Check out the editorial over at the New York Times about Obama breaking his promises. First paragraph:
When candidate Barack Obama broke his promise to use public financing as a brake on lavish presidential campaign spending, he left another promise in its wake: to overhaul election financing and the federal commission that regularly undermines rather than enforces campaign law. President Obama has yet to deliver.
Normally this sort of language concerning Obama gets buried deep within a story, if covered at all. Yet there it is right on the top. AND it is an official NYT editorial. Not a columnist. Not a reporter. A missive from the editorial board of the NYT.
Take note of the push phrases, “broke his promise” and “lavish presidential campaign spending” among others. That is verbiage generally reserved for Conservatives and Republicans. Yet here we find it being used against “The One” by the New York Times, no less.
The natives are indeed getting restless.
July 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Jeb Bush: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama is a socialist
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/09/jeb-bush-i-dont-know-if-obama-is-a-socialist/?eref=politicalflipper
July 9th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
What is the world coming to?
Just a few weeks ago, the NYT ran a piece showing who or what was responsible for Obama’s $1,800,000,000,000 deficit. They “scientifically” decided that the economy was about 40% to blame, Bush about 30-40%, and Obama about 7% (no kidding). I figure what made it add up to 100%, but it was mostly Bush and the economy. I’m thinking the only way they could possibly come up with such absurd notions (in the face of Obama’s $800 billion borrowed stimulus) is if they attribute Bush’s tax cuts and the war as 100% deficit spending, but consider as much as possible of Obama’s spending and stimulus as “paid for” with tax revenue.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
MWS – don’t forget that the TARP funds went through under Bush. I read that article, and it should be required reading.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Obama will overhaul campaign finance rules as soon as he figures out who his opponent will likely be. If he figures it’s Romney, look for a cap on what individuals can contribute to their own campaign. If it’s Huckabee, look for greater scrutiny of what people say inside a church. If it’s someone who will have trouble raising a lot small donations, look for him to raise the limit on matching funds. If it’s someone who will live off of small donors, look for him to eliminate matching funds in the name of protecting the taxpayers.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
American,
Okay. What is 8/18? Is that .07?
July 9th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
……and Obama’s deficits are in the high hundreds of billions to low trillions as far as the eye can see. TARP was a one year allotment.
I remember during the campaign Obama was the $50 Billion Man, meaning any problem that any voter brought up, he would promise to fix by spending at least another $50 Billion for it.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Ah yes, the TARP funds. Pinning the TARP on the Republicans is like pinning the current problems with RomneyCare on Romney.
Most financial experts agreed that TARP was a good idea. Without the free flow of credit, business grinds to a halt. So a little greasing of the wheels should help the entire economy.
The Democrats, being Democrats, never ever let a spending program go to waste, so they jacked up the price beyond what the experts were recommending and pushed it through. Bush only spent half of it before leaving office. Obama promptly spent the rest and if memory serves, he then requested even more and got that too.
So that makes TARP all Bush’s fault.
Right.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
They feel betrayed. They’ve been hesitant to say it, because it takes quite a lot of evidence to overthrown a messiah from his exalted place, but there’s only so long the betrayal can go on before they realize that he’s not the one they’ve been hoping for.