E!!

If you missed it, here’s the transcript from Obama’s speech from last night. 

What you won’t get from reading it (that was obvious when watching) is how angry he was:  dark eyes, tense jaw, stiff neck, and a light mist of sweat ‘cross his furrowed brow.  At times he all but fumed as he turned from left teleprompter to right.

I must admit, I took some pleasure in watching Obama rail against the forces that would impede his mighty (and wrong-headed) will.

What a proud and foolish man he seems.

He always seemed so, to me – but I tried to believe it was the ecstacy of adoring crowds and the headyness of the historical import of his impending victory.  I hoped the smug and self-congratulatory air would leave him a few days, or a few weeks, into office.

Not so.

Vanity, thy name is now President.

Stephen Spruiell & Kevin Williamson @ NRO list and detail the 50 most outrageous items in the stimulus package.  This is the best, most comprehensive sum-up I’ve seen.  Read it and weep call your senator today.

Yesterday 18 free market and limited government leaders released a letter urging the Senate to reject “the Bill.” 

And Rasumussen reported that more Americans oppose the $1.2 trillion (including intest) bill than support it.   Here are some blurbs:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure.

Two weeks ago, 45% supported the plan. Last week, 42% supported it.

Opposition has grown from 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats still support the plan. That figure is down from 74% a week ago. Just 13% of Republicans and 27% of those not affiliated with either major party agree.

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republicans oppose the plan along with 50% of unaffiliated voters and 16% of Democrats.

Meanwhile Congressional Republicans doubt whether the bill will save or create the 3 to 4 million jobs Obama and the Dems claim.

The bill is full of pork and nonsense and needs to be scrapped.

Quite a few readers have asked me if I read “the CATO ad/letter.” 

I did - and now you can, too.  (Can someone count the signatures, please…?)

Peter Wehner has a good post up on The Corner.

He quotes from the WaPo and then says this about the Daschle, Killefer, and Geithner picks:

Team Obama apparently knew about the tax issues but ignored them because, they thought, they were minor matters. This speaks to a surprising tone-deafness and insulation on the part of Obama & Company. Do they really think it’s possible for, say, Joe Biden to say during the campaign that those who don’t want to pay higher taxes are not fulfilling their patriotic duty—and then offer up three (so far) nominees who didn’t pay the taxes they owe? Apparently so.

And, as Wehner points out, the Obama Team’s choice to try to hide these things from the public eye is hardly an example of the government “transparency” Obama said he was committed to during the campaign.

As Dickens’ Mr. Micawber would likely say:

Not

A

Very

Good

Start

Sir

Remember in the Bible in Genesis 18 when God informs Abraham that he plans to destroy Sodom because of its really wicked wickedness? 

And Abraham pleads with God not to rain down fire and brimstone if 50 good people can be found in the city? 

And God says “ok,” and then Abraham lowers the quota to 40, then 30, then 20, and finally, to just 10 goodly folks?

And God still says “ok” but then the angels can only find FOUR decent people living in Sodom so the city is destroyed?

Do you think Obama can find even 10 good people…to help fill his 15 cabinet positions…?

Update:  This just gets better and better.  Now the WSJ is reporting there are problems with Panetta, too.

An astute reader wonders why no one (not Obama, not the poet) flipped a few words around and used “seven score and four years ago” in today’s rhetoric – especially as Obama did other things that mimicked Lincoln’s inauguration. 

It’s been 144 years since Lincoln was assassinated and the south surrendered.

(If you didn’t know it, a score is 20 years.)

I’m trying not to be grouchy and just let ObamaNation have their fun today, but that’s one hell of a price tag for today’s Festivities. Seems to me we could have had a very nice Inauguration for a lot less.

Check out this post on this report. 

Sum up:  The Institute for Liberty estimated the carbon emission stats for Inauguration Day.  And it would take the average American household about 60,000 years to match the carbon output of Obama’s supercalifrajilistic party.

I’ve been saying all week that in this age of high-def and live satellite feeds, it is ridiculous that between 1 and 2 million people will be going to D.C. to try to “witness” this event.  Most of them will not be able to get close access or even see Obama with their own eyes.  So what is the point?  It’s a collossal waste of time and energy for very little (if any) return.

Every American with a television or an internet connection can stay home and have a “front row seat” to the swearing-in, speeches, poem readings, parades, confetti showers and joyous weeping.

If they can even stand to watch it, which I doubt I can – knowing that at least $75 million in taxpayer funds will be spent on this one-day event.

Read it for yourself. 

Sum up:  This is a blank check from Bush for the inauguration.

Great stuff as always.

Hat Tip:  Cranky Hermit

The Conservative Muse amuses with a clever poem entitled “An Open Letter to Comrade Obama.”

Andrea Mitchell/MSNBC, Pajamas Media and Media Blog on NRO are discussing the possibility of Hillary for Secretary of State. 

An SOS appointment is a political dead end; therefore, RHC will say no.  She still has ambition, and she’s just not that dumb.

(The fact that she’s not qualified may have little or no bearing on Obama trying to slide her in – and consequently get her out of his hair in the Senate.)

Strange that a British writer - Peter Hitchens - is the one to re-break my heart re: election night with this piece in the Daily Mail. 

Hat Tip:  Derb, who provides the column’s four paragraph close

Ronald Kessler with Newsmax has a good piece on Obama and the courts – and how fast the changes could happen. An excerpt:

Because Democrats dragged their heels on President Bush’s judicial nominations, 14 seats are open on appeals courts or will be by the end of January. Democratic nominees now are a majority on only one of the 13 federal appeals courts, the ultra-liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco. Within four years, Obama could name enough judges to give Democrats a majority on nine of the 13 appeals courts.

RTWT (Read the whole thing)

Far Right Democrat reminds us about George Orwell’s 1984ian government organization, the Ministry of Truth, and wonders how quickly KOS will do likewise in the way of rewriting history (i.e. change the official story) on mandated health care when Obama reverses himself and endorses it.

Of course, the modern day Ministry of Truth – the mainstream media – does this all the time.  As do nearly all politicians, especially during election cycles. 

Revisionist history:  it’s what’s for breakfast.

King George of the Let Them Eat Cake blog has noted that Obama’s change.gov site invites his beloved citizens to contact him and “share their vision” with his administration. George snarkily suggests how O might process and manage the millions of bright ideas coming in.  You can click thru for his thoughts (which are very amusing) and my cake-inspired sample letter just below his post.

Nicky Cheese clicked around and noted that change.gov also invites people to fill out an O admin job application online.  Nic is super excited about working for the new Obamastration and has already applied and begun apartment hunting in D.C.  This afternoon he forwarded me the touchingly personal note he received from Obama:

“Thank you for your interest in joining the Obama-Biden Administration. Within a few days, you will receive an email with a link to the more complete on-line application. Please be patient, as we are trying to respond promptly to the large number of people who are interested in working in the Administration.”

I am so inspired that I am also going to apply.  Suggest you do the same before all the good jobs are gone.

(Nic ~ can you convince the powers that be to throw up a Blogivists discussion board on this so we can all compare notes?  I suspect we can have some fun with this.)

Obama has created a website laying out his big plans:  http://change.gov/

He might want to have his writers/editors proofread their copy before they post pages to the site, though.  This page:  http://change.gov/agenda/economy/ duplicates paragraphs 3/4 in paragraphs 5/6.

I’m available for hire if none of his staffers have the time or ability.

The dialogue has begun.  Mahmoud informs Obama that the world expects a major “overhaul.”

Like many Americans last week, I tuned in for the 30-minute Barack-o-mercial. 

In between the anecdotal close-ups of struggling American families – a widow working two jobs and raising two kids; a husband and father worried about his job at the Ford plant – I noted that Obama’s megacommercial failed to present hard data on the cost of his proposed programs and said nothing about our huge federal deficit and the corresponding budget pressures he will face once in office. 

Obam’s description of his health care plan – which “includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions, and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year” – sounds very nice, but there has been no independent economic analysis confirming that costs will really be reduced by that (or any) amount.

Obama simply Hopes that spending $50 billion on his proposed Changes over the next five years will save the system money.  But even if his optimistic estimates prove out, Obama’s plan does not stipulate that the net savings by insurance and health care providers will result in lower premiums for consumers.

And then we have Obama’s promises to “cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year…  Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee they hire…  Eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas…  Help homeowners by freezing foreclosures for 90 days… Provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open…”

Independent analysts have estimated that combined with our current budget shortfalls, these and other of Obama’s proposals will likely result in a $1 trillion deficit next year.  That being unthinkable, some purging will be necessary.  But which of his programs will Obama cut, and why has he been promising all of them if he knows at least some must go?

Though much of his infomercial focused on the “hard realities” of life for select American families, Obama seems unwilling or unable to face reality himself.  It seems he could stand to learn something from that widowed mother of two who has to settle for half instead of whole gallons of milk when the money runs short – and doesn’t promise her family otherwise on the way to the store.

This post is very well done.

Hat Tip:  Conor Friedersdorf @ Culture11

Don’t miss Joe Carter’s post on Culture11. And (most of) the comments are worth reading, too. It is interesting how people see these things – and to note the corresponding assumptions they make about what “everyone” else thinks or believes.

I’m grateful to blog for an online magazine that encourages these kinds of discussions. Thanks, Joe!

In light of his promises to be a new kind of president running a new kind of White House, Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel for White House chief of staff is surprising.

It is said by those who have worked with him, or know people who have, that although Emanuel is a brilliant mind he is also viciously partisan, aggressive, and impatient. Why, then, would Obama choose him for a job which primarily entails managing people and facilitating decision processes?

Obama needs staffers who can and will help him be decisive, and Emanuel can do that – but at what cost? If Emanuel is as expert at alienating and offending as is reported, he will be helping in one way but hurting in another.

Surely there were better choices?

Lisa Schiffren has a great post on The Corner.  She posits that McCain deliberately held back in the campaign.  Here’s part of it:

…some McCain aides had felt for a while that their candidate had had a deep reluctance to impede the election of the nation’s first African American president. That he had, perhaps, pulled punches and failed to strike as hard as necessary to win this thing, for that greater good. [This] was infuriating, since more depended on the election than changing the race dynamic — which, it must be said, has been changed for some time, and did not require this particular symbol to validate it. To be sure, McCain must have known that his campaign was losing — and did not want to swing blindly. And maybe he didn’t like being called “erratic,” “desperate”, and a “racist” every time the inconvenient facts of Barack Obama’s short past came up for discussion.

But all Republicans who watched their candidate these past few months, must have been struck, as I have been, by the sense that he was holding back. I wondered, too often, how it could be that no one at the campaign could frame and muster the arguments that were clear to all conservative writers here and at the other publications and blogs that share our view. When the arguments were made, they were too little, too late, and garbled enough to drain their force. The campaign had it’s (very serious) flaws, but it seems that the reluctance to aim and shoot cleanly, was due to the candidate’s internal conflict here.

I’m not sure what I think about this.  But I also often wondered why, with so many brilliant minds and writers at his disposal, McCain did not do a better job of articulating his message in speeches, interviews, debates and ads. 

How is it possible that McCain’s campaign could not manage to patch together a persuasive narrative?  Lisa’s post may explain at least some part of it.

Obama mastered both in his campaign and this election.  Now we will see what they are worth when it comes to the office of the POTUS and the serious task of governing in perilous times.  For all our sakes, I hope there is substance where ’til now there’s been mostly sparkle. 

No matter who wins tonight, all of this needs a full audit and the full attention of the public.  It is ridiculous and shameful that our election processes should be so fraught with ineptitude and/or corruption.  America can do better.

Newsmax just sent out a press release including the following:

Fox Poll: McCain Tied in Key States

A just-released Fox News poll of 1,000 voters in each of six key states shows Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain making major last minutes strides to pull even with his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

While Obama leads in two of the battlegrounds states, the candidates are now tied, or within 1 point of each other, in four others, according to the Rasmussen Reports survey.

In Ohio, one of the states that McCain’s supporters believe they have to win, McCain has pulled dead even. Obama and McCain are now tied in Ohio, at 49 percent apiece.

Here are the results from the Fox News poll:

Colorado

Obama 51

McCain 47

Florida

McCain 50

Obama 49

Missouri

Obama 49

McCain 49

N. Carolina

McCain 50

Obama 49

Ohio

Obama 49

McCain 49

Virginia

Obama 51

McCain 47

The poll has a plus or minus margin of error of 3 percent.

After making a rather sarcastic remark, a reader suggests that I pull down that last post in light of the fact that Obama’s grandmother’s death has now hit the newswires (see his lovely comment for yourself).

I thought about it but don’t think I will.

The nature of a weblog is such that you operate in real time:  you write what you write when you write it…and so it becomes a historical account of news/facts as well as your thoughts and opinions about them at a given time.  

I had no idea Obama’s grandmother had passed away when I wrote that post.  And now that I know, it doesn’t change the facts of the Cali GOP’s complaint.  If Obama used campaign funds for personal use, he violated campaign law and ought to return the money.

My condolences to Obama and his family, though.

Just received a press release from the California Republican Party (CRP) that they have filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission against Barack Obama, Obama for America, Obama Victory Fund, and others citing a pattern of misconduct. 

Specific complaints include the fact that the Obama campaign provided Project Vote a copy of its donor list while hiding the fact that they did so, that Obama flew to Hawaii to visit his grandmother on $100,000 worth of campaign funds (instead of paying for it personally), and that Obama has been promised (and has accepted) “pro bono” legal representation by a law firm that has told its attorneys it will compensate and reward them for helping Obama.  All of these things are either in violation of federal election law or formal FEC opinion.

We’ll see what the FEC does, if anything.

A Vegas voter posted this on Bob Beers’ blog yesterday:

Disgusted with Dems Says:
October 31st, 2008 at 3:01 pm

I went to one of the early voting locations today and when I refused the Copening propaganda her supporters thrust at me in the parking lot, I was called a “b*tch” as I walked away. How dare they treat voters with such disrespect.

In this next case, emailed in by my one of my readers, a partisan person was sanctioned:

I voted this morning at the Lake Meade/Tenaya location.   Probably the most excitement was a guy from the Obama campaign that had on a yellow T-shirt that said “voting questions – ask me” or something like that.  He was sitting along the line of people waiting to vote. 

I didn’t think anything of it, until I noticed that all the poll workers had on blue/white/red shirts.  About that time, the guy was escorted out of the area.  He took off the shirt and then was milling around with the ‘poll observers’.   I was ready to grab my cell phone for a picture if anything exciting happened, but nothing did. 

I waited about an hour to vote.  My hubby was on Channel 3 – they were interviewing people about the early voting process – was it easy, what did we think, etc.

There is not supposed to be any partisan canvassing at the polls.  Also, in re: to situation 1 above, here is what item 3 of the Nevada Voters’ Bill of Rights, as outlined in NRS 293.2546, says about voting:

3. Each voter has the right to vote without being intimidated, threatened or coerced.

That first voter should have complained to the poll workers so they could have asked those Copening people to take their handouts and nasty remarks elsewhere.