It must have been because Bush is white.* U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress — 2nd Session As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.47 ) Vote Number: 54 Vote Date: March 16, 2006, 11:17 AM (Senate.gov) *Sheila Jackson Lee logic . HT: Drudge
Continued here:
Flashback: Every Dem Senator Including Obama Voted Against Raising Debt Limit In 2006…
Tim Pawlenty’s speech outlining his economic policy includes a lot to digest and analyze. Considering that he purports to run a truth-telling campaign, however — ” I’m willing to tell Americans the hard truth. And I believe Americans are ready to hear it” — Pawlenty’s claims about growth are a little off-key.
Good job, Obama. You got bin Laden. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. The most unseemly thing about the entire killing of bin Laden is the pathetic scrabbling about for credit that we’re seeing on behalf of both Obama and his staff. From Obama’s statement last night: I directed Leon Panetta… I was briefed… I met repeatedly… I determined… at my direction… I, as Commander-in-Chief, As the Washington Post film critic, Stephen Hunter , writes: Any joy one might feel in the intelligence of our analysts and the bravery of our door kickers was significantly diminished by Obama’s malignant narcissism. The first part of the announcement, evoking 9/11, was vulgarly overwritten as per Obama’s view of himself as some kind of gifted orator. The adjective bloated compote was unworthy of the subject, banal and self-indulgent. Some of this bloviating has resulted in unintentional hilarity. Via Jake Tapper’s Political Punch we get this: Sources tell ABC News that in March President Obama authorized the development of a plan for the U.S. to bomb Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound with two B2 stealth bombers dropping a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) on the compound. But when the president heard the compound would be reduced to rubble he chose not to pursue that option. One has to ask exactly what Obama thought would happen if any structure was hit by “a few dozen 2,000-pound JDAMs”? In case the president has any doubts I’ve provided him with this “greatest hits” reel.
Link:
Obama and Staff Claim For Credit Everything
At some point, one assumes that politicians would remember that everything is recorded these days and that in order to not appear hypocritical, they must address what has been said when it stands starkly against what they are doing. Such is the case with President Obama and the actions in Libya. Like RedState’s own Moe Lane , I too have had a difficult time deciding where I stand on the current action given that the President would need to have outlined an objective of some sort in order for me to know if I’m for or against it. Objectives aside however, there is no doubt what is taking place as a practical matter: We as a nation are now committed to a military course of action against this evil dictator. As a conservative, I’ve always had an immediate dislike of the phrase “War is never the answer.” Sometimes, frankly, war is the only answer given the options that may exist. This is also the case when Democrats make such absolute statements like “we cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war.” In reality, there certainly can be situations where we can and should do just that. Our Commander-In-Chief held a different view not too long ago when the political winds blew in the direction of anti-war. In fact, according to Obama, “ No amount of U.S. soldiers — not 10,000 more, not 20,000 more, not the almost 30,000 more that we now know we are sending– can solve the grievances that lay at the heart of someone else’s civil war.” Interesting how much things change when the responsibility is on your shoulders, isn’t it?
More:
(Video) Obama Was Against Military Intervention Before He Was For It
According to press reports , House Republican Leaders are moving off their line and indicating a willingness to embrace additional non-defense cuts–closing the gap between their $58 billion “annualized” proposal and the $100 billion promised in their Pledge to America. Leadership is now proposing an additional $26 billion in non-defense cuts on top of the $58 billion already contemplated, for a total of $84 billion. But they still need to find an additional $16 billion to comply with the terms of the Pledge. They are not there yet, and conservatives need to be vigilant in holding Leadership accountable. Unfortunately, Leadership continues to count on $16 billion in defense cuts to pad their numbers and claim that their latest proposal complies with the Pledge. The Pledge was very specific that non-defens e spending would be cut $100 billion, and an additional $16 billion should not be that hard to find in the face of a $1.5 trillion deficit. It is also important that these cuts be included in the base bill as it comes to the floor, without leaving their fate to the uncertainty of the amendment process. However, movement is movement, and since it’s in our direction, it deserves a modicum of praise. May tomorrow allow for even more. This isn’t about going an extra mile–it’s about delivering on your promises to the American people.
See the original post:
Movement Towards $100 Billion, But Not There Yet
