Posts Tagged ‘Energy Policy’
« Older Entries |
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010
posted at 12:55 pm on February 15, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
regular view
How much money is the US losing by maintaining its de facto drilling ban on the coasts and the explicit ban on drilling in ANWR? The SAIC Corporation studied the question, in part funded by the oil industry, and claims that the American economy will lose over $2.3 trillion dollars in opportunity costs over the next two decades:
Restrictions on oil and gas drilling will cost the U.S. economy $2.36 trillion through 2029, according to a study requested by state utility regulators and paid for in part by industry-sponsored groups.
Drilling restrictions in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the U.S. coastline are blocking access to about nine years’ worth of U.S. oil and gas consumption, according to the report. Among sponsors are the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the industry-funded Gas Technology Institute, of Des Plaines, Illinois.
Former President George W. Bush and Congress ended bans in 2008 on drilling along the U.S. coastline. The Interior Department hasn’t acted to open the newly available areas, including offshore Alaska and on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Congress has kept the Arctic refuge off limits. …
The report, issued today, said opening the areas would free up 43 billion barrels of oil and 286 trillion cubic feet of gas. The U.S. used 22.8 trillion cubic feet of gas and 5.2 billion barrels of oil in 2009, according to a press release issued with the report.
The usual caveats apply to studies funded at least in some degree by parties with vested interests in the outcome. Obviously, oil and gas companies would like to gain access to these areas; after all, they’ll be the ones getting a chunk of that money. The request from state regulators may or may not fall into this category as well, since some of the states would like to collect license fees on the sales of leases off of their shores.
However, there are obviously some opportunity costs lost in the refusal to use our own resources for energy production. Instead of sending billions to Brazil to boost oil production off of their coast, the private sector could invest its own money into leases and extraction. This would create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs here in the US, as well as reduce our trade deficit. It would provide a more stable bridge towards our shift to replacement energy sources in renewables, while boosting access to cheaper energy in the short run to make the American economy more dynamic. Without it, energy prices will rise much faster than inflation, making our economy more sluggish than necessary.
Do those opportunity costs total $2.36 trillion over 20 years, and the loss of an average of 0.52% GDP in those years? Perhaps a more independent study will confirm that. Until then, though, we know we’re losing a lot of opportunity and shoveling more and more of our money into markets that allow some hostile nations to profit from it. That should be enough to have American looking homeward for its energy, no matter where it lies.
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, Energy Policy, Houston Voters
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Sunday, February 7th, 2010
First, a rarity for these parts: a compliment to the president. It was nice to see President Obama make time this year to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, after skipping the event last year. His speech was largely appropriate, and it was nice to hear the president speak of prayer and faith. His references to the role faith has had in dealing with things ranging from ending slavery to the Civil War, to tragedies like 9/11 and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti were highly commendable.
The sentiment of his speech was one of uniting through faith and reaching out in love. In tone and word, it was appropriate and presidential. It is unfortunate, however, that this speech can be filed under “just words, just speeches” for its lack of connection with reality.
In rhetoric, Obama spoke of a “spirit of civility” and claimed he was the “first to admit” that he wasn’t always right. In practice, Republicans have been shut out of any meaningful discussions on issues ranging from spending to the “cap and tax” energy scheme to healthcare, and have been reminded by Obama that he “won” when seeking to have some input into the process. In practice, wayward Democrats have been told that Obama is “keeping score, bro and labeled by Rahm Emanuel as “f-ing retarded.”
Even ordinary Americans who question the Obama administration’s agenda are labeled as “tea baggers” and “racists” by folks close to Obama, and repeatedly told that they only reject Obamacare because they aren’t capable of understanding it. Massive failures by the Obama administration are treated as the “system working perfectly” by top officials only to be apologized for days later and only in the fine print.
In these grand speeches, Mr. Obama has demonstrated an uncanny ability to lie directly to the American people on a level with the finest actors hollywood could offer.
In the midst of his empty political rhetoric, the words which serve as cover fire for his radical (and often contradictory) actions, often accidentally reveal a telling nugget that gets to the heart of who Mr. Obama is and what exactly his worldview looks like.
Nestled in the heart of his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast, Mr. Obama casually tossed out a telling pearl of wisdom to the swine-like masses. Speaking about his pet project of socialized healthcare, the president lamented that:
“Sadly, though, that spirit is too often absent when tackling the long-term, but no less profound issues facing our country and the world. Too often, that spirit is missing without the spectacular tragedy, the 9/11 or the Katrina, the earthquake or the tsunami, that can shake us out of complacency. We become numb to the day-to-day crises, the slow-moving tragedies of children without food and men without shelter and families without health care. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power. And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God’s voice.”
Tower of Babel you say? Interesting.
The point that President Obama is seeking to make here is that his political opponents won’t “compromise” (see also “give in”) to the Lord’s work in nationalizing healthcare. The ensuing confusion is because there are too many “cooks in the kitchen.” Those arguments then create a rhetorical maelstrom and in the whirlpool of confusion, God’s voice is lost. The implication, or pretty straightforward assertion here is that God’s voice is calling for healthcare reform, but the “confusion” of those arguing against such reform is drowning out His divine vision for our nation.
This is not the first time that Obama has sought to make the healthcare debate a matter of faith by implying or stating directly that this is the will of the Lord. In August of last year, President Obama held a conference call with the nation’s leading ministers and rabbis where he told them that he was going to “need their help in accomplishing necessary reform,” and told them that “we are God’s partners in matters of life and death.” The President even asked them to “tell the stories of health care dilemmas to illustrate what is at stake” in their sermons.
To the president, healthcare reform is central to his personal faith and worldview. It is central to who he is because it puts the government firmly in control of the lives of ordinary Americans. His socialist religion demands that government be the arbiter of all things, granter and protector of all things, and indeed the source of all things. Tapping into the Christian theology that all mankind is “sinful” and “fallen” Obama attempts to co-opt the Christian Gospel and replace Jesus Christ with the federal government. It is subtle wordplay indeed, but drastically different in principle. To most religious folks, particularly Christians, God is the final arbiter, granter and protector of all things. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are “endowed by our Creator” and not the state. To Obama and his band of socialist activists, God is “helped out” in this department, and becomes an absentee Father who abdicates His responsibilities to the all-power, all-knowing and incorruptible government. The more Obama can reduce the American people’s independence or reliance on other sources of power like their personal faith in God, the more he can be their father-like provider (and thus secure his own political power.)
Ironically, however, as Mr. Obama tries to make a Biblical allusion work for his purposes, the selected story actually works to contradict Mr. Obama’s agenda when seen in the original context.
Full article here
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, Energy Policy, government control, health insurance, socialism, socialized medicine
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Saturday, February 6th, 2010
February 7, 2010 — Updated 0338 GMT (1138 HKT)
Nashville, Tennessee (CNN) — Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin drew many standing ovations from a friendly crowd Saturday night as she blasted Washington Democrats and the Obama administration in a keynote speech for what was billed as the first national Tea Party Convention.
“It’s so inspiring to see real people, not politicos, inside-the-beltway professionals, come out, stand up and speak out for common-sense conservative principles,” Palin said.
Palin sought to hold Washington accountable as she took on a number of issues, including national security, the economy, and the recent election of Republican Scott Brown to the Massachusetts Senate seat left vacant by the late Ted Kennedy.
“America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this,” Palin said.
She called the Tea Party movement a “ground-up call to action that is forcing both parties to change the way they’re doing business.”
Palin gave particular attention to Brown’s election, calling him a representative “of this beautiful movement.”
Inside Tea Party movement
Tea Party’s big night
Tea Party meets in Nashville
“If there’s hope in Massachusetts, there’s hope everywhere,” she said. “His victory is a sign of more good things to come.”
She called on the administration to take note of the election results, saying “you better stop lecturing and start listening.”
“The Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda will leave us less secure, more in debt and under the thumb of big government,” she added, saying voters all over the country are sending a message that they want change in Washington.
She harkened Obama’s famous campaign slogan, asking, “How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for you?”
On national security, Palin said Americans have grown uneasy in the wake of an attempted Christmas Day terror attack aboard a U.S.-bound flight from Amsterdam, Netherlands. She called on the administration to be transparent about threats facing the country.
“It’s not politicizing our security to discuss our concerns because Americans deserve to know the truths about the threats that we face,” she said, criticizing Obama’s approach to foreign policy with such hostile regimes as Iran.
On the economy, Palin said “we are drowning in national debt and many of us have had enough,” calling for a number of different reforms.
Full article here
Tags: economy, Election 2010, Energy Policy, Houston, Houston Voters, National Security, TEA Party convention
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, January 25th, 2010
- by Joseph C. Phillips (Townhall.com)
Following the death of Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrats in the Massachusetts state legislature rushed to change a procedural rule thus allowing Democratic Governor Deval Patrick to replace Kennedy with an interim and Democratic Senator. During the 2004 Presidential election this same august body had taken that power away from Republican Governor Mitt Romney fearing he would appoint a Republican should their junior senator, John Kerry, become President. The maneuver displays the arrogance of the left. So significant is their agenda that changing the rules in the middle of game is justified. Arrogance also leads them to dismiss disgruntled Americans as racists and dimwitted “tea baggers.” It is arrogance of the strongest sort that leads them to believe their policy solutions divinely inspired such that they say openly that Americans will take the medicine of the new left and learn to like it.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters humbled Democrats by reversing the decision of their state legislators and electing Republican Scott Brown to a U.S. Senate seat that has been held by democrats for all but 6 years since 1926. Tuesdays vote provided definitive proof that “God don’t like ugly. And he ain’t too fond of cute.”
As Republicans anticipate the mid-term elections and what appears like an opportunity to shift the balance of power in the Congress, it is wisdom the GOP would be wise to remember. The special election in Massachusetts was not solely a referendum on the healthcare boondoggle the new left is attempting to force down Americas [clearly unwilling] throat; it was also a clear refutation of the President’s economic policy as well as a refutation on the free spending ways of the previous administration. It would be arrogance of the Democratic sort for Republicans to imagine that Tuesday’s repudiation of democratic over-reaching was an endorsement of Republican congressional governance of the sort America witnessed during the first decade of the 21st century.
To say that voters were not enamored with Republican spending during the Bush administration is an understatement. In a relatively short time the Obama administration, along with a Democratic Congress, has made Bush look like a miser. They have expanded the federal budget by $1 trillion; tripled the deficit; is on track to add $1 trillion per year to the national debt for the foreseeable future; accelerated spending on social entitlement programs and proposed another trillion dollar takeover of the healthcare industry all the while holding a cap and trade tax in its hip pocket. “We are fed up!” is the message voters delivered last November and again in Massachusetts on Tuesday. To put it plainly, Americans are looking for responsible government.
Full article here -
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, economy, Election 2010, Energy Policy, Houston, Houston Voters, Taxes, unemployment
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Saturday, January 16th, 2010
WASHINGTON — What went wrong? - A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama’s approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent — and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president’s second year.
A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform.
A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing — even among erstwhile believers.
Liberals try to attribute Obama’s political decline to matters of style. He’s too cool, detached, uninvolved. He’s not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He’s contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.
These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today’s vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he’s too left.
It’s not about style; it’s about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society — health care, education and energy.
Then began the descent — when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.
Then, the keystone: a health care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker’s James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally “private” insurers.
At first, health care reform was sustained politically by Obama’s own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare’s profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell. Continued…
Tags: Barack Obama, Energy Policy, Foreign Policy, government control, health insurance
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Thursday, January 7th, 2010
I’ve summarized below some red flags about Global Warming that you will not find in any politicized “scientific” discussion, especially the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) 2001 Study widely quoted in the press and the basis for Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth. Environmental extremists no longer refer to “global warming” but increasingly to “climate change” – I suspect because the whole global warming argument does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The earth’s climate has always been changing and will continue to do so. The cause of these changes however has never been proven to be “anthropogenic” – caused by humans.
The 2001 IPCC Study ignored two well-documented scientific climate periods:
- The Medieval Warm Period when earth’s temperatures were well above todays and when only farm animals were emitting CO2. In 1991 it was included in IPCC’s published reports as accepted scientific fact, but eliminated in their 2001 report without explanation! The 2001 report demonstrated a hockey stick warming graph since 1900 through today to support their desired global warming crusade.
- The Little Ice Age from 1400-1800…another well-documented and scientifically accepted fact. Since 1900, the earth has been warming up – a normal climatic fluctuation that is not caused by man’s industrialization of the planet. The planet has warmed 1oF over the last century, but most of that occurred prior to 1940, while 82% of anthropogenic CO2 entered the atmosphere after that date.
Despite the documented fact that the earth has actually cooled at a rate of 3.5 oF / century over the last seven years, the IPCC models forecast a 3.9 oF / century warming to 2100. The recent global cooling is confirmed by satellite data and is not disputed by any credible scientific body – but despite that, the IPCC computer models ignore the recent and long term historical data to conclude the earth is about to undergo an unprecedented warming period!
There are a number of other instances of inconsistencies, data manipulation, and outright fabrications included in the IPCC 2001 Study. A complete analysis was presented to the US Congress by Lord Monckton, the former Science Advisor to the UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org). This is the same individual who Al Gore refuses to debate, and the Democratic Energy and Commerce Committee Members refused to allow to testify opposite Gore in March 2009. What does Lord Monckton know that Al Gore and our Democratic representatives not want the American public to know?
The effects of CO2on the earth’s climate are vastly exaggerated.
- The concentration of CO2in the atmosphere is 0.035% and it is a very weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for 97-98% of the greenhouse gas effect. (Bet you didn’t know that – since governments can’t control water vapor, it is a fact you’re not likely to read in the press!) Water vapor (clouds) is principally ruled by the sun, which may be one reason why NASA has recently declared that the sun is most directly responsible for global warming (go figure!).
- In the Paleozoic Era of prehistoric times, CO2levels were 12 times higher than present. For those of you who don’t comprehend geologic-speak, you know this era as the Ice Age. So much for CO2‘s catastrophic warming effect on the earth!
- Scientific evidence from ice cores in the Antarctic demonstrate over the millennium that increases in CO2concentrations follow temperature increase – not the other way around.
Anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant contributor to the earth’s climate.
- Combining water vapor and nature’s production of CO2, 99.9% of greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with human activity. Anthropogenic emissions of CO2account for only 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of CO2. How can altering man’s miniscule 1% contribution to atmospheric CO2levels over the last century have any discernible impact on the global processes of nature that have influenced earth’s climate for millions of years?
- Termites, farm animals, volcanoes, and dissolved CO2 in the oceans emit much larger amounts of CO2 than mankind. In well-documented warming periods in 1860-1880 and 1910-1940, which occurred before any possible effect from mankind - is proof that there is absolutely no correlation between human activity, CO2emissions, and global temperature.
There are a number of other fallacies propagandized by environmental extremists:
- Melting Glaciers – a number of well-documented glacier records indicate glaciers have been receding since 1750 and accelerated after 1820 (almost 100 years before the Model T). This is a natural phenomenon not related to human activity. Glaciers are still much larger than they were in the Medieval Warm Period.
- Polar Ice Melting – The West Antarctic Ice Sheet lost two-thirds of its ice mass since the last ice age but is now growing at more than 26 billion tons a year. How do you explain those well-publicized pictures of huge ice chunks breaking off and falling into the ocean? The natural process as the ice thickens inland, it pushes ice to the perimeter to the lower elevation where it breaks off. According to British meteorological stations in Antarctica , the continent is getting colder, not warmer. The Greenland ice mass has thickened by seven feet since it was first measured by laser altimetry in 1980, and continues to grow.
- Rising Sea Levels – Ocean levels have risen 400 feet over the last 18,000 years, a natural process that will continue without any influence from mankind. Current documented sea rise is 8-12 inches / century, much less than the mean centennial rise of 4 feet. The IPCC estimates 17-24 inch rise to 2100, slightly less than the 20 foot rise Al Gore prophesized in his film.
- Polar Bear Extinction – (related to polar ice) There are four times as many polar bears now than there were in the 1940’s….enough said.
- Increasing Hurricanes and Typhoons – According to the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index published by Florida State University, the Index is at it’s lowest in 33 years. While Hurricane Katrina was a major tragedy for New Orleans , the destruction from that Category 3 storm was principally due to the failure of man-made levees.
Why is there so much emphasis on CO2when the human contribution of it is trivial and water vapor is so much more important in greenhouse effect? The simple answer is that governments can control only people, not nature. For millions of years, the sun and the clouds have been principally responsible for climate change. There is no indisputable scientific evidence anything mankind does can influence climate change. Governments cannot control the sun or the clouds, so they must find a cause that can be blamed on people. If people have no impact on climate change, there is no justification for all of the scientific grants and studies to validate government intervention. The environmental extremists will go to any lengths to prove mankind’s relevance on climate change, otherwise they have no seat at government’s trough.
There is no need for government to regulate and tax CO2emissions, and to invade every aspect of American lives. The environmental extremists have manufactured a climate change crisis, based on fraudulent and manipulated scientific data, that has empowered liberal congressmen with a huge, new source of potential tax revenue they can redistribute to fund their liberal agenda. It’s not about climate change, it’s about tax revenue.
The US Weather Service cannot accurately predict weather more than about a week in advance…why would we dramatically change our entire economy and our way of life based on climate models forecasting 40, 50, or 100 years in the future?
If this message concerns you and you want to make your concerns known to your congressmen, please click on the link below to express your opinion prior to their votes being cast. https://www.bipac.net/issue_alert.asp?g=IPAA&issue=climate_change&parent=IPAA
and email John@faulkforcongress.org Congressional Candidate for TX 18 CD (Sheila Jackson Lee is the incumbent)
Appreciation due Parks Paton Hoepfl & Brown for their summary presentation of Lord Monckton’s work and the details around the March 2009 Congressional testimony. Credit due Utah Valley University for a copy of Keith Rattie’s, CEO of Questar. graduation address dated April 2, 2009.
Tim Murray
Managing Director
Guggenheim Partners, LLC
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Election 2010, Energy Policy, Environmental Issues, Global Warming Fraud, government control, National Security
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, economy, Election 2010, Energy Policy, Environmental Issues, fannie mae, First Amendment Rights, Foreign Policy, freddie mac, government control, Houston Voters, Illegal Immigration, national healthcare, National Security, Public Education, socialism, Taxes, Texas 18th Congressional District
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Saturday, December 19th, 2009
“What we don’t need are weak regulations like those in Texas, where industry participation in many environmental programs is voluntary. Texas ranks first in the nation in the number of hazardous-waste incinerators and industrial emissions of carbon dioxide
and mercury. If that’s what Governor Bush has allowed to happen to his home state, imagine what President Bush would do for Detroit-and the rest of the country.”
Carbon Monoxide Concentration Trend
Hoven’s Index for December 19, 2009
Changes in the national average of the six common pollutants monitored by the EPA, 1980 to 2008:
Carbon Monoxide: 79% decrease.
Ground level Ozone: 25% decrease.
Lead: 92% decrease.
Nitrogen Dioxide: 46% decrease.
Particulate matter: 19% decrease.
Sulfur Dioxide: 71% decrease.
[click on Source The Environmental Protection Agency. Then page down to map of USA and click on Texas then click on the group of blue dots for Houston.]
Tags: Congress, Energy Policy, Environmental Issues, government control
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Sunday, December 13th, 2009
This is an excellent video.
“Actually I felt a little sorry for this woman, however, she’s probably like 98% of all the people who believe in AGW. ”
Tags: Barack Obama, Congress, Energy Policy, Environmental Issues, government control, National Security, socialism
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, December 7th, 2009
ClimateGate Professor Calls G-Warming Skeptic ‘A**hole’ on Live TV | NewsBusters.org:
[This video comment reminds me of a training session I attended. One of the classes was taught by an attorney who had been a Federal investigator. He was on the witness stand with the defense attorney attacking him personally, belittling him. When the court took a break he went over to the defense attorney and asked what's up. You and I have been friends for years. Why are you attacking me. The reply was "Jack, I've got nothing else". Its called argumentum ad hominem.]
Tags: Congress, economy, Election 2010, Energy Policy, Environmental Issues, National Security, socialism
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, December 7th, 2009
Climategate Scandal-
Al Gore’s been terrified of publicly debating-
As the Climategate scandal continues to unfold, it appears the final chapter is being written in the great anthropogenic global warming swindle pushed so vigorously and for so long by the world’s leading climate change hoax-perpetrator, former Vice President Al Gore. The scandal is a case of “scientists cooking the books, changing the research, changing the numbers, changing the actual temperatures, discrediting people in e-mails, saying how do we discredit them, how do we make them go away, et cetera, et cetera,” said Glenn Beck.
The so-called scientific consensus that Gore and a generation of true believers promoted has been gradually disintegrating for years but news that the key scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have been falsifying data has accelerated the process. Yet some in the media, even some of those journalists supposedly on the right, still don’t get it and continue to cling to their faith in the anthropogenic global warming religion. Shame on them.
Tags: Congress, Energy Policy, Environmental Issues, government control, National Security, socialism
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
Monday, November 23rd, 2009
This is important because many Red State democrats rode in on his coattails.
Gazing serenely from the Great Wall of China last week, President Barack Obama appeared to be making the most of one of the supreme perks of White House occupancy — a private guided tour of Asia’s most spectacular tourist destination.
White House aides exulted that perfectly choreographed pictures of this moment would make front pages around the world. Yet an experience Obama declared to be “magical” turned sour as he returned home to a spreading domestic revolt that is fanning Democratic unease.
It was not just that the US media have suddenly turned a lot more sceptical about a president with grand ambitions to reshape politics at home and abroad — even one previously friendly newspaper noted dismissively: “Obama goes to China, brings home a T-shirt.”
Nor was the steady decline in the president’s approval ratings — which fell below 50% for the first time in a Gallup poll last week — the main cause of White House angst. Obama remains more popular than either Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton a year after their elections, and both presidents eventually cruised to second terms.
The real problem may be Obama’s friends — or rather, those among his formerly most enthusiastic supporters who are now having second thoughts.
The doubters are suddenly stretching across a broad section of the Democratic party’s natural constituency. They include black congressional leaders upset by the sluggish economy; women and Hispanics appalled by concessions made to Republicans on healthcare; anti-war liberals depressed by the debate over troops for Afghanistan; and growing numbers of blue-collar workers who are continuing to lose their jobs and homes.
Tags: Barack Obama, economy, Energy Policy, Mortgage Crisis, national healthcare, National Security, unemployment
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
« Older Entries |
