And now it begins....

[Cail]

No. Senator Obama signed off on the first bunch of bailouts. President Obama has signed off on the next round. Both bunches of bailouts were tendered to their respective Presidents by Democratic Congresses.

Obama inherited nothing from Bush, he inherited it from a Democratic Congress which he was a part of.

Edit- The "nothing" I'm referring to is strictly bailout-related.

[Cail]

More Obama lies....

As a spending bill loaded with pork makes its way through Congress, President Obama is getting pushback from members of his own party who are questioning his vow to end wasteful spending.

The president on Wednesday pledged turn tide on an "era of fiscal irresponsibility," reiterating his campaign promise that the days of "pork ... as a strategy" are over.

And in a prime-time address before a joint session of Congress, Obama last week praised the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law, telling the nation, "I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities."

But some in the audience found that hard to swallow.

"There was just a roar of laughter -- because there were earmarks," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri.

Earmarks, sometimes called "pork," are unrelated pet projects that members of Congress insert in spending bills.

The scoffing continues as the president hammers away at reducing wasteful spending and saving taxpayers money while lawmakers on Capitol Hill load up a spending bill with more than 8,000 earmarks totaling nearly $8 billion.

The legislation in question is a $410 billion omnibus bill that would keep the federal government running through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends in September 2009.

According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that monitors government spending, the bill includes:

# Nearly $1.8 million for pig odor research in Iowa

# $950,000 for a convention center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

# $143,000 for a natural history museum in Las Vegas

# $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii

About 60 percent of the earmarks are from Democrats, and about 40 percent are from Republicans, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Ryan Alexander, the president of the Taxpayers for Common Sense, pointed out that not all earmarks are bad.

"They're not always good or bad. What's bad is the process. We don't know why certain projects get earmark funds and why other projects don't. Some of them may be good. But that could be just as well by accident as it is by design, because we have no idea why these projects are funded and why other projects aren't," he said.

Earlier this week, 14 Democratic senators met to talk about their concerns with the spending. On Wednesday, Democratic Sens. Evan Bayh and Russ Feingold called on Obama to veto the bill.

"But the bloated omnibus requires sacrifice from no one, least of all the government. It only exacerbates the problem and hastens the day of reckoning," Bayh wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial published Wednesday.

Democrats blocked amendments by Sens. John McCain, R-Arizona, and Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, that would have narrowed the spending on earmarks.

"So much for the promise of change. This may be -- in all the years I have been coming to this floor to complain about the earmark pork barrel corruption that this system has bred, this may be probably the worst, probably the worst," McCain said Tuesday.

The spending bill made it through the House last week. A vote in the Senate could come as early as Thursday, but it's unclear if there are the 60 votes necessary to sent it to the floor since some Democrats aren't supporting it.

Obama is expected to sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

But Democrats speaking out against the pork could just be flexing their muscles, said CNN contributor Roland Martin.

"I would love to see these same Democrats have the courage to actually stand up, look their fellow senators in the eye, Democrats and Republicans, and say, OK, let's get rid of your particular project," he said.

"What often happens in Congress is, they complain in terms of the general ... What I am saying is, call them out. Put it on the table," he said.

Those defending the earmarks say they make up just a small portion -- less than 1 percent -- of the overall bill.

The White House says this bill is just last year's unfinished business -- and next time, it will be different.

"We'll change the rules going forward," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday when asked about the legislation.

Obama presented his budget summary to Congress last week, but the full details of his 2010 budget won't be available until April.

[Vain]

He's the Liar in Chief ain't he?

[Cail]

He is really not starting well. 2012 can't come soon enough if things are going to stay like this.

[kevinswatch]

All of the earmarks do personally piss me off. It's already making me regret voting for him.-jay

[Zarathustra]

He only broke his campaign promise of "no earmarks" 9000 times. Let's cut him some slack and see if he'll remember his promise next year.

[Cybrweez]

Yea jay, give him more time. You didn't know he signed those b/c it was Bush's fault?

[Cail]

All of the earmarks do personally piss me off. It's already making me regret voting for him.-jay

OK, I realize this might look like shameless butt-kissing, but Jay just earned my first and only "goodpost". Obama said "no earmarks", and , "I'm going to go through the budget line by line to remove pork". He did exactly the opposite of what he said he was going to do.

Jay, I truly respect and appreciate your honesty.

[Zarathustra]

I'm glad we've finally got a president who will restore our prestige with our allies. First, he secretly bargains with Russia to take down the missile shield which protects our European allies, then he snubs the British Prime Minister. To top it off, the PM gave Obama a pen made from timbers of an anti-slavery ship (which was also made into a desk for the Oval Office), among other thoughtful gifts. What did Obama give the PM? A box set of DVDs. Yes, that's right--PM gives Obama a priceless piece of history, while Obama offers up gifts you can get at Walmart. From the world's richest country.

I'm glad he's taking such care to restore our national prestige.

[Avatar]

--A

[Vain]

Apparently he's in over his head....

Great news: Obama fumbled Brown visit because he’s in over his head.

After insulting Gordon Brown during the British prime minister’s visit this week by ignoring protocol and cheaping out on the traditional gift exchange, the UK media has erupted in outrage. The Obama White House has now started to recognize the firestorm the new President created with our closest ally, and wants to assure the Brits that he meant no disrespect. Instead, Obama apparently wants to assure them that he’s simply in over his head and floundering (via Radio Equalizer):


Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.
British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister. …
Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president’s surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.
A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”. …
The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed.

There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.
“That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they’re finding it a hard thing to do everything.”

I’m not sure which is worse. At least if he meant to snub Brown, it would suggest a certain competence at this brand of diplomacy. Instead, we’re told that the Obama White House and their staff are just a bunch of incompetents who got in over their heads.
Which is, of course, the point we made continuously over the last two years

hotair.com/archives/2009/03/07/great-news-obama-fumbled-brown-visit-because-hes-in-over-his-head/[/b]

[Zarathustra]

Apparently he's in over his head....

Great news: Obama fumbled Brown visit because he’s in over his head.

After insulting Gordon Brown during the British prime minister’s visit this week by ignoring protocol and cheaping out on the traditional gift exchange, the UK media has erupted in outrage. The Obama White House has now started to recognize the firestorm the new President created with our closest ally, and wants to assure the Brits that he meant no disrespect. Instead, Obama apparently wants to assure them that he’s simply in over his head and floundering (via Radio Equalizer):


Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.
British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister. …
Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president’s surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk.
A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”. …
The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed.

There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.
“That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they’re finding it a hard thing to do everything.”

I’m not sure which is worse. At least if he meant to snub Brown, it would suggest a certain competence at this brand of diplomacy. Instead, we’re told that the Obama White House and their staff are just a bunch of incompetents who got in over their heads.
Which is, of course, the point we made continuously over the last two years

hotair.com/archives/2009/03/07/great-news-obama-fumbled-brown-visit-because-hes-in-over-his-head/[/b]

That's what happens when you hire someone for president who needs to use "community organizer" to pad his resume because he has no executive experience.

[Cail]

I'd like to see some sort of substantiation to those quotes, having come from a less-than-objective source.

But if what it says is true......Whooooo boy, there's going to be a lot of I-told-you-sos going around.

[Zarathustra]

Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.

You know, watching Obama, and noting how he needs a teleprompter just to introduce another (tax-evading) cabinet member--I can't help but to wonder how many times Bush was sleepy when he misspoke in public. I understand. I HAVE to get 8-9 hours of sleep or I'm worthless. Hell, I just woke up from a nap. And I'm sure that being attacked on our own soil, watching the twin towers fall, may have "overwhelmed" a new president, too. If only the Dems had been a little easier on Bush, I may have actually felt inclined to cut Obama some slack. This is probably an uncomfortable bed they have made for themselves.

[Vain]

I'd like to see some sort of substantiation to those quotes, having come from a less-than-objective source.

But if what it says is true......Whooooo boy, there's going to be a lot of I-told-you-sos going around.

This is the Telegraph article

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nort ... Brown.html

[Cail]

Jesus Christ.....This is not something I wanted to be right about.

[Vraith]

The snootiness of status/precedent between and among national leaders has always driven me nuts. Shake hands, pull up a couple chairs and get busy. The rest of it is just stupidity and posturing.
As for being overwhelmed: I've yet to see any president of either party that faced tough decisions [and even those who didn't face many] that wasn't visibly aged by the office. Or had basically meaningless snafu situations like this one. Or had people who are close to people who are close to the president [supposedly] being critical [like those people don't have agendas of their own]. Gossip and snark. I'd honestly be a lot more concerned if he seemed well rested.

[Zarathustra]

The idea that one of our youngest presidents in history, who is physically active, in shape, and doesn't go to work as early as your typical businessman (or as early as Bush did) is somehow not able to do his job because he is tired is ludicrous. It's BS.

I think he intentionally wanted to snub one of our chief allies, in order to show our enemies that we've now got an administration who is willing to "feel their pain," to quote another great Democrat. And sure enough, Obama was willing to bargain away the missile defense shield which protects our allies in order to curry favor with Russia, he's willing to have "unconditional" talks with Iran, and now he's wanting to sit down with the Taliban. It was a coordinated, premeditated, liberal approach to foreign policy, not sleep deprivation.

From the Telegraph column:

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

It was sheer arrogance and indifference, not sleepiness.

[Avatar]

I think he intentionally wanted to snub one of our chief allies, in order to show our enemies that we've now got an administration who is willing to "feel their pain," to quote another great Democrat. And sure enough, Obama was willing to bargain away the missile defense shield which protects our allies in order to curry favor with Russia, he's willing to have "unconditional" talks with Iran, and now he's wanting to sit down with the Taliban. It was a coordinated, premeditated, liberal approach to foreign policy, not sleep deprivation.

Interesting idea. I can see the reasoning behind it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for talks with Iran and even the Taliban, but I think snubbing Britain is not going to achieve the goal (if it is the goal) of making enemies think the US is OK. Arrogant and misguided.

--A

[Vraith]

They're our friends. Maybe our oldest friends, why does there need to be a bunch of pompous mutual puffery and worry about social faux pas?

I tell you one thing though...I bet that "just another country" person got fired or seriously demoted.