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

Say What??!!!! 😦

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

“Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

Why did they do it? Because it fit their politics. The “Evidence” fit what they want to accomplish.

It’s Not Science, it’s just politics.

Making them Political Scientists, not actual Scientists.

“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government’s worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled “Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”.

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to “assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects”.

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: “I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes.”

Because it’s not scientific?? Next thing you know the world will be flat because that’s what it looks to us down her on the surface!! 🙂

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel’s vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

The Religion of Global Warming, overwhelms Science.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: “The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed.”

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, added: “The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

“It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives.”

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.(UK Telegraph)

NYTimes: Now, there’s a danger that the uproar over the IPCC’s erroneous paragraph could overshadow the scientific group’s broader conclusions about the effects of climate change, said Ben Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“Focusing on a mouse and ignoring the elephant would be a mistake,” he told reporters yesterday, especially since independent assessments by the National Academy of Sciences, the federal government and other sources echo the IPCC’s overall findings.

The Elephant in the room, dear reader, is that THEY ARE LYING!!! and they keep getting caught at it. And they all take the Liberal political dismissive route of “there’ nothing to see, it’s meaningless, it only a small error. Not big deal. get over it.”

Now, in science, if your wrong. Or if you make errors that means your theory is not correct.

Not not in Politics.

And this is Politics. Not Science.

Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, said scientists make mistakes all the time “and it isn’t a big deal.”

Well, that makes me feel better 😦

And the kicker:

Dr. Murari Lal, the scientist behind the bogus claim about melting Himalayan glaciers, suggested over the weekend that the panel intentionally ignored the facts.

The statement “related to several countries in this region and their water sources,”Lal told the London paper The Mail. “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.”

The Mail concluded that the comments were included “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”(Times)

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.

Now, you can’t write comedy like that.

A comedy of errors, that is.

And with comedy comes tragedy.

The tragedy of the degradation and politicization of the Scientific Method by the left for their own needs for power and control.

It’s as corrupted now as everything they touch.

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.

The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.

The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.

Last night, Dr Pachauri defended the IPCC, saying it was wrong to generalise based on a single mistake. ‘Our procedure is robust,’ he added. (Daily Mail)

I hate “robust”. It’s a Liberal code-word for shut up.

No amount of errors or misrepresentations of facts will stop the Global warming Religionists though.

Their Agenda is the Agenda!

Much Like Dear ole’ Speaker Pelosi:

“We will move on many fronts — any front we can,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat herself, said Thursday. “We must take whatever time it takes to do it. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people.”

Interesting, that usage of the word “for.” “Against” would be a more accurate description. Americans simply don’t want what Washington’s Democrats are selling — and it’s not because they don’t know what’s in the 2,000-page bills. It’s because they do know what’s in them. (IBD)

The Bulls of Liberal Group DoubleThink are wrecking our China shop….

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Just listen to the tone of some of the liberal media on Obama’s trip to the Republican Retreat to meet with them and be on camera being feisty.

It was a great photo-op.

But I’m more interested in the coverage.

NY Post – President Obama slams obstructionist Republicans at GOP issues retreat

WASHINGTON – President Obama dove headfirst into the belly of the GOP beast Friday – and left the not-so-loyal opposition bleeding on a Baltimore ballroom floor.

He skewered Republicans for obstructionist tactics, dubious facts and a lack of civility in opposing his domestic agenda, especially health care reform.

“If you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot,” Obama told the GOP issues retreat after unveiling a proposal for $33 billion in small-business tax incentives.

No Bias here…. 🙂

MSNBC: Some Republicans prefaced their questions with lengthy recitations of conservative talking points.

“I know there’s a question in there somewhere, because you’re making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with,” Obama said to Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, whom he mistakenly called “Jim.”

Or Here… (see a different way of seeing this one later in the piece)

GOP lawmakers pressured him to support a presidential line-item veto for spending bills and to endorse across-the-board tax cuts. Obama said he was ready to talk about the budget proposal, though he disputed accusations that his administration was to blame for big increases in deficit spending. And he demurred on the idea of cutting everyone’s taxes, saying with a smile that billionaires don’t need tax cuts.

This last bit would be the JFK tax cut remark. But you’d never know for this “report”.

Chicago Tribune-BALTIMORE – In an unprecedented town-hall meeting, President Barack Obama went toe to toe Friday with some of his fiercest critics – a ballroom-full of House Republicans – accusing them of trying to derail his health-care overhaul while they complained about being shut out of the political process.

Obama repeatedly defended his policies and accused Republicans of distorting his positions for political gain. He was especially critical of the GOP’s efforts to derail the massive health-care overhaul bill in Congress.

House Republicans, who have little political power because of the large Democratic majority in the chamber, were determined to use the occasion to rebut skeptics who argue that the party offers few ideas and opposes legislation out of political convenience, not principle. They handed Obama a thick document containing Republican policy proposals when he was introduced.

Then you have the New York Times, a Little less in-your-face partisanship for once:

BALTIMORE — President Obama denied he was a Bolshevik, the Republicans denied they were obstructionists and both sides denied they were to blame for the toxic atmosphere clouding the nation’s political leadership.

But if it was at times a wonky clash of ideas, it also seemed to be a virtual marriage-therapy session — with the most pointed exchanges shown again on the evening news — as each side vented grievances pent up after a year of partisan gridlock.

Mr. Obama complained that the Republicans were painting him as a radical, making it harder to compromise. His health care plan, he said, was not “a Bolshevik plot.” The Republicans, for their part, complained that he did not listen to them and instead sat back while the Democratic “attack machine,” as one called it, demonized them.

“I am not an ideologue,” Mr. Obama said at one point, drawing skeptical murmurs from the crowd that seemed to surprise him. “I’m not,” he insisted.

But if he rejected the Republican labels for him, the Republicans rejected his for them.

“I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists,” Representative Jason Chaffetz, a freshman from Utah, told him.

Just to make the point that they have been more than the party of no, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, as he introduced the president handed him a booklet called “Better Solutions” compiling a variety of Republican ideas that they said the president had ignored or resisted over the last year.

“We don’t expect you to agree with us on every one of our solutions,” Mr. Boehner said, “but we do hope that you and your administration will consider them.”

See the tonal differences.


The tone was civil, but Obama stood his ground as he parried some of the harshest critics of his performance as president. His Republican hosts, aware that the event was being beamed live from a Baltimore hotel, went out of their way to show deference and largely pulled their punches.

If the session was rare by the standards of American politics – and it was – it didn’t rise to the level of question time in the British House of Commons, where opposition politicians hurl barely disguised insults at the prime minister. In the ballroom of an Inner Harbor hotel, Joe Wilson, the South Carolina congressman who loudly called the president a liar at a joint session of Congress last year, was never heard from.

Obama said that Republicans have attacked his agenda as “some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives.” As a result, he added, “you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.”

Truth hurts, Mr. President. 🙂

In line with his remarks about partisanship in Wednesday night’s State of the Union address, Obama said Democrats and Republicans were both to blame for demonizing the opposition party – typically to satisfy more extreme elements of the left or right. That is one of the reasons, he added, that it has gotten tougher to actually get things done in Washington.

“I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill,” he said, after hearing repeated criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s style of leadership.

At another point, he sought to ally himself with Republicans against a common enemy: the news media. “The problems we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash-and-burn style politics,” the president said.

You didn’t hear this bit in the more liberal attack pieces. They were too busy slashing-and-burning… 🙂

Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, accused by Obama of posing a dishonest campaign talking point in the form of a question, called the event “an honest conversation. I find myself agreeing with 80 percent of what the president says. I just disagree with 80 percent of what he does.”

Amen to that.

President Obama argued that his health care plan was “pretty centrist” actually.


If this is “centrist” to him we are all doomed.

The president grew more exasperated when Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas challenged him on the spending plan he will unveil next week. “Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?” he asked.

Mr. Obama called the question “an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.”(NYT)

So was the non-answer, Mr. President. 🙂

When Georgia congressman Tom Price charged that Obama had repeatedly accused Republicans of offering “no ideas and no solutions,” Obama shot back, “I don’t think I said that.”

Should we roll the tape? 🙂


Price then said, “Mr. President, multiple times from your administration there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions, in spite of the fact that we’ve offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care.”

Because Price appeared to correct himself after Obama’s reply, we decided to focus on the second claim, that people in Obama’s administration have made “statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions.” Price spokesman Brendan Buck provided a couple of examples and we found a couple of our own:

• At a picnic with labor officials in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Sept. 7, 2009, Obama complained that the critics of health care reform — he didn’t identify them as Republicans, but it was clear he was referring to them — were not offering their own solutions. He said, “I’ve got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What’s your answer? What’s your solution? And you know what? They don’t have one. Their answer is to do nothing. Their answer is to do nothing.”

• A White House blog post attacking the Republican health care plan said it offered “no ideas.” (The posting appears to have a typo. It reads: “The Republican bill offers new no ideas.”)

• White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on April 19, 2009, described the Republicans as “the party of never . . . the party of no new ideas.” (He was referring not just to health care, but also to fiscal discipline.)

• At a White House briefing April 28, 2009, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a very similar comment, saying that, “I think you heard me and others say that you can’t just be the party of no or the party of no new ideas.”

The White House doesn’t dispute that aides have portrayed Republicans that way, but a spokeswoman said the Democratic health care plan includes many amendments that were proposed by Republicans.

Still, Price is right. Obama and his aides have said the Republicans have no ideas on health care and other issues. We rate Price’s statement True.

He says one thing and does the opposite.

So the real question after all this is, will there be bi-partisanship where Democrats honestly work with Republicans and vice versa, or will it be the oft-mentioned liberal definition of “bi-partisan” where you agree to everything they say and shut and sit down as it as been modeled for the last year.

Time will tell.

But you need to watch out for The Ministry of Truth and their spin.

Orwell is alive and well.

And we must be ever vigiliant.

But the best bit I found from the forum was during Rep. Jeb Hensarling’s questions (remember that from earlier):

Obama:  “That’s why I say if we’re going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out, A, who’s to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side.”

You Mean Like it’s GEORGE W. BUSH’s FAULT!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

It’s all Wall Street’s Fault!

It’s Rich People’s Fault!

It’s the Insurance Companies Fault!

D’oh!!  🙂

“And unfortunately, that’s how our politics works right now, and that’s how a lot of our discussion works. That’s how we start off.”

Can you hear the rock crashing through his own Glass House?

I bet he can’t.

And Nancy Pelosi was sound asleep…

Adams vs Freud

Before we get to today’s blog. I thought I would share this nugget of wisdom from the Far Left.

And they don’t get too much farther left than MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann.

Last Night he said  that when white men call Obama “flippant” or “arrogant,” that is a racist code word.

Isn’t that fascinating…. 😦

Now on with the Show…

“If anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.” — President Obama in the State of the Union Speech.

Gee, didn’t we hear this last year and then Democrats shut down and shut out the Republicans completely?

Even Obama said at a picnic for the AFL-CIO that they had “no ideas”.

Yet every time they were presented them they were shot down with extreme prejudice.

So is this the sequel?

I think the Republican should charge forward and say, “here they are” so the Democrats can nuke them again.

Just to show The People just how uninterested the Democrats really are in anything anyone says to them.

Ideas Like Portability (buying insurance across state lines) and Tort Reform.

But since Tort Reform means the Democrats would have to piss off their lobbyist buddies in the Trial Lawyers that’s not happening.

So Republicans should push it.

That should make the Democrats squirm.

George Will:

Barack Obama tiptoed Wednesday night along the seam that bifurcates the Democratic Party’s brain. The seam separates that brain’s John Quincy Adams lobe from its Sigmund Freud lobe.

The dominant liberal lobe favors Adams’ dictum that politicians should not be “palsied by the will of our constituents.” It exhorts Democrats to smack Americans with what is good for them — health care reform, carbon rationing, etc. — even if the dimwits do not desire it.

The other lobe whispers Freud’s reality principle: Restrain your id — the pleasure principle and the impulse toward immediate gratification. Settle for deferred and diminished but achievable results.

Obama was mostly in Adams’ mode Wednesday. His nods to reality were, however, notable.

Such speeches must be listened to with a third ear that hears what is not said.

Unmentioned was organized labor’s “card check” legislation to abolish workers’ rights to secret ballots in unionization elections. Obama’s perfunctory request for a “climate bill” — the term “cap-and-trade” was as absent as the noun “Guantanamo” — was not commensurate with his certitude that life on Earth may drown in rising seas.

Last Feb. 24, when unemployment was 8.2%, Obama said in the second sentence of his speech to Congress that the economy “is a concern that rises above all others” and later that his agenda “begins with jobs.” After 11 months of health care monomania, he said Wednesday that “jobs must be our No. 1 focus.” Unemployment is 10%.

He called Wednesday for a third stimulus (the first was his predecessor’s, in February 2008) although the S-word has been banished in favor of “jobs bill.” It will inject into the economy money that government siphons from the economy, thereby somehow creating jobs. And you thought alchemy was strange.

Not until the 33rd minute of Wednesday’s 70-minute address did Obama mention health care. The weirdness of what he said made it worth the wait.

Dim Americans

Acknowledging that the longer the public has looked at the legislation the less the public has liked it, he blamed himself for not “explaining it more clearly.” But his faux contrition actually blames the public: The problem is not the legislation’s substance but the presentation of it to slow learners.

He urged them to take “another look at the plan we’ve proposed.” The plan? The differences between the House and Senate plans are not trivial; they concern how to pay for the enormous new entitlement.

Last Feb. 24, with a grandiosity with which the nation has become wearily familiar, he said, “Already, we have done more to advance the cause of health care reform in the last 30 days than we have in the last decade.”

He was referring to the expansion of eligibility to an existing entitlement — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. But that expansion was minor compared with the enormous new Medicare entitlement for prescription drugs created under Obama’s predecessor. Before the Massachusetts nuisance, this year’s speech was to be a self-coronation of the “last” president to deal with health care.

Last Feb. 24, he said he had an activist agenda because of the recession, “not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” Ninety-seven days later, he bought General Motors.

Truth Deficit

Wednesday night’s debut of Obama as avenging angel of populism featured one of those opaque phrases — the “weight of our politics” — that third-rate speechwriters slip past drowsy editors. Obama seems to regret the existence in Washington of … everyone else.

He seems to feel entitled to have his way without tiresome interventions in the political process by the many interests affected by his agenda for radical expansion of the regulatory state. Speaking of slow learners, liberals do not notice the connection between expansion of government and expansion of (often defensive) activities referred to under the rubric of “lobbying.”

Lamenting Washington’s “deficit of trust,” Obama gave an example of the reason for it when he brassily declared: “We are prepared to freeze government spending for three years.” This flagrant falsehood enlarges Washington’s deficit of truth: He proposes freezing some discretionary spending — about one-eighth of government spending.

Obama’s leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily it is toxic — yet Washington should conscript a substantially larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls over health care, energy, K-12 education, etc. Talk about a divided brain.


Obama: “I know there are many Americans who aren’t sure if they still believe we can change — or that I can deliver it.”

It’s the Change you want to bring that scares the crap out me, Mr. President!!

It’s the economy, stupid!

Not your pet liberal fantasies.

But I don’t think they want to hear that. 🙂

Deficit of Understanding

“We have more than a deficit of dollars right now,” Obama said. “We face a deficit of trust.”

That’s True.

I don’t Washington D.C in general, and Democrats in specific.

And the last year doesn’t inspire any trust.

Oh Health Care:

“The longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became,” Obama said. “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for me?”

I know what was in it for me, Higher Taxes, Government control, and less quality and quantity of care.

That’s why I still object to it.

But we do have Democrat in-fighting:

“We have to wait for the House of Lords to do their contemplating,” said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y. “We’re also not getting much guidance from the mother ship about what the White House really wants and what they’re prepared to push for.”

Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., who is retiring at the end of the year, said of Obama what some Americans have said all year, “‘You’re trying to do too much too quickly.'”

“Maybe we should listen to them,” Berry said. “If we don’t listen to them, then they will make you listen to them in November.” (UK Guardian)

Ya Think? 🙂

Newly Elected VA Governor Bob McDonnell: “It was Thomas Jefferson who called for “A wise and frugal Government which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry ….and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned…”

But our president is a creature of Ideology.

It was filled with old ideas, campaign cliches, and frequent use of personal pronoun, “I.”  That’s the Obama pattern.

The chief takeaway from 70 minutes of presidential oratory was that Obama doesn’t intend to move to the center.  Should we have been surprised?  Not at all.  Obama is no Bill Clinton.  He’s an ideologically committed liberal.

Obama voiced concern about the lack of trust by Americans in their government.  But he didn’t help matters by repeating discredited (or at least less than believable) claims about his policies.  He said that 2 million more people would be jobless today were it not for his economic stimulus bill.  Not much empirical evidence for that claim.  And he said his health care legislation would actually reduce the deficit.  Please!  Everyone knows this is the result of transparent accounting tricks and, in truth, ObamaCare would increase the deficit by hundreds of billions.

It was nice to hear the president praise innovation.  He said his administration had spent a record amount on basic research, which is good.  Then he outlined a series of steps to promote innovation. Guess what?  They were all things that government would do, which is bad.  Unleash the private sector?  He didn’t mention that. (Fred Barnes)

After all, Government is vastly superior to the evil capitalist private sector!!

And he was still talking about Climate change legislation! Is he nuts!??

No. Just a very committed Idealogue that wants to sound like something he isn’t.

Like listening to the American People.

I’m not surprised at all.

The White House insists that the new wave of populism created by Democratic governance is, in fact, the same populist wave that carried Obama to victory in 2008. In other words, Obama was elected president by the backlash against his own presidency.

This novel theory allows Obama to stick to his view that there’s nothing wrong with his health-care plan, and anyone who feels differently hasn’t heard or understood the president’s explanations.

So, he not only implored Democrats not to “run for the hills” on the health-reform bill, but insisted that as “temperatures cool,” hot-tempered opponents will, of course, realize they were wrong about the bill.

Obama began his presidency insisting that government is the answer to our problems. A year later, he still believes that the era of big government is upon us. (NY Post)

So backlash against him in Massachusetts is the same backlash that got him elected because of George W. Bush, so he was right all along and should continue doing what he has been doing because the backlash against him is not hi, it’s George W. Bush??

Really?? 😦  My head hurts from that Doublethink.

He decried the politicians who are in “permanent campaign” mode — the same week he brought into the White House his campaign manager.

Other politicians are vain, cowardly and insubstantial. They need the courage to change. Meanwhile, Obama is great the way he is.

That is the attitude that has gotten the president in so much trouble. And last night’s State of the Union speech showed us that change really isn’t easy, particularly for the president. (NY Post)

The Greatness that is Me.

Ugh…where’s that barf bag….

This from Mr. “Tinkle up my leg”.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “He is post-racial by all appearances. You know, I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. You know, he’s gone a long way to become a leader of this country and passed so much history in just a year or two.”

<<excuse for a moment. I have to use the barf bag….>>


Pelosi told Politico this week that she might attempt some piecemeal changes in the health system and try comprehensive reform again later. The thinking is that if Americans just cool down, they will accept a massive transformation of the finest health care system in the world.

But the studies indicating thousands of dollars more in premiums, new regulations forcing employers to drop coverage and hard-hitting polls such as IBD/TIPP’s finding that 45% of doctors would consider retiring or quitting their practice if something resembling government care is passed, are factors unlikely to go away.

As I said previously, it suffered a near-fatal heart attack, but Washington Politicians do have the best Medical Care in the World, so it will be back. 😦

And as the President said last night, “I don’t quit”

He also doesn’t really moderate his radicalism, he just wants to sound like he is.

Nothing new there.

“We’re going to give them (The Republicans) another chance to become part of this government,” one of the president’s top advisers said at a briefing before the speech. (liberal blog of EJ Dionne Jr)

So the time-out in the corner is over and they come back and play with the rest of the kids as long as they are nice and agree with us on everything.

Where’s that barf bag…

Gov. McDonnell: “The amount of this debt is on pace to double in five years, and triple in ten. The federal debt is already over $100,000 per household.
This is simply unsustainable. The President’s partial freeze on discretionary spending is a laudable step, but a small one.
The circumstances of our time demand that we reconsider and restore the proper, limited role of government at every level.
Without reform, the excessive growth of government threatens our very liberty and prosperity.”

Amen, Governor.

But Washington D.C. is still not listening. And our President most certainly did not hear us clearly.

But he wants to sound like it.

In particular, Obama said he would use an executive order to create a bipartisan commission to devise a plan for reducing the growing federal debt. The Senate recently defeated a bill by Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to set up such a panel. (CNN)

It was defeated by Democrats and Republicans, by the way.

Nothing new here…move along…

President Obama gets the last word today, “We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.”


Let the Show Begin

Tonight, President Obama will give his State of The Union Speech.

It’s not really a speech about the real State of the Union so much as a Campaign Speech to try and shore up the State of his Union with the voters who are mad at him.

But it will be all platitudes and pagentry.

It’s a Show.

I will be working to pay my bills at the time he’s pontificating about he “I hear your pain”.

So I won’t need the barf bag on stand-by.

“The middle class feels beleaguered, and I think the message of Massachusetts, which I believe the president is now heeding, was pay attention to our plight. We’re not as worried about changing the health care system as we are about getting by week to week,” Sen. Charles Schumer said to CBS 2 in NY.


It took him a year to figure that one out. Give that man the Nobel Prize!

Whoops, Obama already has one. 🙂

But does he really believe it?


Does he really care?


It’s all Show.

But I hope they put a seat belt on Nancy Pelosi’s and Vice-President Biden’s  chairs tonight and strap them down! 🙂

The Americans For Tax relief have a way for you play at home :

Back by popular demand: Obama BINGO! To help you get through the State of the Union address on Wednesday night, Americans for Tax Reform once again presents Obama BINGO!  Use the cards to check off terms and phrases likely to be used during President Obama’s State of the Union address.

We’ve prepared four different cards this year so that you may compete with your friends and family:

Obama BINGO Card 1

Obama BINGO Card 2

Obama BINGO Card 3

Obama BINGO Card 4

I guess a square with “I…” would be too easy… 🙂

Or “I inherited…” or “The Last 8 years…” (like the last year didn’t exist).

But never let it be said that I don’t provide entertainment. 🙂

A few thoughts from

  1. Welcome to the fiscal responsibility party, Mr. President.  After a year of trillion-dollar bailouts, trillion-dollar stimulus bills, and trillion-dollar healthcare plans, it’s nice to see at least a rhetorical nod toward sanity coming out of the White House.
  2. One little problem: CBO was actually projecting a decline in non-defense discretionary spending over the next few years (from $682 billion in FY 2010 gradually down to $640 billion in 2014).   The reason is all the “temporary” spending programs that were enacted the first year of the Obama Administration.  This is like the weatherman taking credit for a sunny day–it was happening anyway.  In fact, freezing this spending is actually a hike in projected spending over the next several years.
  3. The spending “restraint” is a drop in the bucket.  Let’s take the White House claim on its face–that this measure will reduce total spending over the next decade by $250 billion.  CBO says that under current services, the federal government will be spending $42.9 trillion.  So even if this “freeze” is followed through on by the Congressional appropriators, the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime will still be spending 99.42% as much as they were planning to, anyway.  Big deal.  It’s like if you were planning on spending $100 on groceries this week, and instead spent only $99.42.
  4. It’s awfully heroic to say that you’re not going to increase spending after it just went up by 17.4 percent.  That’s right: non-defense discretionary spending grew by 17.4 percent in Obama’s first year. Even if it stays at that level for the next three years, that would still be an average annual increase of 5.5 percent.  That’s faster than the economy is expected to grow, and faster than wages are expected to grow.

And here’s a disturbing statistic you won’t hear spoken of at all, let alone tonight as we get another “Feel your pain” speech.

ATR: According to data released last week, for the first time in history, more than 50 percent of union members work for the federal, state or local government.

This unprecedented event raises the question: How can a public that wants smaller government achieve that goal when every dollar that goes into that government is paying to build an interest group intent on growing the government?

And we have a Union President and a Union Congress, given the private White House session the Unions got during December on the Health Care bill that led to them being exempted for 5 years.

So the bloat now has a Union.

God help us all!

And then there’s the Bank Tax.

Obama will assault the The evils of Wall Street and The Banks (he bailed out) tonight. It’s his version of get tough.

It’s so phony.

And those “middle class” voters he’s trying to “reconnect” with will get a dial tone.

ATR: One natural question is, “who will pay the bank tax?”  It’s true that it’s assessed on the 50 biggest banks, but surely that will be passed along to all of us.  The “bank tax” is actually one of the most regressive taxes likely to be proposed by the Obama regime.

How will we pay the bank tax?

  • Imagine opening up your bank statement every month and seeing a $1 “bank tax” surcharge in there.  Assuming about 100 million active bank accounts in America and $12 in annual fees, that alone would be enough to pay about 10 percent of the tax every year
  • Another mechanism might be to increase fees to manage 401(k) and IRA accounts.  This could take the form of fees assessed to your employer (which you never see), or 12b-1 fees on your mutual funds (which you didn’t even know existed before I typed that)
  • Befuddled by all the fees and costs on your house’s HUD-1 closing form?  Here’s another one that might be in there.  Check for it just above “county recorder fee” and just below “water reclamation fee”

The list could go on, but I take it you see my point.  You can’t force the banks to reduce their profits in order to pay this new tax.  Ultimately, the only way any business has to pay any tax is by increasing prices for what they sell.  That’s exactly what’s going to happen here.  It’s not the banks’ fault–it’s the Obama Administration’s fault for hiking taxes on a crippled industry in the middle of a deep recession.

But it will make the liberals feel better, they have a new greedy capitalist pig to squeal about.

So get some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show.

But have the anti-acid tablets near by and the barf bag on stand by as the “new”  Touchy-feely Obama “feels your pain”….

Freezing Taxpayers

(CBS) Thanks to a recently filed Congressional expense reports there’s new light shed on the Copenhagen Climate Summit in Denmark and how much it cost taxpayers.

CBS News Investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports official filings and our own investigation show at least 106 people from the House and Senate attended – spouses, a doctor, a protocol expert and even a photographer.

For 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each. That’s $2,200 a day – more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is a key climate change player. He went to Copenhagen last year. Last week, we asked him about the $2,200-a-day bill for room and food.

“I can’t believe that,” Rep. Waxman said. “I can’t believe it, but I don’t know.”

But his name is in black and white in the expense reports. The group expense report was filed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. She wouldn’t talk about it when our producer tried to ask.

Pelosi’s office did offer an explanation for the high room charges. Those who stayed just two nights were charged a six-night minimum at the five-star Marriott. One staffer said, they strongly objected to no avail. You may ask how they’ll negotiate a climate treaty, if they can’t get a better deal on hotel rooms.

I had a job as a reservationist in the hotel business for 7 years. I can tell you that a minimum length of stay is usually programmed in to system so you can’t override it. So complain all you want, it matters not.

But since they weren’t paying for it anyhow…

Total hotel, meeting rooms and “a couple” of $1,000-a-night hospitality suites topped $400,000.

Flights weren’t cheap, either. Fifty-nine House and Senate staff flew commercial during the Copenhagen rush. They paid government rates — $5-10,000 each — totaling $408,064. Add three military jets — $168,351 just for flight time — and the bill tops $1.1 million dollars — not including all the Obama administration officials who attended: well over 60.

Imagine the “carbon footprint”.

Imagine the trash and the environmental damage. 🙂

And they accomplished ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Pelosi’s husband
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
Rep. George Miller
Rep. Henry Waxman
Rep. Ed Markey
Markey’s wife
Rep. Charles Rangel
Rep. Bart Gordon
Rep. James Sensenbrenner
Sensenbrenner’s wife
Rep. Sander Levin
Rep. Joe Barton
Barton daughter
Rep. Fred Upton
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Diana DeGette
Rep. Jay Inslee
Inslee’s wife
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito
Rep. Moore Capito husband
Rep. John Sullivan
Rep. Tim Ryan
Rep. GK Butterfield
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords
Gifford’s husband
Rep. Marsha Blackburn
President Obama
Sen. James Inhofe
Sen. John Kerry
Stacee Bako
Don Kellaher
Wilson Livingood
Brian Monahan
John Lawrence
Karen Wayland
Drew Hammill
Kate Knudson
Bridget Fallon
Bina Surgeon
Mary Frences Repko
Nona Darrell
Tony Jackson
Josh Mathis
Phil Barnett
David Cavicke
Lisa Miller
Peter Spencer
Andrea Spring
Lorie Schmitt
Greg Dotson
Alex Barron
Christopher King
Shimere Williams
Tara Rothschild
Margaret Caravelli
Gerry Waldron
Ana Unruh-Cohen
Jeff Duncan
Eben Burnham-Snyder
Joel Beauvais
Michael Goo
Tom Schreibel
Harlan Watson
Bart Forsyth
Ed Rice
Steve Rusnak
Carey Lane
Matt Dempsey
Dempsey wife
George Sugyama
Tom Hassenbohler
31 additional unnamed Senate staff

State Dept:
Special Envoy Todd Stern
Secretary Hillary Clinton
Pershing Deputy U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change
Maria Otero, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs
Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, Deputy Permanent Rep. United States Mission to the U.N.
Daniel Reifsnyder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment
Lilburn Trigg Talley, Director of the office of Global Change
Sue Biniaz, Deputy Legal Adviser
William Breed, Director of Climate Change Programs USAID.
Energy Dept:
Steven Chu, Energy Secretary
Jean Chu, Spouse of the Energy Secretary
Rod O’Connor, Chief of Staff
Amy Bodette, Special Assistant to the Secretary
David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs
Rick Duke, Dep. Assistant Sec. for Policy and International Affairs
Holmes Hummel, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Policy and
International Affairs
Elmer Holt, Economist in the Office of Policy and International Affairs
Matt Kallman, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Policy
and International Affairs
Dan Leistikow, Director of Public Affairs
Devin Hampton, Lead Advance Representative
Interior Dept:
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
Deputy Secretary David Hayes
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland
Science Advisor Kit Batten
Senior Advisor of Global Change at USGS Tom Armstrong
USGS Director Marcia McNutt
Deputy Communications Director Matt Lee-Ashley
Jack Lynch (Security)
Dave Graham (Security)
Mike Downs (Security)
Director of Advance Tim Hartz

Security Officer # 1 Security, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Marcus McClendon Director of Advance, Office of the Administrator
Security Officer # 2 Security, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Jennifer Jenkins Physical Scientist, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation COP 15 Negotiator
Shalini Vajjhala Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs COP-15 Negotiator
Maurice LeFranc Senior Advisor, International Climate Change, Office of Air and Radiation COP-15 Negotiator
Kimberly Todd Klunich Technical Expert, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation COP-15 Negotiator
Leif Hockstad Environmental Engineer, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation COP-15 Negotiator
Seth Oster Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs
David McIntosh Associate Administrator, Office of Rep.ressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Michelle DePass Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs
Security Officer # 3 Security, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Lisa Jackson Administrator, EPA
Gina McCarthy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation

White House Executive Office staff:
From the Office of Energy and Climate Change:
Heather Zichal
Tony Russell
Jake Levine
Joe Aldy

From the Office of Science and Technology Policy:
John Holdren
Steve Fetter
Shere Abbott

From the Council on Environmental Quality:
Nancy Sutley
Amy Salzman
Jess Maher

National Security Council:
Mike Froman
Ed Fendley

Ben LaBolt

And you, the taxpayer,  got stuck with the check.

So Now Obama is going to selectively “freeze” spending in certain area of the government to make it appear like he actually is doing something.

But it’s like sticking your finger in the dike wall after the wall collapsed around you.

But he’ll look “presidential” and it will be a good Campaign Speech.

It just won’t be Leadership.

And from what I understand it would be from 2011-2013. He’s re-election wouldn’t be a factor, now would it?? 🙂

WSJ: The spending freeze, which is expected to be included in Wednesday’s State of the Union address and the president’s Feb. 1 budget proposal, is one of a series of small-scale initiatives the White House is unrolling as the president adjusts to a more hostile political terrain in his second year. On Monday, the president unveiled a set of proposals aimed at making child care, college and elder care more affordable.

Yeah, that get some of the 7 million unemployed a job. 😦

“Given Washington Democrats’ unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio). “Will the budget still double the debt over five years and triple it over 10? That’s the bottom line.”

Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: the departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services.

But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Remember, in the Health Care Reform Bill where they were going to cut $500 Billion dollars form Medicare and Medicaid to pay for it??

And I said that’ll never happen.

Well, why not still do it?

That’s real reform. 🙂

But that’s not what this is about. This is all show.

Yet again.

And mind you, it’s just a Proposal.

The Congress would have to enact it.

Then they would have to do.

How likely is that with this porked out bunch of lunatics running that asylum??

They’ll just give away even more trying to buy the angry voters off.

John Makin, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, called the effort “certainly a step in the right direction.” He said the amount saved isn’t large, but noted that he preferred this approach over raising taxes. “I’m not going to belittle it because it’s not a big cut in spending.”

A year after the White House rolled out ambitious initiatives on health care and energy, in addition to a giant economic stimulus plan, the president is in some respects taking smaller steps. That’s partly because much of the 2009 agenda remains undone. Also, in an election year, members of Congress are typically reluctant to take on controversial proposals.

But the president said Monday that he remains committed to tackling health care and other big problems. “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” he told ABC News.

Or as Charles Krauthammer said, “There’s a third option. He could be a mediocre one-term president”.

Remember, this is the guy who gave his first year a B+. 🙂

Wouldn’t you love to have seen the Pre-Jan 19th State of The Union Speech that had to be scrapped. 🙂

And on energy, following last year’s proposal to fight global warming by requiring companies pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases, Democrats concede it is more likely that Congress will approve a scaled-back bill with subsidies and more modest rules.

So the far-left, super oppressive, Cap & Tax will likely be neutered. Just like the Copenhagen Summit went up in a puff of hot air.

Thank you, Massachusetts!!

A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!”
— Thomas Jefferson

Pew Research Institute

Notice where Global Warming fell?  Dead Last!

Immigration (Reform) 4th to last!

Health Care, 8th!

Yep, They got it! 🙂

The administration officials said the part of the budget they have singled out — $447 billion in domestic programs — amounts to a relatively small share, about one-eighth, of the overall federal budget.(NYT)

Gee whiz, that’s just over 1/2 as much as the Stimulus that was supposed to create millions of jobs and save the world! 🙂

“A lot of our caucus won’t like it but I don’t think we have any choice,” said an adviser to Congressional Democratic leaders, who would only speak on condition of anonymity about internal party deliberations. “After Massachusetts and all the polls about independents’ abandoning us for being fiscally irresponsible, we can’t afford to be spending more than Obama.” (NYT)

A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!”
— Thomas Jefferson

On the eve of President Obama’s first State of the Union address, two Democratic congressmen are advising him to extend the Bush tax cuts instead of letting them expire. (IBD)

The EVIL Satan-inspired, Spawn of the Devil Himself ,Greedy- Corporate-America-Give-to-the-Rich-Tax-Cuts?? 🙂

Reps. Bobby Bright, D-Ala., and Mike McMahon, D-N.Y., sent a “Dear Colleague” letter on Thursday asking their fellow congressmen to support extending the Bush tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, at least for two years.

“Allowing these tax rates to expire during this recession runs the risk of curtailing economic expansion just when it begins to pick up and could lead to a ‘double-dip’ recession,” says the letter.

Even Harry “The Tool” Mitchell (D-AZ) agrees (and no one had to tell him how to change his vote this time): “Given the unique economic difficulties we face as a nation, this is the wrong time to raise these taxes. We need to retain these tax cuts that encourage investment that stimulates growth and job creation,” Mitchell wrote.

But after spending literally years bitching about them as the evil incarnate, can they reverse course just to make it look like “they care”.

Of Course they can.

But the mere fact that they propose it is fascinating.

How the world has changed in a week.

The Campaign Marches On

White House officials said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe would be brought on as a political consultant as the White House gears up for the midterm elections.

Plouffe was the campaign manager for Obama’s successful 2008 presidential campaign.

So the Democrats are hunkering down.

The President wants his CAMPAIGN Manager back.

That’s what they learned from Massachusetts.

It’s time for Super Campaign Mode!

Not Governing Mode, Not Leadership Mode, but the ever-present, never-stopped-for-a-minute Campaign Mode!

Any hope for REAL change instead of hardened Ideology are gone.

Not that I believed it could be any other way.

The crew in their now are hardened Ideologues.

And they backed up by the likes, in the Media, of Keith Olbermann (MSNBC), who is so far right he must do everything with his left hand.

Monday, Olbermann described (Scott) Brown as “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”
Tuesday night, Olbermann apologized for the comment — because he didn’t go far enough.
“I’m sorry,” he said. “I left out the word sexist.”
“And if he or you don’t like that characterization, my answer to you is simple: disprove it, because he hasn’t,” Olbermann said.
Keith Olbermann apologized for his comments about Massachusetts Senator-Elect Scott Brown Friday night just one day after being called out by Jon Stewart over the remarks (but not Joe Scarborough on the same network, who described the comment as “reckless.”)
But on Thursday’s “Daily Show,” Stewart described Olbermann’s comments as “the harshest description of anyone I’ve ever heard uttered on MSNBC” and performed an impression of Olbermann’s trademark special comments.

Friday, Olbermann played Stewart’s critique in full, offered himself as a guest for “The Daily Show,” and responded with an apology.

After playing The Daily Show segment in full, Olbermann initially struck back at Stewart: “This from a guy who reached his professional apex when he was the host of Short Attention Span Theater, 1991?” But he then relented: “Nah, you know what, you’re right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.”

Yeah, right Keith. Then he went to rant about how sorry he was in a very partisan manner and kept going.

And some of the liberal comments to this story that was in the Huffington Post were ragging very personally on Jon Stewart!

And MSNBC head Phil Griffin then fired off the memo, denouncing not Olbermann’s remarks, but Scarborough’s (who criticized the comments as “”How reckless and how sad,” Scarborough wrote. “It is no longer enough to simply disagree with someone. These days some feel the need to call opponents evil. It happens on both extremes.”), as “unprofessional.”

So not much has actually changed.

It’s just going to be a new face, and new diversions of attention, on the same old ideology.


It just had a non-fatal Heart Attack on Jan 19th.

WSJ:“People are working harder,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” referring to the economy. “They look at a wave of irresponsibility from Wall Street to Washington that led to that. And those were the frustrations that got the president elected in the first place, and they were reflected again on Tuesday” in Massachusetts.

Not quite the message there, David. But a cute spin.

The re-emergence of Mr. Plouffe on the political stage took some Democratic officials by surprise, though White House officials said he wouldn’t have a title and wouldn’t work from the White House. Mr. Axelrod, in emails to The Wall Street Journal, dismissed as “overblown” the speculation that an enhanced role for Mr. Plouffe was a prelude to a shake-up of the political staff or a change of course by the White House. Although Mr. Plouffe will be consulted on political strategy and communications, “he is not coming into the White House,” Mr. Axelrod said. “He will bring added value and an outside perspective we need.”

The message Mr. Plouffe is bringing was a collaborative effort by him, White House officials and the leadership of the Democratic National Committee. That message is one of no retreat in the face of polling that shows opposition to the president’s push on health and discontent with economic efforts.

Writing in Sunday’s Washington Post, Mr. Plouffe said Democrats needed to quickly pass a broad health overhaul, get serious about job creation even as they tout the impact of last year’s stimulus package, turn up the heat on Republicans over the deficits incurred in the Bush years, and stop grousing about the political climate.

“Instead of fearing what may happen, let’s prove that we have more than just the brains to govern—that we have the guts to govern. Let’s fight like hell,” Mr. Plouffe wrote, striking the same chord Mr. Obama did at a town-hall meeting in Ohio Friday and likely will Wednesday in his first State of the Union address.

On “Meet the Press,” White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said, “What we learned from the Massachusetts victory is that people are sick and tired of Washington not delivering for them.”

Oh, God! More Spending!!!

More Social Programs!

Stimulus II?

Go after  “Greedy” Corporate America and The Banks.

More George W. Bush Bashing!

Saturday, he endorsed legislation in the Senate to create a bipartisan commission to tackle the budget deficit. A vote on creating that commission is scheduled in the Senate for Tuesday; it isn’t expected to pass.

White House officials hope the president’s endorsement of the bill will soften GOP opposition to his plan to create a similar panel by executive order. That commission will need GOP cooperation to fill eight of the 18 seats on the panel with Republicans.

So in hyper-partisan Washington you’re going to create a panel of 10 Democrats and 8 Republicans and expect something meaningful and “bi-Partisan” to come out of it??

Has anyone talked to the Democrats on that one??

After all, many Democrats blame the whole mess on Republicans. And the Republicans blame it on being shut out of the process, which they were.

The dysfunction continues.

While presidents typically experience rough patches, this one is particularly challenging for Mr. Obama. Liberals have grown disenchanted with what they see as his unwillingness to fight harder for their causes; independents have been turned off by his failure, in their view, to change the way Washington works; and Republicans have become implacably hostile.(NYT)

Gallup: The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats’ (88%) and Republicans’ (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

But they still miss the Independents, don’t they. Politics is so polarized that it’s black and white. But Massachusetts was done largely by the Independents.

But I don’t expect any change.

As David Plouffe said in a Washington Post Editorial : We need to lay it out plainly: If you put the GOP back in charge, lobbyists and huge corporate special interests will be back in the driver’s seat. Workers and families will get run over, just like they did in the past decade.

Grandma will be eating dog food. The sky is falling! The Sky is falling!

The Republicans are Evil, We are Good.

The same old fear campaign.

Tedious, but predictable.

Meanwhile, Independents go <<yawn>>

“Change” is not just about policies. In 2006, Democrats promised to drain the swamp and won back Congress largely because the American people soured on corrupt Republican leadership. Many ethics reforms were put in place by the Democrats. But a recent Gallup poll showed that a record 55 percent of Americans think members of Congress have low ethics, up from only 21 percent in 2000. In particular, we have to make sure the freshman and sophomore members of the House who won in part on transparency and reform issues can show they are delivering. The Republicans will suggest they have changed their spots, but the GOP cannot hold a candle to us on reform issues. Let’s make sure we own this space.

So hold on tight, it’s going to be even worse than 2008.

And the lies and distortions and Mainstream media manipulations will be even worse!

Oh Joy!

But the ole’ Gang that brought you the 2008 hyper-partisan super-controlled message is back in town for the sequel.

So, The Times They aren’t a Changin’ 🙂