————————————————————

Self-Sacrificial Lambs:

Too bad we don’t know when to quit. But not just quit — reconfigure our defenses against expansionist Islam. Big difference.

I do find it interesting that almost none of the upticks in both places over the last 3 months have been bushed over quickly by media outlets….. hmmmm wonder why that is???

I was listening to Rush talk about Planned Parenthood and I thought he said Planned Presidency.

I was waitng for him to finish the joke with something like–”They both end in abortions” or someting like that, until I realized he did say Planned Parenthood.

I have to agree. If we are not in it to win, the lives of 100 Afghans isn’t worth the life of one U.S. Service member.

When Bush was in office, I was dead set against cutting and running. Even when the objectives were costing American lives, there was a purpose: defeating terrorism. Although each life is sacred, I felt, and I’m sure the troops felt, that they were there for a good cause.

Under Obama’s leadership, I have swapped positions and I am now for cutting and running. He does not have our tr0ops there for any goal other than the perception that it would look bad politially to cut and run. This is a hard to reconcile because a lot of good men and women lost their lives and quitting now would mean their lives were lost without reason.

My former White House colleague Nicholas Thompson, now vice president at the Tarrance Group, sent out an e-mail analyzing the new Gallup poll that shows President Obama with a 51 percent approval rating — the lowest of his administration. More interestingly, Obama’s approval is down 14 points from his initial rating — tying President Clinton for the biggest drop since the Eisenhower era.

For those interested, here’s how different presidents match up when comparing their initial approval rating with their average approval rating in the August of their first term: Eisenhower +6 (from 68 to 74 percent), Kennedy +4 (from 72 to 76 percent), Nixon +3 (from 59 to 62 percent), Carter -3 (from 66 to 63 percent), Reagan +9 (from 51 to 60 percent), George H. W. Bush +18 (from 51 to 69 percent), Clinton -14 (from 58 to 44 percent), George W. Bush -1 (from 57 to 56 percent), and Obama -14 (from 68 to 54 percent).

H/T The Corner

Health insurance companies have received no federal bail out money so the question of what gives Waxman the right to be investigating how much private companies pay their employees, or how much they spend on business conferences to Hawaii or Vegas falls under the heading of none of the government’s damned business.

If shareholders want to fire executives for making too much that is their right. If these same shareholders want to fire managers for going on golf excursions at company expense under the guise of a business conference, they are well within their rights to do so.

If Waxman wants to make this the business of Congress, perhaps we should start looking at Congressional junkets, gifts, campaign monies being used to pay wives and relatives exorbitant salaries, and a host of other practices that should be illegal but are not.

But that just wouldn’t do. Instead, we have Democrats wanting to intimidate people to keep them from opposing their agenda.

American Thinker Link

THEY CAN’T HANDLE THIS, BUT THEY’LL HANDLE HEALTHCARE? Dealers stiffed as clunkers pile up. “Some New Mexico auto dealers have backed out of the cash-for-clunkers program and more may do so as the federal government takes its time providing cash reimbursements. Dealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers’ group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.”

H/T Instapundit

I keep thinking how the press hounded Chaney over his Halliburton stock. But the media echo chamber is stone cold quiet on any financial ties or gain with the Obama administration.

Like any political party they have a certain agenda in mind. The difference with them is that push their country-changing agenda —-> whether the “people” go along with their ideas or not.

In health care, the stimulus, cap and trade, the auto industry, and so on, the dims barrel forward, no matter what messages of discontent, anger, dissent the public volleys towards them. It’s like they think they are “ruling” a country of underclass citizens! In other words, “strategy” not consensus is what governs their “rule of law.”

For instance, regarding health care:

The White House and Senate Democratic leaders, seeing little chance of bipartisan support for their health-care overhaul, are considering a strategy shift that would break the legislation into two parts and pass the most expensive provisions solely with Democratic votes.

WSJ Link