Obama Would ‘Rather Be Really Good One-Term President’ Tells ABC

“I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak,”

President Obama, buffeted by criticism of his massive health care reform bill and election setbacks, said today he remained determined to tackle health care and other big problems despite the political dangers to his presidency.

The president tells Diane Sawyer about his first term and poll numbers. “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” he told ABC’s “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview today….

…”I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak,” he replied.

Read the rest at ABC News.

In a two party system, the “other guys” are the only choice when the public wants a change. Obama (and the Democrats) misinterpreted their election as a mandate to advance their left wing agenda.

The message from Massachusetts was loud and clear. Being an independent lot, Americans want jobs rather than nanny state health care. They want to take care of themselves, not green socialism at the expense of the economy.

Perhaps the “ONE” has taken his repudiation in Massachusetts to heart. While his fall from grace is no doubt painful, it forces him to listen to what Americans really want.

It remains to be seen if Obama will simply shift his rhetoric and continue on a collision course with a growing number of Americans that prefer substance over style, or get off the perpetual campaign trail and get to work. Americans want a President that takes responsibility, governs from the middle and gets things done.

If that happens he could be a really good one term President and that would be good for all of us.

Blame George Bush Mantra at Obama/Coakley Rally

“If you think there’s magic out there and things can be turned around overnight, then you would vote for someone who could promise you that”

In retrospect that sounds like advice we could have applied to Barack Obama last November, but those are the words of Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I) as applied to Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for the Senate seat in Massachusets left vacant by the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Kennedy uttered those words after a rally for Martha Coakley, who has been floundering in the polls as the special election approaches next Tuesday January 19th.

Just to show how desperate the Democrats are, President Obama came to the rally to campaign for Coakley despite the fact that if she loses it makes the election a referendum about him, not just a race for a Senate seat.

Kennedy went on to blame George Bush and then said this.

“One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven’t kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We’ve tried too hard to do that right thing, and that’s to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place.”

This is funny because a year after taking office, President Obama still publicly blames George Bush. It used to be that the buck stops with the President. Until Obama was elected, it was considered inappropriate and un-Presidential to blame your predecessor. In actuality, it still is. There is plenty of blame to go around for both parties so people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and in this case, the White House is a glass house.

Republican Scott Brown is leading in the polls and peaking at just the right time. It would be a delicious catastrophe for the Democrats to lose the Kennedy seat, and yes it would be a referendum on Obama, even if he didn’t come.

Read the rest at Hotline On Call.

Obama’s First Test, Will He Stand Up To Gays?

Does President Elect Obama have the mettle to make a decision and stick with it?

Obama has chosen Rick Warren, the senior pastor of Saddleback Church in southern California to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. 

Obama’s choice has ignited a rash of criticism from gays who are seeking to oust Warren from the ceremony because of his support for Proposition 8 in California.

If Obama caves into their demands, it will be difficult to imagine him advocating for America  against global competitors or enemies. This is not a litmus test on gay rights as the homosexual community would have you believe, but a test of Obama’s character. Any decision he makes as President will anger someone, and we are watching to see if he has the courage of his convictions.

OPEC, and The US Government; Parasites Die When They Kill Their Host.

Get out your tiny violins for the oil speculators and OPEC countries as the price of oil has more than halved from last summer. They are having an emergency.

VIENNA (Reuters) – An emergency OPEC meeting on Friday reached swift agreement to chop production by 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) as a first step toward halting a deep oil price slide.

International benchmark U.S. crude has slumped by well over 50 percent from a record high of $147.27 hit in July. On Friday, it fell again to just over $63 a barrel.

The price of gas last summer took so much money out of the American economy it triggered the global financial crisis. OPEC is trying to cut production to stabilize prices.

“The decision was straightforward,” Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said after the meeting.

“OPEC will do whatever is necessary to balance oil markets.”

Before the roughly two hours of talks, which ended just before noon, ministers had been in broad agreement about the need to reduce production, but had disagreed over the extent of any cut.

They said they had to balance their own needs with those of a flailing world economy.

“Any cut should not affect the global (financial) market,” said Kuwaiti Oil Minister Mohammed al-Olaim, adding the reduction would be “a wise cut.” source

When a parasite kills the host, the parasite dies too. They have wounded the beast they live on and are trying to stay alive without killing it.

Barack Obama should be paying attention. History has shown that tax reductions have increased the flow to the US Treasury , and increases have the opposite effect.

People with money spend it, or invest it. That creates jobs. If it is taken away, they will do less of both.

When Obama raises taxes next year, will it kill the already injured host?

There’s still time, vote no on Obama.

Say Goodbye To All Of Obama’s Campaign Promises

The past ten days has radically shifted the entire course of the Presidential campaigns… but seemingly not in the way that most people have caught on to yet.

From Firedoglake

I can’t think of any way to sugar coat this, I’m afraid. It’s a bad bill and it isn’t just that Barack Obama voted for it, it’s that everything I’m hearing from the Hill says that he’s been actively whipping it, not just in the Senate but in the House. Barack didn’t hold his nose and vote for this, he made it his bill as much as it is Paulson’s.

With this bill go your chances of having, say, universal health care, or massive infrastructure development, or really getting the US of its dependence on foreign oil, or really rebuilding America’s school system—or whatever other big, expensive project you thought Obama was promising….

….And it’s Barack Obama who turned to Nancy Pelosi and Reid and said “this bill must pass”. It’s Obama who is whipping votes and bending arms for this despite the fact that it is massively unpopular. This is Obama’s bill.

….That’s Obama’s first real act as the presumptive President and as the Democratic party’s de-facto leader.

I both agree and disagree with this article.

While I do agree that the bill as passed is less than great, I disagree with the author’s reasoning behind why the bill is so bad. As I have said before, the bill is a necessary evil and is better than not acting at all, but the bill as it was passed was terrible because of all the pork.

I do agree with the author that all of the projects that Obama has promised are dead in the water now.

Obama’s proposed projects would cost the United States $1.2 trillion… and he just signed on to a bill that eats about $815 billion out of the budget. It will be virtually impossible to add anything else of any size to the budget, even for the god-like Barack Obama.

It’s no wonder that Obama is getting really vague about what he is actually still going to accomplish… especially during the debates

LEHRER: All right. All right, speaking of things that both of you want, another lead question, and it has to do with the rescue — the financial rescue thing that we started — started asking about.

And what — and the first answer is to you, Senator Obama. As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it’s going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?

OBAMA: Well, there are a range of things that are probably going to have to be delayed. We don’t yet know what our tax revenues are going to be. The economy is slowing down, so it’s hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year.

But there’s no doubt that we’re not going to be able to do everything that I think needs to be done.

Lehrer went on to press Obama even further and Obama got even more avoidant. The sidestepping during the debate was really interesting to watch though.

With those few deft phrases, Obama has basically absolved himself of actually having to deliver on any promises what-so-ever if he becomes President.

As the author from Firedoglake said… say good by to “universal health care, or massive infrastructure development, or really getting the US of its dependence on foreign oil, or really rebuilding America’s school system—or whatever other big, expensive project you thought Obama was promising.”

The fact is that, because of the price tag of the bailout bill, Obama cannot fulfill a single promise he has made and has as much as admitted it.

John McCain on the other hand can still deliver on his promises. He wants to cut spending and increase oversight to stimulate the economy, increase job creation and keep industry honest and on track.

And, so I will leave you with this…

Knowing all of the above… what is your answer to Bill Clinton’s question now?

For example, you’re a voter, and you have Candidate X and Candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything. But you don’t think that person can deliver on anything. Candidate Y disagrees with you on half the issues, but you believe that, on the other half, the candidate will be able to deliver. For whom will you vote?