Thursday, February 11, 2010

Remember this Promise?

Then today he came out with the following statement:
President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”
His disapproval numbers are already the highest they have ever been for a first year president. The bank taxes he's proposing will be passed on to the consumer, further stalling the economic recovery, and people are going to get more annoyed that he will most likely be raising taxes during his term in office. November of this year will be very interesting, and so far Obama looks like he's setting himself up for disaster in 2012.

I took a news quiz put out by the PEW research people earlier today. I got 10/12, which I guess is pretty good. You can try it by clicking here.

It feels kind of weird that I don't have more comments about politics. It's kind of same ol' same ol' right now. Obama is doing poorly. The economy is rolling along, but growth might have leveled off for a bit. The market seems to be reacting negatively to all of the budget projections and tax talk lately.

Oh, did you hear this one? A priest, a rabbi, and a shaman walk into a bar...and the judge who is deciding the Proposition 8 case is gay. Go here is an article from the San Francisco Chronicle about it. And click here to visit a post from NRO about some of the judges actions. Here is an excerpt from that post:

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors. Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate. Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.
And on and on...

Anyway, I thought those things were worth bringing up.

Hope y'all are doing well.

1 comment:

Karen said...

I'm embarassed, but not surprised, to learn I got only 4/12.

My word verification was myogyno. haha.