The Columbian's hypocrisy on offshore drilling; the will of the people and the massive waste of the bridge/loot rail

Fascinating take on the mind set of the Columbian.

Smitty says...

Curious. You tell us:

"But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people and their elected officials, for the most part, just don’t want it. That there is even any oil to be had off our shores (particularly in the Northwest) is a matter of speculation; solid science points to plentiful supplies elsewhere."

There's nothing any greater about our location than the Gulf Coast or the East Coast; and you fail to provide any proof of your assertion, save your own parochial view. And if you were all that concerned about "solid science," you never would have bought into that global warming nonsense.

There is no reason not to engage in further exploration on THIS coast, either.

And while the last half of your observation is, of course, flat wrong (There is precisely zero reason to allow drilling off the coast of say, Florida, but not off the coast of Washington, for example, except YOU don't want it) the most bizarre aspect of your perspective is this:

"But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people and their elected officials, for the most part, just don’t want it."

What "elected officials" want or don't want, is, of course, completely irrelevant. Again, you have no way of knowing this: there's never been an "elected officials" referendum; and of the "elected officials" on the West Coast, which should have a say? Isn't Obama an "elected official? And it is nice that he's started to adopt yet another Bush policy. Slow, mentally, to adopt a policy he campaigned against but the, Obama's never been big in the truth-telling department; but nice.

But THE most bizarre element of this is your declaration: that: "But we hasten to exclude Pacific Coast states from that sanction for many reasons, starting with the fact that in all three states, the people... for the most part, just don’t want it."

Well, I believe the people "just don't want" a multi-billion dollar waste of a replacement bridge and light rail, either. But I have yet to see your editorial either pointing that out or demanding a county wide vote to prove it.

See, that's one of the humongous problems with your editorials. You typically engage in that situational view where you make unsupported assumptions (You really have no idea what the people want about drilling) and use them to support your agenda, and then fail to demand that which will truly show the will of the people about this horrific waste of money by doing the unheard of thing called "asking us."

Strange, isn't it? Your paper is all about the will of the people when you think it supports your view. But when that will opposes yours?

Not so much.

The Columbian and situational ethics. You get something out of it whether you buy them...

... or not.

It's hard to adequately discribe the Columbian's rank hypocrisy... but let me give it a try.

.
I spit up my coffee all over my keyboard when our grotesque excuse of a paper wrote an editorial demanding that the signatures for those of us wise enough to sign the petition that led to Referendum 71, the homosexual/imposition of institutionalized age discrimination that was defeated in Clark County during the last election; must be made public.

I get that the paper is all about forwarding the homosexual agenda. I get that they rabidly supported this measure, which institutionalized a form of discrimination (age) that was perfectly OK with this rag... and thus, garnered their endorsement.

The problem is this:

The entire issue is based on intimidation.

What our local stain of the science of journalism calls "offensive," particularly in view of this same rag's support of this discriminatory referendum, is a snapshot of the absurdity of their despicable positions generally.

One wonders: if these signatures are released... and someone, anyone, gets hurt because of it... what will they say then?

Have threats been made?

Gee. Let's take a look at a little effort publicized in the Seattle Times, and oh-so-conveniently overlooked by the fringe-left, anonymous whack job that wrote this steaming pile of an editorial:

Originally published June 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM Page modified June 1, 2009 at 2:26
PM

Comments (581) E-mail article Print view Share

Groups to 'out' those who sign petition
against same-sex unions

A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names
of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to
overturn a new expansion of Washington's same-sex partnerships.

By The
Associated Press

Related

• Cheney
  on gay marriage: 'Freedom for everyone'
• Nevada
  lawmakers override veto, permit domestic partnerships

A group called WhoSigned.org says it will publicize the names of people signing petitions for Referendum 71, which seeks a public vote to overturn a new expansion of Washington's same-sex partnerships.

WhoSigned.org says it's partnering with the gay rights group KnowThyNeighbor.org to put the names online.

In a statement Monday, WhoSigned.org says it expects people who see the names
online to contact the signers for what may be uncomfortable talks about gay rights.

Sponsors of Referendum 71 have until July 25 to collect about 121,000 signatures to make the fall ballot. The referendum seeks to overturn the latest expansion of the domestic partner law, which would give partners the same state rights as married couples.

Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company

More Local News headlines...

E-mail article Print view Share

Why I sign a petition is no one's business. Not this web site, not this cancer of a paper, no one's fricking business.

And this garbage pile of a rag, who USED to identify it's editorial writers, has absolutely no right to attack others for seeking to cloak their identity when the history of the Columbian's efforts of heaping abuse on those they disagree with is well known.

If the release of these names causes one drop of blood to be spilled... what then?

If it causes one dime's worth of property damage.... what then?

How much sacrifice and victimization of others is this paper willing to advocate?

Gee. One has to wonder: what would this rag's position be if it were, say, the other way around?

What would this monster in our community say then? Would it be OK to release the signatures for a pro-gay marriage petition? Would they be so quick to cast aside the concerns of THOSE petitioners?

Of course not.

Situational ethics that leads to this kind of hypocrisy is this rag's hallmark.

It's much the same as their bridger/looter perspective where THEY want to force US (as in, someone else) to pay BILLIONS for THEIR bridge/loot rail system that we do not want and do not need. The similarity?

It's easy to advocate a position.... when someone else is going to bear the costs.
.

MORE hypocrisy by the Columbian? When the "will of the people" matters.

.
One of the biggest problems I've got (and there are many) with our local excuse for journalism is their situational ethics.

They wrongly proclaim they're mainstream, with no leftist bent, yet in the last partisan elections, they endorsed democrats and democrats only fr any open seat, from the president on down to the local level.

That, of course, is their privilege. But when they do endorse, they are much less likely to hold those they endorse up to anything approaching the same standard as those they oppose... the largest local examples being that of their glowing endorsement of the empty suited, anti-American racist bigot they wanted to win the presidency and their efforts to rehab the image of the Cowardman, our local congressman who faked a death threat to avoid facing his constituents over the empty suit's socialization health care programs.

He has done a spectacularly abysmal job in every area. He's piled lie upon lie, exaggeration upon exaggeration. But when it comes to those righteous editorials slamming that moron, what do we get?

Nothing but crickets chirping.

So, today's effort, as innocuous as it is, gave yet another glimpse of this left wing rag's double standard. Here's the money quote:

In listening to the will of the public, and in supporting the construction and maintenance of trails, local governments show their commitment to recreation and public health

Which, of course, brings us to the crux of the matter:

WHY is the so-called "will of the people" so damned important when this stain on journalism supports what the perceive to be that will, but not nearly so important when this despicable rag fears the probable outcome?

And there's the rub. The stinking, rank hypocrisy of the positions of this waste of wood pulp is but one of the many reasons why they're circling the drain.

IF "The will of the people" is important on an issue like "trails," THEN IT'S IMPORTANT ON ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING ELSE.... LIKE $4 BILLION BRIDGES AND LOOT RAIL THAT WE NEITHER NEED.... OR WANT.

I've been waiting, with growing impatience, for this despicable crap pile to demand that the will of the people be sought in a county wide vote before we waste another dime on studies with pre-ordained outcomes that have vaporized $100,000,000.

This isn't the only instance this garbage heap has talked about the "will of the people" when it suits them. Now, if they'd only apply the SAME standard to this horrific waste of billions of dollars that THEY want, but that THEY won't have to pay for, why, I'd be EVER so grateful.
.

There are hypocrites in politics... then there is Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

.
My phone has been ringing off the hook from contacts around the area telling me about yet ANOTHER session of Tim "The Liar" Leavitt acting both up to the standard of his nickname AND whining and snivelling like a little punk on the playground that just discovered recess is over.

So, when a bud of mine (Carl) told me that he'd come up with a copy of the tree edition of the Columbian (since the idiots running their show decided that Leavitt's temper tantrum weren't worthy of putting up on the web) we met for coffee and he forked it over.

Reading this has convinced me that The Liar is the biggest idiot in the history of local politics, bar none.

And it takes some doing to rise up to the top of THAT heap.

The headline? "Leavitt alleges partisan politics."

This from a totally rank hypocrite who is doing nothing BUT reminding voters in the 49th that he's a Republican?

So, this whiny little worm gets Rossi to, in effect, RE-endorse him, because Rossi already had, even though this slimeball had endorsed arguably the worst president in the last century, including that other White House embarrassment, one Jimmy Carter; when The Liar endorsed Obama.

There is just something Twilight Zonish when a political moron claims "partisan tactics" on the part of his opponent at the SAME time he's shilling the endorsement of arguably THE highest profile unelected partisan politician in the state.

How can one adequately label that variety of hypocrisy? How can one find the brush to describe such a moronic play?

As for Rossi, he showed his true colors the better part of 2 years ago... and most likely lost the election... when he stupidly endorsed the idea of spending $150 MILLION in taxpayer dollars to keep that basketball team up in Seattle. That Rossi has an "R" after his name is as distasteful as Don Carlson or Sam Reed having one there as well.

This is the last weekend in this election. I don't know how Leavitt could possible get more stupid than this, as he reminds the heavily democrat voters of Vancouver that he is, in fact, primarily masquerading as a Republican.

But I have no doubt that The Liar will find a way.
.

So, what do you suppose finally caused that empty-suited moron in the White House to honor our dead?

.
I can't really formulate the outrage and disgust I have towards the scumbag we, to our ever-lasting agony, elected as President of the United States.

This slimeball didn't care about the troops before he was elected; shown he didn't give a damn about them when he BECAME president, starting with the day he was inaugurated when he blew off the Medal of Honor Ball; and later, becoming the first president in over 50 years to insult them that way; through his moronic effort to get veterans to pay for their own post-combat, post-enlistment war wounds by requiring the wounded to both get, and be covered by and cared for by private insurers; and now, where this scumbag is using coffins for a political backdrop to FINALLY get around to showing how much he "cares."

Not enough to miss his golf games or Wednesday White House parties every week, you understand; or to send the needed troops to Afghanistan... but enough to do his widely-publicized non-press opportunity yesterday morning in Dover.

I have a son who is, unfortunately, doing everything he can to enlist into the Marine Corps. I don't want him anywhere NEAR the military as long as the ACORN in Chief is running the show, because anyone who could use coffins for campaign props makes me sick.

If MY son gets killed over there, Mr. President, I don't want to hear from you; I don't want to see you; I don't want a letter or phone call from you. I will not want anything at all to do with you since his blood would be on your incompetent, clueless hands.

Mr. President, you've had ample opportunity to prove both your worth as our Commander and, in fact, that you actually give a damn.

And you've blown it.

If my kid gets hurt or killed fighting for YOU... stay away from him. And stay away from us, you despicable cretin.

A blog I follow states it much better than I ever could:

My own words cannot express

My words cannot express here how I feel about the administration's use of bodies returning to Dover as a photo op. Blackfive asks some poignant questions that I doubt will be answered by this administration. (Until the book deals.)

I won't republish these photos, because I am not a journalist. I have a personal code of honor that will not tolerate even one single visit by someone searching for pictures of wounded or the bodies of our dead.

I cannot express here the rage that I feel when I look at these pictures. It's too coincidental--an administration that is taking weeks to consider urgent requests, losing points daily in public opinion, foreign policy and approval polls, now arrives at Dover AFB to pay respects to the return of our heroes. In an administration whose Chief of Staff once said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." I wonder what opportunity they are seeking here?

I don't recall the administration making any effort to visit Dover before, so why now? Why haven't the heroes returned been important enough until now? The time of the President is incredibly valuable. He is an incredibly busy person. His day is managed by the minute. Its because of the value of his time that I wonder whether the actions of the administration were altruistic or if there is an ulterior motive.

I always felt the policy of allowing photographers at Dover was ill-advised, because it would eventually lead to one side or the other using the photos for political statements. I just never thought it would be the President to do it first.

I recall my visit with President Bush when I was in the hospital. No reporters, no journalists, no cameras. Just me, the Mrs, Mom, the CiC, and the White house photographer. The pictures he took were sent to me later--signed. I asked why no reporter--his reply: "Because this visit isn't about me, or anyone else but you. I want to thank you for your sacrifice, and that's all." Sure, it'd be a great photo op (see Carren's piece about John McCain.) President Bush realized that there was more honor in a private ceremony than there ever could be in a public one.

Much, much more.
.

So... who's laundering money into Tim "The Liar" Leavitt's campaign?

.
You've got to wonder where the money is coming from for Tim "The Liar" Leavitt.

$35,000 has been laundered so far. The questions are: Who? How? Why? and for What?

I'm still working on I'Ding the source of the New York money. Rumor has it that the cash from New York City will be matched by somewhere through Georgia.

Who's behind that money? Why would Leavitt not condemn it? Why wouldn't he shut it off? Why wouldn't he go to the source and demand that the money be returned so he couldn't benefit from it... and that the canvessers that HE unleashed and then lied about when it came to them working for Pollard, be defunded?

Why would east coast money be piling up for The Liar?

I mean, after all, according to The Liar, he can shut off independent expenditure with a snap of the fingers... SO WHY DOESN'T LEAVITT TURN HIS OFF?

Simple. Because he's a rank, slimy, hypocrite.

Unfortunately for this community, he's surrounded himself with slimy hypocrites, Like Steve "Put the cash in a plain paper bag, Mr. Barnett" Stuart, and we're all made to suffer for it.

With his lies about tolls on the I-5 bridge replacement/loot rail scam and his newly hatched "tax everyone instead of tolls" plan, combined with his playground campaign lies and character assassination of his opponent and the fact that this slimy worm didn't bother to vote, time after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time, after time... and he has proven himself unfit to hold ANY elective office.
.

Do you HAVE to be a liar to be a leftist?

.
I get that self-delusion is the key-element of becoming and continuing on as a leftist. After all, it has genuinely required an astounding ability to lie both outwardly and inwardly, to believe the moveon.org pap getting spewed today.

We're all already aware of the ACORN-in-Chief's massive and multiple lies... everything from There Won't Be ANY Place For Lobbyists In My Administration to Passing The Stimulus Will Put An 8 Percent Unemployment Celling In Place.

Now, democrat and other leftist scum lost their collective minds when Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) rightfully and accurately called out that the Empty Suit was lying about providing illegal aliens free medical care.

Oh, the howling for blood... the screams of outrage.

Yet, many of these same scum had called Bush a liar... in many cases, repeatedly.... and that was OK?

What's that, you say? None of them ever did that while Bush was speaking in the House?

Besides the obvious response; mainly, that WHERE you publicly call the president a liar is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, democrats REPEATEDLY, PUBLICLY AND LOUDLY called President Bush a liar in an effort to undermine his Administration.

NOW we get leftists with selective memories and a bent for revisionist history who claim that democrats have NOT called Bush a liar.

To point out even a few of the times where such a claim is, well, an outright lie is the political equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.... but here's a few:

June 2, 2005 interview with Rolling Stone – Harry Reid – Q: “You’ve called Bush a loser.” Reid: “And a liar.” Q: “You’ve apologized for the loser comment.” Reid: “But never for the liar, have I.”

November 18, 2005: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy: Bush and Cheney “have begun a new
campaign of distortion and manipulation.” The two men could not find weapons of mass destruction and “they can’t find the truth either.”

Al Gore: “A systematic effort to manipulate the facts.”

Sen. John Edwards: “myths perpetrated by the Bush administration” and “certainly the integrity and character of the President of the United States is at issue, no question.”

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: “war based on falsehood” and “White House deception”

Former Pres. Jimmy Carter speaking at the DNC Convention: “we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.”

Al Sharpton: “He lied in Florida. He’s lied several times. I believe he lied in Iraq.”

Sen. Joe Biden: “By misrepresenting the facts, misunderstanding Iraq and misleading on this war…”

Rep. John Conyers: “cook the intelligence”

Rep. Maxine Waters: “The President is a liar. Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Big Lie, is not only a liar, he is a thief.”

Rep. Edward Markey: “We know that the Bush administration deliberately misled the American public about nuclear weapons in Iraq, about Al Qaeda in Iraq…”

There is so much more especially if you count the comments made by Liberal political pundits and official DNC spokesmen.

Besides the obvious irony of a COMPLETE scumbag like Edwards calling ANYONE a liar about ANYTHING, that leftist scum would deny doing the same... and much, much worse to Bush NOW brings up the obvious question:

Are their collective panties in a bunch because of what he said, which was completely accurate; or where he said it?

Well, it CAN'T be the "where" of it.



Where is THIS scumbag giving his speech accusing President Bush of lying?

Could it be... the SAME floor of the SAME House?

Of course it could.

No... the issue is the rank, reeking hypocrisy of the left.

Wilson has garnered both nation-wide attention AND support. Finding a plain spoken, courageous congressman is a rare commodity.... particularly when compared to the cowardly slimeball representing US.
.

Brian Baird: Coward (XIX) The Columbian blasts the GOP, hoping to change the subject.

.
Would you believe it?

Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee (aka The RNC) sent out a partisan fund-raising letter, apparently entitled "2009 Future of America Health Survey."

The most stunning thing of all? That letter was "blatantly lopsided!"

Kinda like the rag's efforts to rehab Baird's sucky image.

Leftists sent out fund-raising letters that stopped just short of calling for Bush's assassination, blaming him for every ill known to man.

And this despicable waste of pulp writes an article mouthing the words of someone (who, in fact, is no one in particular, certainly no more worthy of having their political views published as if they have some meaning other than the typically anti-GOP bent of this stain on journalism, then, say, a street panhandler on a freeway off ramp.) upset by a highly and deliberately partisan fund raising letter.

But the rank hypocrisy of this article? Right here:

It's standard practice to use such faux "surveys" to raise money for a variety of causes, said Portland pollster Mike Riley. "It's common, trying to stir the pot to see what kinds of issues get attention."

If this is the case (and, of course, it is) then why was this anti-GOP diatribe worth printing?

And why did this SAME despicable waste of pulp use faux "surveys" to shill its completely bogus polls on replacing the I-5 Bridge to get loot rail in here?

And why haven't they published legitimate, scientific polls to find out what WE want when it comes to that?

They have done polls. They just haven't wanted to publish the findings because, well, how would it look to print something proving that the people want nothing to do with this rag's positions?

You can certainly bet that the polling they've done SHOWS that overwhelming opposition, or else these scum would print it every day, front page, above the fold.

Yet this massive pile of crap prints an article like this?

So tell us: why are you trying to change the subject?
.

So, Russell has made it official... sorta.

As I mentioned before, political mercenary Jon Russell has announced for Congress against Baird.

Readers of my blog know that I'm not particularly fond of Brian Baird. He's taken votes that suck... he's voted "yes" on bills he hasn't read... he's had a major "back scratching" problem with earmarks... he's been far too cowardly in his handling of the Barnett/Paskenta/Mohergan/Cowlitz organized crime venture known as the megacasino... and he's lacked the courage of his convictions when it comes to his frequent articles in the Columbian about how he wants to change the rules and give everyone 3 days to read any bill before a vote is taken... only to conveniently forget about that every time issues inside that window come up.

That said...

I would volunteer my time, effort and money to re-elect Baird over Russell any time.

Russell spews pap like this:

“I represent a new generation of reformers who are fed up with career politicians in Congress because they suffer from a lack of vision and the will to do the right thing for the people,” he said in the release. “Restoring trust in government can only happen when we send people to Congress who recognize their place in history and serve a short time and then return to their careers outside of government.”

Sounds beautiful, doesn't it? You can almost hear the hearts and flowers and violin music playing as he says it.

And none of it is true.

What Russell represents is a new generation of political mercenaries where principle has no place at the table.

Oddly, in Russell's case and in the article below, he mentions something called "deputy campaign manager" for some guy in Indiana; his "former" involvement with Faith and Freedom, and a bogus shell company he set up with an impressive name: "Columbia Gorge Medical Center."

He left out his failed time at HROC, his disastrous spell as a Legislative Assistant in Olympia, and the fact that he ran the worst campaign in local elective history when he ran the Port of Vancouver's major effort to jack our taxes up through the roof.

Odd, isn't it? Russell lacked the "vision" to understand that he was profiting off an effort to nail us with a massive tax increase, yet he claims that HE has the "vision and the will to do the right thing for people?"

There's only one word for that:

Hypocrite.

Washougal Man Plans Congressional Run
Friday, June 26, 2009 10:48 PM PDT

A Washougal city councilman is the latest Republican to announce his intentions to run against incumbent Democrat Brian Baird in the 2010 3rd Congressional District race.

Jon Russell, the 33-year-old co-owner of the Columbia Gorge Medical Center, announced his candidacy in an e-mailed press release Friday. Russell has a degree in political science and was the deputy campaign manager for U.S. Rep. John Hostettler of Indiana’s 8th Congressional District.

He’s the former director of the Faith and Freedom Foundation

“I represent a new generation of reformers who are fed up with career politicians in Congress because they suffer from a lack of vision and the will to do the right thing for the people,” he said in the release. “Restoring trust in government can only happen when we send people to Congress who recognize their place in history and serve a short time and then return to their careers outside of government.”

More:
.

More hypocrisy from our local newspaper: The Columbian - In our view, May 21: Discrimination Fades

.
So, those who don't want to vote on this referendum don't have to. But to insult and silence those who might not agree? The frequent bigotry of gay marriage supporters cannot be denied.

"What is needed now is a truce — temporary, perhaps, but better if extended — between the two opposing factions that are at war over the word "marriage."

What a bizarre perspective.

One of the major problems (of the many) with editorialists on this paper is an inability to be forthright.

This paper wants a "truce" because gay-marriage proponents have gained 99 percent of what they want, and this paper does not want the Prop 8 scenario to play out here, since they rabidly support gay marriage as much as they rabidly support the I-5 bridge replacement/loot rail debacle.

For those who demand gay marriage, just like for those who oppose it, there can be no such thing as a "truce..." Advocating that those opposed to this development remains silent, particularly when this "truce" would represent a victory for the side this paper represents and a crushing defeat for the side this paper loathes, is an underhanded way to demand that the anti-side just accept it.

Gay marriage has NEVER been voted into place by the people. As a result, this sorry effort just serves as yet another in the series of Columbian hypocrisies, where in they're all ABOUT the "will of the people" when it suits them or they want it, but are violently opposed to that same will if there is a risk where, as is typically the case, the people ignore the collective "wisdom" of this newspaper and go in another direction.

Once again, they PICK the issues where they fear our will... and make every effort to tell us that what WE want doesn't matter... when they don't happen to like what that might be.

Instead of saying "truce," this paper should have just come out and said something to the effect of "OK, we've got most of what we want, now... so it's time for those opposing this to shut the hell up, and end any effort to find out if the PEOPLE want this."

This is the rank hypocrisy of this publication that keeps me from buying it. This is the double-standard that is editorial policy by social engineers who think we're too stupid to think for ourselves.

Yup. These morons are ALL about getting our "will" when and WHERE they want it. But when we MIGHT oppose them?

They don't want to hear it where it counts... at the ballot box.

No "truce" (which this despicable waste of pulp uses as a euphemism for demanding acceptance of what THEY want) is in the offing. And one can bet that had this bill died in the legislature, you can damned well bet that these morons wouldn't be asking for a "truce" THEN, would they?





In our view, May 21: Discrimination Fades
Governor signs bill that expands rights of domestic partnerships; it’s time for a truce
Thursday, May 21 1:00 a.m.

When discrimination dies, it doesn't always go quickly or quietly. Sometimes, prejudice passes incrementally. Although a judicial ruling might serve the same purpose of kicking down a door, the legislative process often unfolds in stages.

One of those seemingly small but profound steps occurred Monday when Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a bill that grants domestic partners all of the rights and privileges enjoyed by married couples. The measure often has been called the "everything but marriage" bill. We'll get to the semantics debate a little later.

First, though, we'll point out that the bill is significant because it accords long-overdue equal rights to more than 5,300 domestic partnerships that have been registered in two years. Domestic partnerships of gay or lesbian couples were recognized by the Legislature in 2007. The law also allows unmarried, senior heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners. That's more than 10,000 people, representing all 39 counties, who have gained virtually all of the rights of married spouses. As Gregoire said at the bill signing, those rights "will make for stronger families, and when we have stronger families, we have a stronger Washington state."

Among the latest rights granted to domestic partnerships are those related to sick leave to care for a domestic partner, unemployment and disability insurance benefits, business succession rights, adoption and child custody. In recent years, rights were accorded relative to hospital visitation rights, beneficiaries, the right to refuse to testify against each other in court and public assistance provisions.

What is needed now is a truce — temporary, perhaps, but better if extended — between the two opposing factions that are at war over the word "marriage." The day might come when that word applies to gays and lesbians. But it's not here yet, and for now, the best strategy is for everyone to calm down, recognize marriages and domestic partnerships as they are recognized by law, and save the semantics war for another day.

More, if you can stomach this rank hypocrisy.

100 Days, 100 Mistakes

.
100 Days, 100 Mistakes

Last updated: 4:44 amApril 26, 2009 Posted: 12:38 pmApril 25, 2009

1. "Obama criticized pork barrel spending in the form of 'earmarks,' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts the spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still members of Congress. 'Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,' Obama said." -- McClatchy, 3/11

2. "There is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments." -- Obama during the campaign.

3. This year's budget deficit: $1.5 trillion.

4. Asks his Cabinet to cut costs in their departments by $100 million -- a whopping .0027%!

5. "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties." -- ABC News, 4/15

6. "Mr. Obama is an accomplished orator but is becoming known in America as the 'teleprompt president' over his reliance on the machine when he gives a speech." -- Sky News, 3/18

7. In early February, the 2010 census was moved out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House, politicizing how federal aid is distributed and electoral districts are drawn.

8. Obama taps Nancy Killefer for a new administration job, First Chief Performance Officer -- to police government spending. But it surfaces that Killefer had performance issues of her own -- a tax lien was slapped on her DC home in 2005 for failure to pay unemployment compensation tax on household help. She withdrew.

9. Turkey tried to block the appointment of Anders Fogh Rasmussen as new NATO secretary general because he didn't properly punish the Danish cartoonist who caricatured Mohammed. France's Nicolas Sarkozy and Germany's Angela Merkel were outraged; Obama said he supported Turkey's induction into the European Union.

10. . . . and he never mentioned the Armenian genocide.

11. The picture of Obama and Hugo Chavez shaking hands.

12. Hugo Chavez gave him the anti-American screed "The Open Veins of Latin America." Obama didn't remark upon it. At least it wasn't DVDs.

13. Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega went on a 50-minute anti-American rant, calling Obama "president of an empire." Obama didn't leave the room. "I thought it was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought," he said.

14. Executives at AIG get $165 million in bonuses, despite receiving an $173 billion taxpayer bailout.

15. "For months, the Obama administration and members of Congress have known that insurance giant AIG was getting ready to pay huge bonuses while living off government bailouts. It wasn't until the money was flowing and news was trickling out to the public that official Washington rose up in anger and vowed to yank the money back." -- Associated Press, 3/18

16. "After pushing Congress for weeks to hurry up and pass the massive $787 billion stimulus bill, President Obama promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway." -- New York Post, 2/15

17. SARAH PALIN ON: "I WON" AND THE DEATH OF BIPARTISANSHIP

"Obama soared to victory on the hopeful promise of a new era of bipartisanship. During his inaugural address he even promised an 'end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.'

"Too bad it took all of three days for the promise to ring hollow.

"Start with Obama's big meeting with top congressional leaders on his signature legislation -- the stimulus -- on the Friday after his inauguration. Listening to Republican concerns about overspending was a nice gesture -- until he shut down any hopes of real dialogue by crassly telling Republican leaders: 'I won.' Even the White House's leaking of the comment was a slap at the Republican leadership, who'd expected Obama to adhere to the custom of keeping private meetings with congressional leadership, well, private.

"It's only gone downhill from there. The stimulus included zero Republican recommendations, and failed to get a single House Republican vote.

"It's not just the tactic of using Republicans for bipartisan photo-ops, and then cutting them loose before partisan decisions, that irks Obama's opponents. The new president wasted no time rushing forward with policies and legislation guaranteed to drive Republicans nuts. The first bill he signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- a partisan hot-button that drew all of eight Republican supporters in the entire Congress. Then there was the swift reversal of Bush policies on abortion and embryonic-stem-cell research -- issues dear to the Republican base.

"And when Obama and the Democrats in Congress took up SCHIP -- the children's health-insurance bill that Republicans say vastly expands government's role in health care -- they had an easy chance for real bipartisanship. After all, the bill had been hashed out in the previous Congress, and a bipartisan accord was reached before President Bush responded with a veto. Did the Obama team push for the compromise version in the 111th Congress? Nope. They went back to the drawing board, ramming through the Democrats' dream version.

"Of course, the lack of bipartisanship isn't limited to Capitol Hill. Obama has taken gratuitous swipes at the Republicans who recently decamped Washington, blaming President Bush for everything from the economy and the war to the lack of sufficient puppies and rainbows. And who could forget the Rush Limbaugh flap -- in which Obama's top advisers, including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, orchestrated a public relations campaign meant to undermine the Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele, by framing talk-radio personality Limbaugh as the real head of the Republican Party.

"For now, Obama's back-pedal on the bipartisanship promise just makes him look insincere. But the real consequences of the mistake will be felt soon enough. As Presidents Bush and Clinton could tell him, congressional majorities do change -- and at some point, Obama will need Republicans on his side. He'd be smart to spend his second 100 days making up for the serious snubs of his first."

-- Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska

18. "The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." -- Department of Homeland Security intelligence report

19. Nixes a "buy American" provision in the stimulus bill.

20. "Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there." -- Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The 9/11 hijackers did not come across the Canada border

21. "The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system. The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as 'the largest middle-class tax increase in history.' " -- New York Times, 3/14

22. JOE SCARBOROUGH ON: PROMOTING FEAR

"During his historic inaugural speech, Barack Obama promised to usher in a transformational age where hope would replace fear, unity would overtake partisanship, and change would sweep aside the status quo. But early in President Obama's first 100 days it is obvious that the only thing that is changing is the Candidate of Change, himself.

"The same politician who proclaimed during his inauguration that 'on this day we have chosen hope over fear' soon warned Americans that the US economy would be forever destroyed if the stimulus bill was voted down.

"Why was it that same man who promised to put Americans' interests ahead of his own political ambitions chose instead to use the suffering of citizens to advance his agenda?

"Maybe he was following the guidance of Rahm Emanuel, who famously said, 'You never want to waste a good crisis.'

"They didn't.

"The White House's warnings were so over-the-top that Bill Clinton felt compelled to warn the new president against making such grim pronouncements. Americans would quickly warn that the White House would not channel FDR's eternal optimism but rather embrace the gloomy worldview of Edgar Allen Poe.

"The Candidate of Hope also quickly adopted the Nixonian worldview that Americans voted their fears rather than their hopes. Over Mr. Obama's first 100 days, that cynical calculation paid off politically for a White House that seemed most interested in appeasing the most liberal members of his Democratic Party.

"I expected more from Barack Obama. For the sake of my country, I hope I get it from the new president over the next 100 days."

-- Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and author of "The Last Best Hope: Restoring Conservatism and America's Promise" (Crown Forum), due out June 9.

23. Sanjay Gupta was in discussions to become Surgeon General, but the TV personality withdrew after he was criticized for his flimsy political record.

24. Rasmussen finds 58% of Americans believe the Obama administration's release of CIA memos endangers the national security of the United States.

25. Only 28% think the Obama administration should do any further investigating of how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects.

26. "Obama thanked CIA employees for their work and said they're invaluable to national security. He explained his decision to release the memos, then told everyone not to feel bad because he was now acknowledging potential mistakes. Theirs, not his. 'That's how we learn,' Obama said, as though soothing a room full of fourth-graders." -- The Oklahoman, 4/23

27. By releasing the torture memos, Obama opened American citizens up to international tribunals. A UN lawyer said the US is obliged to prosecute lawyers who drafted the memos or else violate the Geneva Conventions.

28. In their first meeting, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a carved ornamental penholder from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet. Obama gave him 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe.

29. TIM CARNEY ON: PICKING BILL RICHARDSON AS SECRETARY OF COMMERCE

"Richardson's value in Obama's Cabinet had everything to do with appearances. First, he was the Hispanic pick. Second, because Richardson had run against Obama for President, tapping him for the Cabinet helped the media write the Obama-Lincoln comparisons by burnishing the 'Team of Rivals' image.

"But Richardson withdrew before Obama was even inaugurated when news came out about a criminal investigation involving David Rubin, president of a firm named Chambers, Dunhill, Rubin & Co. (although there was no Chambers or Dunhill), who had donated at least $110,000 to Richardson's campaign committees and had also profited from $1.5 million in contracts from the state government.

"This was an early warning sign about Obama's vetting process (various tax problems and the Daschle problem would reveal this as a theme), but picking Richardson to run Commerce also highlighted that Obama and Richardson's promise of 'public-private partnerships' -- such as Detroit bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, and green energy--was an open door for corruption and was at odds with Obama's promise to diminish the influence of lobbyists.

"The Richardson mistake was one of Obama's first, and it was emblematic. Richardson embodied Obama's attention to self-image and the problems inherent in his vision of an intimate business-government connection."

-- Tim Carney is a Washington Examiner columnist

30. Timothy Geithner nomination as Secretary of Treasury was almost torpedoed when it was discovered he had failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes. He also employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper. He was confirmed anyway.

31. . . . Not so lucky, Annette Nazareth, who was nominated for Deputy Treasury Secretary. She withdrew her name for undisclosed "personal reasons" after a monthlong probe into her taxes . . .
32. . . . or Caroline Atkinson, who withdrew as nominee for Undersecretary of International Affairs in Treasury Department, with a source blaming the long vetting process. Geithner still has a skeleton crew at Treasury, with no one qualified -- or willing -- to take jobs there.

33. "Barack Obama has been embroiled in a cronyism row after reports that he intends to make Louis Susman, one of his biggest fundraisers, the new US ambassador in London. The selection of Mr. Susman, a lawyer and banker from the president's hometown of Chicago, rather than an experienced diplomat, raises new questions about Mr Obama's commitment to the special relationship with Britain." -- Telegraph, 2/22

34. Obama's doom-and-gloom comments and budget bill push the Dow below 7,000, from which it's only recently recovered.

35. "You're sitting here. And you're -- you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money--' How do you deal with -- I mean: Explain. Are you punch-drunk?" -- Steve Kroft, "60 Minutes," 3/22

36. "We have begun to modernize 75% of all federal building space, which has the potential to reduce long-term energy costs by billions of dollars on behalf of taxpayers. We are providing grants to states to help weatherize hundreds of thousands of homes, which will save the families that benefit about $350 each year. That's like a $350 tax cut." -- Obama, describing something that doesn't cut taxes.

37. "The Obama administration has directed defense officials to sign a pledge stating they will not share 2010 budget data with individuals outside the federal government." -- Defense News, 2/19

38. Backtracking on a campaign promise he made to black farmers, Obama significantly lowered the amount of money they could claim in a discrimination settlement against the Agricultural Department. "I can't figure out for the life of me why the president wouldn't want to implement a bill that he fought for as a US senator," said John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association.

39. "I've been practicing bowling. I bowled a 129. It was like the Special Olympics or something." -- Obama on "The Tonight Show"

40. Obama lifts travel and remittance restrictions on Cuba.

41. Obama considers dropping the embargo on Cuba.

42. After warming signs from Raul Castro, Fidel Castro says Obama "misinterpreted" his brother's words, and that Cuba would not be willing to negotiate about human rights.

43. Obama is considering dropping a key demand to Iran, allowing it to keep nuclear facilities open during negotiations.

44. In a letter to Dmitri Medvedev, Obama offered to drop plans for a missile shield in Europe in exchange for Russia's help in resolving the nuclear weapons issue in Iran.

45. Medvedev said he would not "haggle" on Iran and the missile shield.

46. Obama asked Congress for an extra $83.4 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a special funding measure of the kind he opposed while in the senate. As a candidate, Obama promised to cut the cost of military operations.

47. After trying to woo Europe as the "anti-Bush," Obama made an impassioned plea for more troops in Afghanistan. "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone," he said. "This is a joint problem it requires a joint effort." Only the UK offered substantial help, most others refused.

48. "While the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008." -- Washington Post, 3/27

49. Obama bows to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London.

50. "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." -- An Obama aide

51. DANA PERINO ON: REMAINING IN CAMPAIGN MODE

"Has it really only been 100 days? In many ways it feels like a lot longer.

"That's partly because the new administration remains in campaign mode most of the time. Now that's not in itself a bad thing if you can do that and accomplish your agenda. But what's happened is that a popular new president has laid out a very bold agenda in the midst of an economic crisis, and I don't think Congress is going to get a lot of work done on those big ticket items this year. They'll eke out a couple of small wins on issues like healthcare and maybe energy, but the Democrats will hail them as big victories. The Republicans have been working like a cohesive and loyal opposition party, and they need to continue to outline positive new ideas like the recent one to help grow American's savings.

"The early stumbles on the administration's high profile nominations -- Daschle and Richardson for just to examples -- acted like weights around their ankles. In addition, the partisan shots from the White House were unbecoming and I don't think we'll see more of that. Our allies and our enemies -- heck, even we ourselves -- are trying to understand the new foreign policy direction, which in some ways seems to be change just for the sake of change. The next moves by the leaders of other countries -- like Iran, North Korea and Venezuela -- probably will prove that really not much will change just because America has a new president.

"In many ways, it's the next 100 days that will tell us more about our new president and what he'll be able to accomplish than we can forecast based on the first 100 days."

-- Dana Perino was White House press secretary in the Bush Administration

52. "We can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary." -- Obama, describing the stimulus bill

53. Three candidates for ambassador to the Vatican -- including Caroline Kennedy -- were turned down by the Holy See because they supported abortion, according to reports.

54. After saying he wouldn't have lobbyists in his administration, Obama made 17 exceptions in the first two weeks in office.

55. . . . including Tom Daschle, who worked as a top lobbyist yet was going to be appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services -- until his failure to pay income taxes derailed his nomination.

56. For an April 14 speech at Georgetown, the administration asked the university to cover up all signs and symbols -- including the letters "IHS" in gold, a symbol for Jesus.

57. Samantha Power, who resigned from the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Rodham Clinton a "monster," was hired to a position on the National Security Council.

58. "Chicago has yet to recoup the $1.74 million cost of President Obama's victory celebration in Grant Park -- despite a burgeoning $50.5 million budget shortfall that threatens more layoffs and union concessions." -- Chicago Sun-Times, 2/20

59. Firing Rick Wagoner as president of GM.

60. Threatening to fire Vikram Pandit as CEO of Citigroup.

61. Threatening to fire anyone the administration doesn't like from any company.

62. Not adopting a dog from a shelter.

63. "The GAO study asserts that officials from most of the states surveyed 'expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff -- limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.' " -- ABC News, 4/23

64. "The National Newspaper Publishers Association named Obama 'Newsmaker of the Year.' The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon. The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press." -- Los Angeles Times, 3/20

65. "Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards." -- Attorney General Eric Holder

66. "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances." -- Obama, on consulting with only "living" presidents

67. Obama quietly announced that he would not press for new labor and environmental regulations in the North American Free Trade Agreement, going back on a campaign promise.

68. NICOLE GELINAS ON: MISSPENT STIMULUS

"One of Obama's most poignant missed opportunities was in not using the historic $787 million stimulus package to reorder state and local government's spending priorities. As states and cities continue to spend ceaselessly and without results on education and healthcare, they're crowding out investments in the physical infrastructure that the private sector needs to rebuild the economy.

"In the stimulus, of the more than $200 billion that went directly to states and cities, nearly 70% went to education and healthcare spending. Only 24% went to infrastructure spending.

"But the states and cities in the most trouble already spend way too much on education and healthcare, pushing taxes up and sending private industry away. They don't spend nearly enough on infrastructure, which attracts the private sector and builds the real economy.

"As David Walker, former comptroller general of the US, said at the Regional Plan Association's annual meeting a week ago, nationwide, we are the 'highest in the world' on education. We are 'the highest in the world' on healthcare. 'Nobody comes even close.' On infrastructure, by contrast, we are 'below average' in both critical new investments and in much-needed maintenance spending.

"And, as Democratic governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell said at the same conference, when President Dwight Eisenhower left office, infrastructure spending was about 12.5% of non-military domestic spending. Today, it's about 2.5%.

"This shortfall is obvious to anyone who's ridden on an "express train" to the outer boroughs or driven on the Cross Bronx Expressway recently. But in New York, as elsewhere, the stimulus money has just allowed the state to ramp up spending on its wasteful, inhumane Medicaid program and its nosebleed public-school spending.

"Meanwhile, the subways are about to crumble into oblivion -- taking the economy with them. The same is true of decaying infrastructure in California and in aging states across the nation.

"The stimulus was a once-in-a-generation chance to change this. Instead, it made the situation worse."

-- Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to City Journal

69. "The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Michigan v. Jackson, the 1986 Supreme Court decision that held that if police may not interrogate a defendant after the right to counsel has attached, if the defendant has a lawyer or has requested a lawyer. This isn't the first time the Justice Department, under President Obama, has sought to limit defendants' rights." -- TalkLeft blog

70. "By any measure, my administration has inherited a fiscal disaster." -- Obama

71. "Ahh, see. I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here." -- Brushing off questions from the White House press corps

72. On Earth Day, Obama took two flights on Air Force One and four on Marine One to get to Iowa, burning more than 9,000 gallons of fuel.

73. "President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care." -- Fox News, 3/17

74. "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." -- Obama during his first State Of The Union address. A German invented the automobile

75. RALPH PETERS ON: FUMBLING IN AFGHANISTAN, FAKING IT IN PAKISTAN

"We're squandering blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Instead of concentrating fiercely on the vital task of destroying al Qaeda and its friends, the Obama administration's determined to erect a modern nation where no nation exists. Afghanistan isn't a country. It's a dysfunctional reservation inhabited by tribes that hate each other. There's no 'Afghan' identity. And even if our blind-to-reality efforts succeeded perfectly, the result would be meaningless.

"Except as a target range where we can gun down terrorists, Afghanistan doesn't matter. Next door, Pakistan matters immensely. But we don't know what to do about it. With 170 million anti-American Muslims descending into chaos as Pashtuns, Baluchis, Punjabis, Sindhis and others claw each other over the country's shabby remains, Pakistan's corrupt president shrugs, its military cowers, its loathsome intelligence services collude with Islamist extremists, and the safety of its nuclear weapons grows doubtful.

"Pakistan may be this generation's chamber of horrors.

"The Obama administration's response? Drill more wells in the Afghan countryside. Dramatically reinforce our troops in Afghanistan, sticking them with an impossible mission of modernizing a pre-medieval landscape while exposing them at the end of an insecure 1,500-mile supply line through, of all places, Pakistan.

"As for Pakistan itself, the Obama administration wants to send billions of dollars to a thieving government that makes Nigeria's look like a Quaker meeting and to hand Pakistan's military more arms -- weapons that might soon be used against us.

"Pakistan was a bad idea when it was created in 1947. It's a worse one now. Afghanistan wasn't even an idea, just an accident of where other borders ended. We can't 'save' either one -- because neither wants to be saved on our terms.

"Obama said the right things -- that Afghanistan isn't Iraq and that our goal should be the destruction of al Qaeda. But his policies just regurgitate our Iraq strategy (one he opposed) in a profoundly different context, while ambitious generals echo Vietnam-era calls for more forces.
"Our troops will do whatever we ask, to the best of their magnificent abilities. But we should ask them to do things that make sense. We need creative strategic thought, but we're succumbing to sheer inertia. And the president's supporters who howled that we should abandon Iraq to concentrate on their candidate's 'good war' don't seem to be volunteering to do any fighting. Meanwhile, our president's trapped himself inside his own campaign promiseing, Vietnam!"

-- Ralph Peters is the author of "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Ben World"

77. "President Obama failed to consult Congress, as promised, before carving out exceptions to the omnibus spending bill he signed into law -- breaking his own signing-statement rules two days after issuing them -- and raised questions among lawmakers and committees who say the president's objections are unclear at best and a power grab at worst." -- Washington Times, 3/24

78. Adolfo Carrion was confirmed as Director of White House Office of Urban Affairs, but is serving under a cloud after allegations that he accepted thousands of dollars in cash from developers whose projects he approved.

79. KYLE SMITH ON: GOING AFTER RUSH LIMBAUGH

"Every so often an unfocused athlete forgets about the field of play and climbs into the stands. Ty Cobb did it. Ron Artest did it. Maybe no one did it with more sick flir than the greasy, furious Hanson Brothers who, in 'Slap Shot,' climbed into the stands to give a beatdown to a fan.

"In March, Barack Obama sent his own personal Hanson Brothers, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and spokesman Robert Gibbs, out to attack a non-politician -- Rush Limbaugh -- who was sitting innocently in the stands jeering the action. Limbaugh didn't even throw a cup of beer.

"Senior White House staffers, who have already fallen into the classic trap of paying more attention to polls than fixing the country's problems, had become obsessed with surveys showing that Limbaugh was an unpopular figure with swing voters. Pretty soon Emanuel and Gibbs developed Limbaugh Tourette's. To paraphrase Joe Biden's witty putdown of Rudy Giuliani, for a few days every sentence they uttered contained three things: a subject, a verb and Rush Limbaugh.

"El Rushbo, chuckling over his cigar as his ratings skyrocketed, could not have been more pleased if a picture had emerged of Obama wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt and burning the American flag on Harvard Square. Even that portion of the public that doesn't like Rush squirmed at the embarrassing spectacle of the president's men going all Mean Girls on an entertainer. George W. Bush's spokesmen maintained a dignified silence about Michael Moore. Picture them fanning out over the Sunday talk shows to denounce, and drive up the box-office receipts of, 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' Wouldn't you have loved that, Michael?"

-- Kyle Smith is a Post columnist

80. Forced banks that didn't want TARP money to take it, then added on stipulations about pay and government control after the fact. Secretly forced Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch, then allowed the bank to be criticized for overpaying.

81. "More than 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States," Obama said in Mexico, yet factcheck.org says, "The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. We can find no hard data on the total number of guns actually 'recovered in Mexico,' but US and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns that it submits for tracing. Therefore, the percentage of guns 'recovered' and traced to US sources necessarily is less than 90%."

82. Obama: "[Jim Owens, the CEO of Caterpillar, Inc.], said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off." Jim Owens: "I think realistically no. The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again."

83. "In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." -- Obama in Strasbourg, France

84. Joe Biden: "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, if we stand up there and we really make the tough decisions, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong."

85. Joe Biden: "You all worked for change. You wanted to see change. Well, that wasn't a hard thing to try to communicate to the American people. Obviously, obviously, we needed a change almost no matter who was running."

86. Joe Biden: "You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number? I should have it in front of me and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed."

87. "There are more than 6.5 million trucks in the United States. The program Congress terminated allowed 97 Mexican trucks to roam among them. Ninety-seven! Shutting them out not only undermines NAFTA. It caused Mexico to retaliate with tariffs on 90 goods affecting $2.4 billion in U.S. trade coming out of 40 states." -- Charles Krauthammer, 3/20

88. DAVID M. DRUCKER ON: BOWING TO CONGRESS

"Although the president possesses enormous political capital -- both because of high approval ratings and because his administration is still in its infancy -- he has generally declined to exercise it with Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, including when it comes to crafting legislation key to moving his agenda forward.

"Rather he has allowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) to craft legislation as they see fit -- even though the very bills in question were proposed by the president and involve key planks in his agenda. Among them were Obama's signature $787 billion economic stimulus bill, his first major piece of legislation that was signed into law in February; and now health care reform, currently being negotiated on Capitol Hill with minimal input from the White House.

"This soft-pedal style of leadership runs the risk of forcing Obama to embrace legislation constructed for narrow partisan interests rather than in a manner capable of garnering broad bipartisan support. Over time, the public might come to see Obama's deference to Pelosi and Reid as a weakness of leadership not befitting a president in tough times."

-- David M. Drucker is a staff writer for Roll Call

89. "It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census, there are irresolvable conflicts for me." -- Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who became the second failed Commerce Secretary nominee

90. In the third sentence of his first speech as president, Obama said, "44 Americans have now taken the presidential oath." The correct number is 43, as Grover Cleveland served twice.

91. The $49 million inauguration -- triple what taxpayers spent at Bush's first inauguration.

92. Giving the Queen of England an iPod full of his own speeches.

93. Three prime-time briefings in his first 100 days, eating into television revenues and this Wednesday pre-empting "American Idol."

94. "The United States government has no interest in running GM. Your [GM] warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it's ever been, because starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warranty." -- Obama

95. GM is given $15.4 billion in loans from the government.

96. The Obama Administration is trying to scuttle a lawsuit filed in federal court against Iran by former US embassy hostages. The lawsuit alleges that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers who interrogated the captives.

97. GLENN BECK ON: BAD ECONOMIC PREDICTIONS

"Ten days before his inauguration, the President's chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Rohmer, released a report describing what to expect economically during the first 100 days and beyond. It presented two starkly different scenarios: one good (if the stimulus were to be passed), and one terrifyingly bad (if we did nothing). Amazingly, the report estimated that if the stimulus package were to pass, the unemployment rate would not go above 8% at any time until at least 2014.

"It's already at 8.5%.

"In fact, while there is an acknowledged level of uncertainty, the projections estimated that the unemployment rate would be lower today if we had done nothing at all. This suggests one of two things: either the administration misjudged the seriousness of our economic problems, or the stimulus plan is actually making things worse. I suspect it's a little of both.

"Remember, when the President's budget was released, he was roundly criticized for his never ending deficits, even under his own optimistic scenarios for growth. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected deficits that were even uglier. But, if the President and his economic planners were this far off, this soon, how much worse does the future look now?

"The election was supposed to bring 'change,' but I was hoping for more than the letter after the President's name, the positivity of the media coverage, and the hypoallergenic qualities of the White House puppy. President Obama didn't get us into this situation, but so far he's doubling down on the same spending philosophy that did. Common sense tells us that new debt is not the cure for old debt. No matter what the slogans say, that won't change in 100 days or 100 years."

-- Glenn Beck is the host of the "Glenn Beck" show, weekdays at 5 p.m. on Fox News.

98. "Education Secretary Arne Duncan has decided not to admit any new students to the D.C. voucher program, which allows low-income children to attend private schools ... For all the talk about putting children first, it's clear that the special interests that have long opposed vouchers are getting their way." -- Washington Post, 4/11

99. Obama enrolled his daughters in a DC private school.

100. "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother." -- Obama to Rep. Peter DeFazio, after the Democratic congressman voted against the stimulus bill.

The whining leftists: it's perfectly OK for them to trash Bush... but THEIR guy? Not so much.

.
No one can snivel like a leftist.

Today's particular example if Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist David Horsey of Seattle PI fame.

Horsey spent eight of the last eight years beating George Bush like a rented mule. He drew cartoons so dispicable, so hypocritical and so completely false as to be absurd. His columns typically stopped just short of calling for Bush or Cheney's assassination, but he typically strained at the bit.

Now, like the rest of the leftist media, he has a vested interest in his socialist choice for president, and will do everything he can to help him achieve the patena of success.

And by "everything," I mean lie (if not actively, then by ommission) mislead and engage in efforts like his column, below, written as if he had been hired by the White Houe already.

Addressing some excerpts:

"When I see people at anti-tax rallies carrying signs equating the duly-elected president of the United States with Adoph[sic] Hitler or calling him a "Kenyan" who stole the government from real Americans, it makes me suspect the protests spring, not from reasoned analysis, but from blind paranoid anger."

Yet, his cartoons and columns during the Bush Administration fostered this very attitude, an attitude leftists expressed repeatedly... without similar concern from him.

Run a Google search that simply says "Hitler Bush" and 1,280,000 hits come up.

You see, the problem here is that his fake concerns, expressed here when the messiah is in office... compared to his silence on that very subject to the point of crickets chirping during the last Administration, is the basis for what appears to me to be the left's rank hypocrisy.

The rhetoric on the right may all be for show or to "energize the base" or vent feelings of frustration in the wake of a bad election loss. But how long can we sustain this level of vitriol in our civic discourse before someone with a deep grudge and a loose purchase on reality feels justified in picking up a gun to save America from some imagined, high level treachery? Is that too paranoid on my part? Do the Oklahoma City bombers have no kindred spirits? Were the knuckleheaded neo-Nazi kids who got caught before they attacked an Obama campaign event utterly unique? I doubt it

Again, his deep-felt concern for these issues was totally absent during the last Administration in any written or drawn word I could find. His OWN PERSONAL LEFTIST rhetoric was clearly designed to do that which he seems to be complaining about now.

How come it was perfectly OK for him and his ilk to engage in this nonsense over most of the last decade when the president was his opponent and he strived so hard to support our enemies... but now that the shoe's on the other foot, it's so problematic for him now?

"The one indisputable fact is that Barack Obama was freely elected by a majority of the people. He and his advisors[sic] are making a sincere attempt to save our capitalist system using methods that make sense to a lot of mainstream economists. Obama and company could be wrong, but they are not evil."

Besides his obvious, factual inaccuracy (Obama was, in fact, elected by a majority of the VOTERS, not "the people," meaning he actually received the vote of about 1/5th of "the people") I really can't seem to recall him expressing similar concerns for Bush.

I know... I know... it's DIFFERENT when it's your guy. He's going to be a total hypocrite with a stake in having his guy achieve success, even if he has to lie, or confuse, or treat him differently in any way to get it. I'm sure HIS leg was "tingling" the entire time he wrote this tripe. After all, why be fair when you can be biased?

So, replace "Obama," with "Bush," and what have you got?

The one indisputable fact is that George Bush was freely elected by a majority of the people. He and his advisors[sic] are making a sincere attempt to save our country using methods that make sense to a lot of military experts. Bush and company could be wrong, but they are not evil.

And see, this is the crux of the matter.

Besides the fact that a lot of mainstream economists also OPPPOSE this clown's destruction of our future with the multi-trillion dollar debt he's run up at light speed since he took office, (A debt that the CBO has told us was not necessary) a debt that threatens the existence of the capitalist system he's extolling here; he's screwed up our foreign policy (Man, the Russians, Iranians and the NorKs are falling all over themselves to do his bidding.) He's helped reduce the number of inmates in our jails by hiring them for his Cabinet; he's tried to get veterans to pay for our OWN healthcare, even when the basis for that care is sustaining wounds in battle; he's hired a clueless moron as HSC Secretary; he's lied about hiring lobbyists for HIS Administration... WE are suffering in the midst of a terrible recession, but that doesn't seem to interfere with the weekly White House parties.

He moronically requires a Catholic school to cover up their religious symbols during his speech; his lackeys claimed he wasn't even aware of the tea parties (you know, people exercising THEIR right to protest? People that leftist scum repeatedly and despicably refer to as "teabaggers" (I'm sorry, did I miss your column decrying THAT sort of abuse? Didn't think so.)) He's illegally used soldiers in uniform as campaign props; he got, essentially, NOTHING from Europe in the G20 to help us out in Afghanistan; he's lied about cap and trade; lied about how much he's going to cut the deficit; lied about ear marks; lied about bankruptcy resulting from health care costs; lied about our oil imports; lied about the AIG bonuses, all the while expressing your fake outrage that such a thing could happen; he's wasted billions for failed car manufacturers to keep his union buddies happy; he forced a vote on a the stimulus, all in the name of transparency, you understand, WITHOUT EVEN ALLOWING ANYONE TO READ THE WHOLE BILL, while HE had worked overtime to talk down the economy.

He's burying us in debt... a debt that will not be paid for generations, if at all; and he's setting us up for hyperinflation by printing enough money to paper the moon.

His first 100 days has been a nightmare.

But I've missed his columns and drawings treating Obama the same way he treated Bush. And not one drawing from him taking him to task for any of this?

Now, if you'll just point me in the right direction so I can look them over?

Meanwhile, he should spare us his "I'm trying to get the White House Communications Director" job type columns, written in support of this idiot, since even SHE has been smart enough to dump this clown.

He has not displayed even a pretense of fairness over the last Administration, so being a leg-humper for this one avails him nothing.

At the end of the day, Horsey and his ilk achieved success by the very tactics he's now complaining about when they're aimed at his guy. And that's just additional rank hypocrisy on his part... that mutes his impact in this time of leftist hyper-partisanship.

Fellow Americans are not the enemy

As Rodney King so famously asked, "Can't we all just get along?"

Last week, I wrote a column and drew a cartoon commenting on the anti-tax tea party protests that were whipped up all over the country. I took a bit of a jaundiced view, questioning the logic of the protesters and the credibility of some of the commentators like Sean Hannity who become cheerleaders for the event. Among the many people who responded to my comments was John Carlson, the well-known conservative talk radio host and one-time Republican nominee for governor of Washington. Carlson wrote:

Here is what I think your blog and cartoon missed about the Tea Parties. I went to the one in Redmond to talk to the demonstrators. I saw hundreds of people waving signs and American flags, who work hard, who play by the rules, and who are saying, "ENOUGH". The spending, the deficits, the debt that were already bad under George Bush are all getting worse today. Why are they getting worse? Because of pork barrel spending and bailouts of people and politically connected companies that made bad choices. The people at the Tea Parties don't want a bailout, and they don't want their taxes going up to bail out other people's bad behavior, either. Half the people I talked to had never been to a protest before. That's important. These tea parties might be the beginning of something that changes American politics like the tax revolts of the late 70's. You made fun of them too, at the time. Remember?

John Carslon and I have been acquainted for a long time. We like each other and respect each other, even though we are often on different sides of the issues. I appreciated hearing from him and getting his critique. It was a little different from the message sent by some other folks. A reader who saw the same commentary on the San Francisco Chronicle's web site, SFGate, proposed organizing an advertising boycott of the Chronicle...

More:

The democrat double standard: Carville wanted Bush to fail.

.
I'll admit it. I join with Rush in hoping beyond hope that Obama's efforts to institute socialism fail... and fail miserably.

The hue and cry... the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Rush's remarks... and Rahm the Slam's amateurish efforts to capitalize on those remarks all cover up the fact of the matter.

And that fact is this:

For almost the entirety of his Administration, democrats hoped and prayed that Mr. Bush would fail.

Starting with Clinton communications guru James Carville, who, moments before he heard news of the terrorist attacks on September 11, told a group of reporters "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

This stands as the rank hypocrisy of the left... a senior Clintonista hoping that Bush would fail, whose remarks were buried at his request by an overtly leftist media... and this nonsensical double standard and effort by the fringe leftists that Obama has surrounded himself with to find a straw man they can beat the hell out of in the midst of their rampant insecurity.

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail

The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.

By Bill Sammon

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

in order to recommend a story, you must login or register.

176 Comments Add Comment

ShareThis

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"

The press followed Carville's orders, never reporting his or Greenberg's desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party's top strategists, that Bush should fail.

More: