Jun 032009

I suspect that Peter Wallsten and Robin Abcarian are two journalists who are just making stuff up — or else printing stuff that President Obama makes up. Here is some of what I mean.

In calling last month for “common ground” on abortion, President Obama launched his search for an unlikely political sweet spot — a popular stance on an issue that has long been dominated by extremes.

This is nonsense. Before Obama came along with his extremist anti-choice, pro-abortion policies, the country had reached an uneasy truce in the abortion wars — a compromise, even. Obama may have said at some time that he is looking for a common ground on abortion, but he says a lot of things. Reporters should keep in mind that this is the same guy who said he is not running an auto company.

But the slaying Sunday of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller has raised the level of mistrust between the very factions that the White House has been trying to bring together.

How do these reporters know the level of mistrust has been raised. And how could the killing of Tiller do that even if it happened, when everybody except a few lone wackos wants his killer to be brought to justice the same as any other killer? The killer didn’t represent the anti-abortion crowd any more than President Obama’s extreme views represent the vast majority of those Americans who want abortion to be legal.

Tiller’s death is a “massive setback” in the search for common ground, said Cristina Page, a New York City author and abortion rights advocate. “It’s sort of like having a family member murdered and then being asked to make nice with the assassin’s family. It’s unnatural.”

Gee, how McCarthyite of her. Nice built-by-association in that “assassin’s family” phrase. OK, so maybe Obama isn’t the only extreme wacko on the pro-abortion side.

Ah, in reading further into the column, I see that the two journalists are at least good enough to quote some people who don’t buy their thesis in paragraph one.

There’s more, but I gotta run.

Jun 022009

Not only does Obama have no exit strategy in his war on capitalism, but he has his own equivalent of a WMD rationale. This one is for a war on another front. Now he’s warning about vague cybersecurity threats as a rationale so he can be given great power to somehow protect the internet from these terrible threats.

And it’s ironic that on the same NetworkWorld page with an article that tries to drum up support for Obama’s newest war is this item over in the “Most Read” sidebar: “20 years after Tiananmen, China containing dissent online.”

Jun 012009

“The Obama Administration has been whispering to the press that it could start selling its stake within a year to 18 months, and that it hopes to be out of the business entirely in five years.” (–WSJ Review & Outlook)

Yeah, and the Bush administration once hoped to be out of Iraq quickly, too. But “hope” is not the same as an exit strategy.

Jun 012009

From Bloomberg.com: “No one is going to be more concerned about future deficits than we are,” Geithner told reporters on the way to two days of meetings that start today in China’s capital.”

Do we have some kind of trend in the making? First Obama says he doesn’t want to run a car company, which is really beside the point of whether he WILL run a car company. Now Geithner says the administration is going to be “concerned” about deficits, which doesn’t answer the question of whether it’s going to do something about future deficit. I would guess the latter is of more interest to the Chinese government than the Obama administration’s “concern,” whatever that is.