Mike Pence, Chair, House Republican Caucus:
But I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
“The White House has announced a total of 172 trips outside Washington, D.C., in which administration officials have discussed the stimulus package and its economic impact in the year and a half since the package was signed.” (Wall Street Journal, 7/21/2010)
Unemployment Rate: 9.5% (BLS, June 2010)
______
Taxpayers could save a lot of money if someone would ground Obama and his Administration from taking Air Force planes. They are going to wear out our VIP fleet at this rate. Who is doing the job in DC with them gone -- on second thought it might be cheaper to never have any of them in DC to spend our tax dollars. All that talk by Obama and the members of his Administration and the Stimulus is still as much of failure today as it would have been without all the trips.
You grow the economy by cutting taxes but NO this Administration wants to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire and all of us be taxed at higher levels. The audacity of them to say that the Republicans wanted the tax cuts to expire in ten years when, in fact, it was the threat of a Democrat filibuster that kept them becoming permanent. Republicans did not have 60 seats in the Senate at that time. In fact, it was a 50/50 Senate when President Bush took office.
Even the fact that President Bush was able to get all these tax cuts was minor miracle in itself with the Senate evenly divided. It shows what can be done when you have a President without an ego versus the narcissist who is President today and loves nothing better than to continually slam Republicans. Worst atmosphere maybe ever in the Congress as the Democrats ram their legislation through with having such large numbers.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Conflicting Obama answers on NAFTA meeting
By: Carrie Budoff Brown
March 4, 2008 10:30 AM EST
SAN ANTONIO, Texas – For four days after a news report alleged that Sen. Barack Obama’s economic adviser had told Canadian officials to ignore the Democrat’s tough talk on trade deals, the campaign gave incomplete – and sometimes misleading – explanations of whether a meeting had even taken place.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Monday night that the campaign had known of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canada’s consul general in Chicago since a Canadian television network, CTV, first reported the interaction last Wednesday.
“When they reported it, we were aware of it at that point,” Burton said.
Burton and other campaign aides – even Obama himself – vociferously denied the substance of the report, which alleged Goolsbee had given back-channel assurances to Canada that the Illinois senator’s call for reopening labor and environmental rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely political posturing.
But for days, the campaign was less-than-forthcoming on a specific detail: Had a meeting actually occurred?
“Well, the Canadian ambassador issued a statement saying that that story was absolutely false. There had been no such contact,” said Susan Rice, an Obama foreign policy adviser, on MSNBC’s “Tucker” show Thursday. “There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word . . . Period.”
Also Thursday, Goolsbee told ABC News that he “would not confirm or deny meetings with anyone.” Yet he hinted at an interaction, saying Canada’s consul general contacted him “at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.”
David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, was asked Friday by reporters to comment on the conversation reported on Canadian television.
“The story is just not true. Obama's position on this is very clear. Our campaign and the ambassador have been very clear on this; it did not happen,” Plouffe said, appearing to tailor his statement to only address elements of the initial Canadian TV story that had been discounted.
The Canadian network tweaked its initial story last week to reflect that Goolsbee had spoken with the consul general in Chicago, not the ambassador in Washington, as it was first reported. It is also appears now that the Canadian officials, not Goolsbee, initiated the contact.
Despite Obama's promises to run as a transparent and straight-talking candidate, the campaign offered muddled responses that allowed the story to metastasize in the days leading up to a primary election in Ohio, where trade issues could prove decisive. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have attempted to appeal to voters with promises to renegotiate NAFTA.
The story gained clarity only after the Associated Press obtained a 1,300-word memo Sunday written by a consulate staffer that detailed the Feb. 8 meeting between Goolsbee and the Canadian consul general, Georges Rioux.
In an interview with the AP, Goolsbee disputed a portion of the memo that quotes him as saying that campaign rhetoric “that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”
“That's this guy's language,'' Goolsbee said of the memo’s author, Joseph De Mora. “He's not quoting me.” By Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had weighed in as well, saying the government “regrets any implication” that Obama “has been saying different things in private than in public.”
Facing tough questioning from reporters in San Antonio, Obama said his flat denial last week of the accuracy of Canadian TV report “was the information I had at the time.” Aides said the denial referred to the report, not whether a meeting took place.
“The Canadian consulate in Chicago contacted one of my advisers, Austan Goolsbee, on their own initiative, invited him down to meet with them,” Obama said Monday. “He met with them as a courtesy. At some point they started talking about trade and NAFTA and the Canadian embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail.”
Burton stood by the campaign’s handling of the story, saying the denials were in response to the “substance of the matter at hand” about whether someone representing Obama was consistent about his position on trade. “
At no point did we deny there was a meeting,” Burton said Monday, hours after Sen. Dick Durbin, a top Obama surrogate, denied the meeting on MSNBC. “We made it crystal clear to anyone who was covering it.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7A599C51-3048-5C12-00D200E95BA86DED
March 4, 2008 10:30 AM EST
SAN ANTONIO, Texas – For four days after a news report alleged that Sen. Barack Obama’s economic adviser had told Canadian officials to ignore the Democrat’s tough talk on trade deals, the campaign gave incomplete – and sometimes misleading – explanations of whether a meeting had even taken place.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Monday night that the campaign had known of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canada’s consul general in Chicago since a Canadian television network, CTV, first reported the interaction last Wednesday.
“When they reported it, we were aware of it at that point,” Burton said.
Burton and other campaign aides – even Obama himself – vociferously denied the substance of the report, which alleged Goolsbee had given back-channel assurances to Canada that the Illinois senator’s call for reopening labor and environmental rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely political posturing.
But for days, the campaign was less-than-forthcoming on a specific detail: Had a meeting actually occurred?
“Well, the Canadian ambassador issued a statement saying that that story was absolutely false. There had been no such contact,” said Susan Rice, an Obama foreign policy adviser, on MSNBC’s “Tucker” show Thursday. “There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word . . . Period.”
Also Thursday, Goolsbee told ABC News that he “would not confirm or deny meetings with anyone.” Yet he hinted at an interaction, saying Canada’s consul general contacted him “at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.”
David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, was asked Friday by reporters to comment on the conversation reported on Canadian television.
“The story is just not true. Obama's position on this is very clear. Our campaign and the ambassador have been very clear on this; it did not happen,” Plouffe said, appearing to tailor his statement to only address elements of the initial Canadian TV story that had been discounted.
The Canadian network tweaked its initial story last week to reflect that Goolsbee had spoken with the consul general in Chicago, not the ambassador in Washington, as it was first reported. It is also appears now that the Canadian officials, not Goolsbee, initiated the contact.
Despite Obama's promises to run as a transparent and straight-talking candidate, the campaign offered muddled responses that allowed the story to metastasize in the days leading up to a primary election in Ohio, where trade issues could prove decisive. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have attempted to appeal to voters with promises to renegotiate NAFTA.
The story gained clarity only after the Associated Press obtained a 1,300-word memo Sunday written by a consulate staffer that detailed the Feb. 8 meeting between Goolsbee and the Canadian consul general, Georges Rioux.
In an interview with the AP, Goolsbee disputed a portion of the memo that quotes him as saying that campaign rhetoric “that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”
“That's this guy's language,'' Goolsbee said of the memo’s author, Joseph De Mora. “He's not quoting me.” By Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had weighed in as well, saying the government “regrets any implication” that Obama “has been saying different things in private than in public.”
Facing tough questioning from reporters in San Antonio, Obama said his flat denial last week of the accuracy of Canadian TV report “was the information I had at the time.” Aides said the denial referred to the report, not whether a meeting took place.
“The Canadian consulate in Chicago contacted one of my advisers, Austan Goolsbee, on their own initiative, invited him down to meet with them,” Obama said Monday. “He met with them as a courtesy. At some point they started talking about trade and NAFTA and the Canadian embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail.”
Burton stood by the campaign’s handling of the story, saying the denials were in response to the “substance of the matter at hand” about whether someone representing Obama was consistent about his position on trade. “
At no point did we deny there was a meeting,” Burton said Monday, hours after Sen. Dick Durbin, a top Obama surrogate, denied the meeting on MSNBC. “We made it crystal clear to anyone who was covering it.”
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7A599C51-3048-5C12-00D200E95BA86DED
Friday, February 29, 2008
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
Note: Following is a speech given by Barack Obama in Oct 2002 while a member of the IL Legislature about the Iraq war while speaking to an anti-war rally and now this same person wants to be President? BTW, this speech is on his website so you could say he approved this message!
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
October 2, 2002
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
Note: My bold and highlighted
Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
October 2, 2002
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?
Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php
Note: My bold and highlighted
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)