May 2009


A new development in Obama’s “transparency” site was confirmed today for those that weren’t already suspect.  Administration officials have announced that the recovery.gov stimulus tracking site will not have any details available on contracts and grant available until October at the earliest…and could be pushed back as far as Spring 2010.  The reasoning behind this lag time screams of incompetency at best and ‘I don’t want to even go there’ at worst.  Some of the excuses offered included the time it will take to prepare the info for the site as well as not having enough “data storage capacity”.

President Obama made several promises not just during his campaign, but during the first 100 days of his administration that were on the subject of transparency.  One of the biggest and most widely touted of these promises was to enable citizens to “track every dime” of the $787 billion outlined in the bill.  At this point, an interested party can see how much money was given to each state from the federal government and from there find out how much will be allocated to each city, but that is as far down the line as it goes.  There are few projects that spending data is available on and the names of contractors are unavailable at this point.

What happened to the “new era” of “transparency”?  So far this is business as usual with a left leaning twist and Chicago politics thrown in for good measure.  Will Obama be held accountable for this issue, or will he step back and let someone else take the blame (i.e. Air Farce One skimming downtown Manhattan)?  Will the media question him on this matter and hold his feet to the fire, unrelenting until a REAL answer is given?  Or will they continue with their “enchanting” question lines and maybe ask him what his favorite part of the recovery.gov site is….or maybe if he is enthralled with the color scheme?

Advertisements

Uh oh.  Here it comes….it’s the time when Chairman Obama is going to start making the 9th Circuit Court look moderate, but this time it is going to be the Supreme Court of The United States!

Word has all but been confirmed that Justice David Souter, one of the more liberal Justices on the SCOTUS plans on retiring after this session.  He claims that while he loves his job, he hates Washington D.C.  Well I cant say as though I blame him on that front, but I think that his stepping down has more to do with timing that anything.  He has stated that he doesn’t like the city and has wanted to leave it for a few years now and while I don’t doubt that part, the part I doubt is that this didn’t have anything to do with Obama’s election.  Here it is 102 days into the new Administration with the SCOTUS having been in session for a couple of weeks now and BAM….NOW just happens to be the time to hang up his hat.

While under normal circumstances I wouldn’t be sad to see Souter go, I am actually more concerned about who might replace him.  It is kind of the “better the devil you know” philosophy.  So now it is Obama’s chance…what is he going to do with it?  More importantly, is he going to get what/who he wants?  If so, how?

If we look back to 2006, Obama was one of the loudest Senators calling for the filibuster of then nominee Samuel Alito.  There were a couple of noteworthy remarks that he made in favor of this action, but a few of them still stand out.  Also, the reasoning behind Obama’s support for a filibuster range from populist liberal thinking, all the way to down right ironic…

One of Obama’s major claims for supporting the filibuster of this particular nominee, was that he believe that Alito wouldn’t set firm limits on presidential authority.  Obama was very “concerned” about the issues of wiretapping and other liberal-flamed controversies over the War on Terror.  Then Senator Barack did not believe that Alito would basically prevent giving the President authority over such matters.  Now THAT is irony.  This is coming from the same person that bodyslammed the idea of redaction and state secrets….only to use it himself when given the “white-out”.  Do you think that he is still against ANY President having those authorities?  Me thinks not.

When it came to announcing that he had every intention of voting against Alito, Obama wasn’t shy.  He also claimed to want to filibuster the then nominee, but was “worried” that there were not enough votes to do so.  Even so, he stated that “It’s really a question whether I vote against Judge Alito once or twice”, saying that if there wasn’t a filibuster it would only be one vote against, but if there was a filibuster then he would vote against again.  So now that it is his turn up at bat, where does the President stand?

I would say that Obama is in “good” company when speaking of favoring the filibustering of Alito, but I think that the more appropriate word would be “obvious” company.  The fact of the matter is, that not only did Obama favor a filibuster…but Vice President Biden and Secy of State Clinton did as well!!!  Not that we didn’t already know that Barack was surrounding himself with liberals, but he has also surrounded himself with ideologically like minded liberals.

Then Senator Clinton ripped into Alito and supported a filibuster, even though there wasn’t enough votes to sustain one, saying ““History will show that Judge Alito’s nomination is the tipping point against constitutionally-based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation”.  Now that doesn’t sound very moderate or bipartisan to me…how bout you?  Why did Clinton state support for a filibuster?  Because John Kerry declared that he was bringing back the “Stop Alito Movement” and because she claimed to have shifted so to the center on abortion, she couldn’t have a possible opponent in the Presidential Primaries of 2008 out “liberal” her and steal support out from under her from the left.

While he initially stated that the instance of an Alito filibuster was unlikely, then Senator Biden added fuel to the talks of the possibility.  He claimed that he didn’t agree with Alito’s views of reapportionment, claiming that Alito alluded to being against the Warren Court and the decision of the “one man, one vote” principle.  “The part that jeopardizes it (Alito’s nomination) more is his quotes in there saying that he had strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment — one man, one vote,” Biden stated, adding “”The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that”.

So let’s see…Biden, Clinton and Obama all favored a filibuster of  the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, as they all did it due to ONE issue that they disagreed with.  Well one basic and fundamental issue in their books and all of these individual issues were different for each.  So now that it is President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secy Clinton, will they still see things in the same light?  Or are they going to call for “bipartisanship” on the issue and call Republicans the party of no, again?  What stance are they going to take on tis measure?  Is it going to be what’s good for the goose is good for the gander?  Or it is going to be a  completely different ball game now that their party is up to bat?  Are they going to play by double standards (again)?  Or are they going to accept the fact that the opposition has just as much of a right (and probably more so, but we will have to wait to see who is actually nominated) to challenge the choice of the POTUS on the SCOTUS?

This should be VERRRRRRRY interesting!!!