Tingle Matthews: Obama’s Rating Could Fall To 20s

The twitching, tingling Chris Matthews has looked up from his Obama reverie … finally found some “sense,” in his change purse of awe for the emperor with no clothes and zero credibility.

“If you can hit Obama on character,” he said, “you can take that 40 percent, which is already eroding, down to about 20.” Obama’s approval numbers are closely tracking those of his wildly unpopular predecessor, George W. Bush. Ben Shapiro is Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the New York Times bestseller “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America” (Threshold Editions, January 8, 2013). He is also Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org. Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro. Related articles

Daniel Garza: My American Experience

Mr. Garza is the executive director of The Libre Initiative which is a Conservative Hispanic  advocacy group.  He served on President George W. Bush’s cabinet.

The following short video tells of some of Mr. Garza’s and his family’s experience as immigrants from Mexico.

My American Experience

The Libre Initiative

The Latest From The Libre Initiative

Here’s the latest from The Libre Initiative, the Conservative Hispanic Organization making a splash across the nation.

The Latest From The Libre Initiative

English: President George W. Bush signs Execut...

English: President George W. Bush signs Executive Order 13230, creating his Presidential Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans and directing the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans to provide staffing and support. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Clowning Around: Dub’a At Fault Again?

After the clowns fall all around, the clean-up crew comes in and tries to mitigate the damage caused by ignorant and unthinking managers and employees.  Not satisfied with a chance to “man-up,” they look around for a way to shift the blame.  More on that later; for now, let’s look at the circus the GSA became back in 2010 and ask why we are just finding out about the extreme waste of our money — some of which involves paying bonuses to the boneheads (including managers) who planned the extravaganza of fools:

Awarding bonuses for wasting taxpayer dollars?

That appears to be incentive offered by the federal agency under fire for spending lavishly on a 2010 conference held near Las Vegas. The latest details from an inspector general report on the conference reveal 50 employees were given cash awards of $500 and $1,000 for their work arranging the now-infamous conference.

“It would also appear that a number of GSA bureaucrats who helped arrange the Las Vegas junket were handed cash bonuses for their work in wasting the better part of a million dollars,” Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said Tuesday.

It looks as though, there is coöperation across party lines to get all the ducks in a row as it applies to the guilty parties and the amount of taxpayer money wasted on this party, by the party in charge, i.e. the Democratic party administration of Barack Obama:

Rep. Mica also revealed Tuesday that one high-ranking official spent an extra night in Vegas at taxpayer expense, even though the conference was already over.

Calling the new revelation the “icing on the cake,” Mica said the official paid only $93 for a fourth night at the Vegas suite, which costs more than $1,000 a night.

The rest of the cost of the room “was apparently charged to the taxpayer” he said in a statement.

Rep. Jeff Denham, chairman of a subcommittee on economic development, public buildings and emergency management, said adding “personal vacation stays in Vegas” to the spending by GSA on the Las Vegas conference was “outrageous.”

Where were these members of the federal legislature between the loss of all the taxpayer money in 2010 and when the matter was revealed this year (2012).  It is one thing for the administration of Barack Obama to appoint foolish and unqualified managers … it is another thing for our watchdogs to be so inefficient that they can’t bite a hot biscuit when it is pitched their way.

There is more to this story and this circus of fools and how they want to blame Bush II.

A circus tent from behind
A circus tent from behind (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Just follow the link below and don’t forget to check the related articles:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/10/federal-agency-cancels-new-vegas-conference-amid-scandal-over-its-lavish-2010/?test=latestnews#ixzz1rkle9KyI

Related articles

Pelosi: Pants On Fire

President Barack Obama and Speaker of the Hous...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

A way with words and charts, Ms. Pelosi might have as long as no one checks the facts.  Thanks to PolitiFact.com we don’t have to do much of the checking ourselves. It was just a couple of months back (May to be specific) when she posted the following on her Flickr account:

Flick Here

The information posted there and here would be quite telling: if it wasn’t telling several bald-faced lies.  PolitFact continues with their information which is, to say the least, quite a quagmire and a bucket of eels to boot:

A reader recently pointed us to a post on the website of MoveOn.org, a liberal group. The post features a bar graph titled, “Who Increased the Debt?” that offers figures for the past five presidents:

Ronald Reagan: Up 189 percent
George H.W. Bush: Up 55 percent
Bill Clinton: Up 37 percent
George W. Bush: Up 115 percent
Barack Obama: Up 16 percent

We can see why a liberal group would tout such numbers, since — if accurate — they offer powerful counterevidence to the claims by conservatives that President Barack Obama has been a spendthrift who’s set the nation on an unsustainable fiscal path.

But the reader who sent it to us was surprised to see the debt increase under Obama was so small. So we decided to check the numbers.

Check the numbers they did and you should check the numbers listed above with the numbers now appearing on Moveon.org.  You’ll see they have been adjusted to reflect the new Pelosi numbers discussed below.  What they found was sloppy fact gathering and questionable investigative techniques.  PolitFact speaks to the data utilized by Pelosi and they point out that the information used does not track well with the actual time served by each president and for that reason is scattered all over the landscape like the product of a calf with the scours.  Here is what they finally settled on after hitting stale information passed on as facts by Pelosi and her inefficient staff:

We quickly discovered the source of the discrepancy: Whoever put the chart together used the date for Jan. 20, 2010 — which is exactly one year to the day after Obama was sworn in — rather than his actual inauguration date. We know this because Treasury says the debt for Jan. 20, 2010, was $12.327 trillion, which is the exact number cited on the supporting document that Pelosi’s office gave us.

However this error happened, it effectively took one year of rapidly escalating debt out of Obama’s column and put it into Bush’s, significantly skewing the numbers.

Using the corrected figures does mean that, superficially at least, Democrats have a point. The debt did still increase more, on a percentage basis, under Bush than it did under Obama. But other problems with the chart and its methodology undercut even this conclusion.

• Time ranges: Bush served a full eight-year term, while Obama had served just 27 months by the time the chart was compiled. If the Obama figure were to be scaled out to a full eight-year period, he’d have a debt increase of 121 percent rather than 34 percent, making his increase greater than Bush’s. To be fair, that would be a simplistic exercise — but no less misleading than the chart.

• Public debt vs. gross debt: Not only did the chart say it was using one statistic and then use another, it also cherry-picked the one that showed the comparison in a more favorable light. According to OMB statistics, public debt rose by 70 percent under Bush, 16 percentage points more slowly than gross federal debt did. And according to the Treasury, the public debt rose by 53 percent under Obama, compared with the 34 percent rise in gross federal debt.

You get the idea and you can get a much clearer picture if you read the complete article.  The bull butter churned up by Pelosi and company is par for the crowd around progressives … nothing new, but go here for the entire article.  We will say that Obama turns out to be the undisputed red ink king.

Be sure to check for related articles below:

First President Bush — Now President Obama

 

President George W. Bush and President-elect B...

Image via Wikipedia

 

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

A shoe for President Bush in Iraq and now a book for President Obama in the United States.  By now everyone should know about the shoe and the book.

Whatever else, we (collective we) should know, we certainly should know that neither incident was humorous or proper.  The office of President of the United States, no matter where it might be disrespected, still belongs to the people of the United States.  As such, any effort to physically belittle or physically demean the office holder and potentially cause the office holder physical injury  should not be tolerated or supported in any way.

Just as many applauded when President Bush was insulted with the shoe throw, many have verbally celebrated the book toss for President Obama.  We (I) believe  both incidents were shameful and not to be tolerated and I hope my fellow Americans and people everywhere will pause to reflect on the repercussions for such actions.

It was reported that the man who threw the book at President Obama was not arrested and when questioned said that he was just trying to get his book to the President.  We find the non-arrest and the alleged statement  suspect and call for the release of more  information so the citizens of this nation can know the full details of the incident.  The reports in my mind do not pass any reasonable test … much less the smell test.

Here are some links to the story, which contain narrative and video:

Link to Mediaite report

Link to Daily Mail report

More links below:

Demos Meltdown — Repubs Not Blowing It

Citizens registered as an Independent, Democra...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

William Kristol writing an editorial on The Weekly-Standard.com says the Democrats are in meltdown and the Republicans are not blowing it (for once.)  we aren’t sure we can agree with Mr. Kristol’s opinion this soon as there are signals, such as Mr. Rove’s blubbering that might lead others to believe differently.  Since we respect Mr. Kristol, it is only right that he be given space  to show he is correct or close to reality in his editorial.  Whatever he might do, Mr. Kristol cuts to the chase without mincing words or withholding much in the way of what appears  serious joy:

It would be unbecoming for us at The Weekly-Standard​—we do have to uphold standards, after all!—to chortle with glee as the Democratic party melts down. It would be unkind to whoop at the top of our lungs as Obama White House big shots quit or get fired, and to cheer with gusto as the GOP leadership behaves sensibly, the Tea Party goes from strength to strength, and momentum builds towards a huge Election Day repudiation of big government liberalism.

So, instead, we’ll simply point out, calmly and quietly, that the Democratic party is in meltdown, the Obama White House is in disarray, and the voters are in rebellion against both of them.

Let’s just say right here, that we cry no tears, crocodile or otherwise, to hear this opinion as we stop short of saying we told you as much on more than one occasion, and would have told you again and again, but we were relatively convinced that most of you, no matter the party affiliation managed to get it close-in to the beginning of this administration.

If this administration was a piece of prime steak ready for basting, now would be the time for Kristol to rub it in, and he doesn’t disappoint.  Let’s see:

… This White House will have lost, by the end of this year, a remarkably high percentage of its original senior staff members. The White House counsel, communications director, budget director, and chair of the council of economic advisers are already gone—to say nothing of the estimable Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation. The chief of staff, national security adviser, and top economic policy director will follow shortly. Almost all of them were oh-so-convinced they were the best and brightest, oh-so-contemptuous of others who had labored in those jobs, and oh-so-disdainful of the American people. If we were less good-hearted and generous in spirit, we would be tempted to say: Goodbye and good riddance.

At this point in his editorial Mr. Kristol begin to praise … at least to raise, the Republican’s Pledge to America as an indication the Republicans have not blown their chance to recapture congress, but have instead, rushed rapidly toward that goal.  Here, since we are political neophytes, is the point where doubt creeps in and reason lingers behind.  At least it does so a short distance as it is quite difficult, given the last ten years, and especially the eight years of Mr. George W. Bush‘s administration to be convinced the Republicans really do have it, or that they will get it.

Mr. Kristol believes the “Pledge” is the right direction in many decent steps toward Republicans taking over Congress.  He says the Pledge to America differs from The Contract With America (circa: 1994) in several ways:

The Pledge, moreover, is a step up from 1994’s Contract with America. GOP strategists in 1994 seized on the idea of a “contract” as a way of bringing disillusioned Perot voters back into the tent. One source of Republican disillusion was that the first President Bush had promised not to raise taxes, and then did so. A contract was a way to make up for the failure to honor the promise to “read my lips.” And the good-faith and sincere attempt to implement the contract, to the degree congressional Republicans were able to do so, went a long way to repairing the damage of the broken promise of 1990.

Mr. Kristol rounds it all up and out with two more paragraph.  You can read all of his editorial right here.

Alleged: 22 Million Bush White House Emails Found

South Lawn of the White House
Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009).

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

That is a tub full of emails and a little simple math shows the revelation as absolutely astounding. This “find” is in addition to the emails already released by the Bush administration or those disclosed through other avenues. Let’s see if we can drill-down and see what the figures really mean. Keep in mind, we are looking at emails from the Bush White House … or so it seems:

  • 22 million emails found
  • 8 years of Bush administration
  • 2920 days in 8 years
  • 8178 total emails average per day
  • 341 emails average per hour
  • 5.68 emails per minute

I find the magnitude of the number, plus all the other emails previously accounted for, difficult to wrap my county-fried brain around. It is absolutely mind-boggling how the Bushies were able to find time to gore Gore, fix elections, lie about WMDs as accused, still manage all else  required of them, AND shoot emails and other documents all over the world.

This is one story I will be watching — I hope you will too. If you’re going to watch it, I guess I should leave you with a link to the story. Click here . Thanks Associated Press via Yahoo.

But, wait … there’s more. According to this article, the span of time the emails cover is at most two years, from 2003 to 2005. This information puts a whole new number to the numbing amount. Let’s see:

  • 22 million emails found
  • 730 days in two years (2003 to 2005)
  • 30,136 emails per 24 hours
  • 21 emails per minute

And, to make it even more difficult to fathom CNN reports this in the link above:

Monday’s settlement allows for 94 days of e-mail traffic, scattered between January 2003 to April 2005, to be restored from backup tapes. Of those 94 days, 40 were picked by statistical sample; another 21 days were suggested by the White House; and CREW, and the National Security Archive picked 33 that seemed “historically significant,” from the months before the invasion of Iraq to the period when the firings of U.S. attorneys were being planned.

So, even if my math was right based on a full two years, in actuality we may be looking at something in terms of numbers per day that is even more gargantuan than I thought, depending what the story is reporting in actual number of emails over the total number of days they cite in the above quote.

Just another day in the neighborhood of topical trivia, or not. Hm, Hm, Hm Hm, Hm!

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]