Monday, August 15, 2011

Cruising the Web

Wynton Hall at Human Events describes the difficulty that President Obama has in crafting an economic message that is convincing and believable.
Here’s the schizophrenic political message the American people now hear when they listen to Obama speak: Big Government can improve lives and create economic prosperity … except right now, because the economic catastrophe my reckless spending has triggered has left me and my administration impotent and unable to redistribute ever-dwindling wealth. My team of economic advisers has the smartest plans and strategies for creating jobs … except that jobs are nowhere in sight, 16.2% of people can’t find enough work, one in five men doesn’t work, and one in seven now relies on food stamps to put meals on the table.

I am the arbiter of hope and change, and I’m a strong leader who can navigate us through the worst economy since the Great Depression​ … except that, even though my party controls 66% of the government, I still send my advisers out to blame America’s first-ever S&P downgrade on the Tea Party, whose members I believe are crazy and insignificant … except that they are, apparently, smart and significant.
Read the rest. It's going to be a lot harder to convince people that he's the candidate of hope and change when the change they want is from what his policies have created.

And comparing himself to Martin Luther King isn't going to hack it.

Noemie Emery writes how feminists have so elevated the choice of abortion that they have no moral grounds on which to complain that millions of people every year around the world are choosing to abort female fetuses.

Here's yet another example of how government is standing in the way of people making a living: the WSJ describes the situation in Atlanta where the city is moving to end, or at least make it so expensive that people cannot be street vendors.

We're fifty years from the building of the Berlin Wall. George Will revisits the mistakes that John F. Kennedy made in that first year of his presidency that ended up giving Khrushchev the confidence to build the wall in the first place. Such were the results of having an inexperienced president who thought that his charm and charisma would be enough to win over America's strategic opponents. Hmmmm, when has this happened since then?

With Rick Perry in the race to challenge Mitt Romney's frontrunner position, it is time to compare the differences between health care in Texas and Massachusetts.

The Washington Post calls out
the Obama administration's dillydallying on approving the Canada gas pipeline. Here is their recommendation to Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, needs to make a recommendation on building the pipeline.
Here’s what she should say: Even if the U.S. government adopts stringent policies to cut oil use, the United States will be dependent on crude for decades. Oil demand across the world, meanwhile, is rising, which applies upward pressure on prices — and makes it economical to extract oil from Canada’s tar sands. Canada will produce its oil. We will burn a lot of it, no matter what, because there’s still spare capacity in existing U.S.-Canada pipelines. But when Canada produces more oil than it can send south, the Canadians won’t just leave it in the ground; they will ship it elsewhere. And America won’t be kept from importing and refining more low-grade crude oil; the United States will just get it from the Middle East, the Energy Department has concluded.
If we don't allow them to build the pipeline, they'll just end up shipping it to China. Wouldn't we prefer to import from Canada than the Middle East? And wouldn't we like the jobs that the construction of the pipeline would bring the US? So why the delays?

Ed Morrissey reminds us
that he told us so - that the cost of California's high-speed rail was going to be much greater than predicted. And already he's being proven correct.
Building tracks for the first section of California's proposed high-speed rail line will cost $2.9 billion to $6.8 billion more than originally estimated, raising questions about the affordability of the nation's most ambitious rail project at a time when its planning and finances are under fire.
And, as Morrissey tells us, the first stretch of the rail system would connect two locations, Merced and Bakersfield, between which there is no huge demand for transportation.
As a native Californian and a long-time resident of the state (over 30 years), I can confirm that the populations around Merced and Bakersfield would dearly love to go somewhere else … but not switch places. Now it appears that the original, ridiculous estimated cost to connect two points in relative Nowhereland have either doubled or tripled since the Obama administration funded the project.
Remember, this is a major example of how Obama thinks we should fight unemployment - with supposed "green jobs" spending billions on a railroad that no one really wants.

Karl at the Green Room at Hot Air
posits that with Bachmann leading in Iowa, Romney in the lead in New Hampshire, and Perry trending strong in South Carolina, Florida may be the make-or-break state in the GOP nomination battle.

Fred Siegel asks: Who Lost the Middle Class?

German leftists are refusing to observe a minute's silence for those who died trying to breach the Berlin Wall. Their newspaper had a front page article thanking the wall for keeping the peace in Europe. Such is their clouded thinking.

3 comments:

ic said...

Reverend Jesse: I knew Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King was my friend, you ain't no Martin Luther King.

Kurt said...

$6.8 billion for a train between Bakersfield and Merced seems like a really, really, really bad joke for anyone who is familiar with those communities.

equitus said...

Not just any train, Kurt. A super high-speed train! In case you just can't get to Merced fast enough...