Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Deroy Murdock; agree or disagree?

Obama Lies about the ‘Do-Nothing Congress’
His party, not the Republicans, is the obstacle.


‘This Congress, they are accustomed to doing nothing, and they’re comfortable with doing nothing, and they keep on doing nothing,” President Obama whined at a September 15 Democratic National Committee gathering in a private Washington residence.
Now that his “Blame Bush” hobby horse finally has retired to the glue factory, Obama resorts to pinning America’s woes on the “Do-Nothing Congress.” If only these parliamentarians would stop taking endless lunches, sipping cocktails at Capitol Hill happy hours, and napping at their desks, America might have some chance of returning to normal.

Obama speaks as if the entire Congress were in lock-step Republican opposition to his every initiative. Damn those pesky elephants! Of course, Obama’s rhetoric cynically turns things upside down.
Congress consists of a do-something House of Representatives, run by Republicans, and a do-nothing Senate controlled by Obama’s very own Democrats. Obama evidently believes that if he can keep spouting clever lies and distortions, no one will call him on it. Well, it’s time to do so.
The 112th Congress has been characterized by a very active legislative pace in the Republican House, featuring the passage of many measures designed to revive America’s exhausted economy.
The Democratic Senate, meanwhile, is a much lazier place, where House Republicans’ measures go to die.
The figures bear this out, beyond debate.
Through September 15, the Republican House had been in session for 120 days. The Democratic Senate through the same date had been in session only 115 days.
In terms of recorded votes, the two bodies are as different as Times Square and the Everglades. Through September 15, the GOP House had voted 711 times. Meanwhile, across the same period, the Democratic Senate had only 137 recorded votes. So, the allegedly lethargic GOP legislators whose sloth dooms the nation actually are five times as energetic as their indolent counterparts in the Democratic Senate. 
This distinction might discredit House Republicans if they wasted their time voting on National Apricot Yogurt Month and similar matters of national urgency. In fact, Republicans have approved serious legislation designed to get America moving.
“Our new majority has passed more than a dozen pro-growth measures designed to address the jobs crisis,” Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor wrote Obama on September 6. “Aside from repeal of the 1099-reporting requirement in the health care law, however, none of the jobs measures passed by the House to date have been taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.”
These have included bills to reduce anti-business regulations, accelerate offshore oil production, and speed the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Canadian oil to refineries in Texas. The pipeline alone would create 20,000 jobs.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid seems to be in no rush to consider Obama’s American Jobs Act, even though Obama wants it enacted “right now!”
“We’ve got to get rid of some issues first,” Reid said. For now, he is not sure “exactly what I’m going to do yet with the president’s jobs bill,” especially since some of Reid’s own Democrats, such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Jim Webb of Virginia, seem ho-hum about Obama’s $447 billion Stimulus Jr.
While House Republicans adopted a budget last April 15, the Democratic Senate has not approved a budget since April 29, 2009. This Democratic inaction seems to violate the U.S. Congressional Budget Act, which requires passage of an annual budget resolution. Indeed, the Senate rejected Obama’s budget in May by a vote of 0 to 97 — with every Democrat in the chamber voting nay.
Obama can disagree with every piece of paper passed by the GOP House. But when he slyly bashes Republicans by accusing “this Congress” of “doing nothing,” he simply is lying through his teeth. If Obama wants the entire Congress to get something done, he should tell Harry Reid to wake up and do his job.
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

48 comments:

beamish said...

As President, Obama has the power to call out the militia to put down insurrections.

Given that in the same speech he called on his black supporters to put on their combat boots he also claimed Jews don't pay enough in taxes, we know exactly where this is going.

This is Obama calling for a race war.

Always On Watch said...

Beamish said:
This is Obama calling for a race war.


I agree.

And class warfare too. BHO protests that he's not promoting class warfare. Well, he is!

Divide and conquer is BHO's strategy.

Silverfiddle said...

Deroy Murdoch is a smart man. I enjoy his articles over at NRO. As usual, he is spot on.

Ducky's here said...

and a do-nothing Senate controlled by Obama’s very own Democrats.

--------------

That's a complete pantload. To get anything through the Senate you need 60 votes.

Remember, enlightened mouth breather Jim DeMint(R - 14th Century) has a filibuster on anything passing through the Senate.

When you have yellow dogs like Ben Nelson and oil company pimps like Mary Landrieu in the mix you aren't going to get much through and he hasn't.

I question whether The Black Messiah wanted to implement single payer but the final bill, a giveaway to private insurers and drug companies seems close to what he would have wanted anyway.


Race war? Give me a break, just the fringe right being afraid of the dark as usual. You guys see what little privilege you had in this culture slipping away and you are scared. You are running on fear.

Of course there is good reason for fear but you aren't going to correct this problem by mouthing the corporatist talking memes like "class warfare". Yeah, Obama is Lenin. The right is completely delusional.

Always On Watch said...

Ouch!

Brooke said...

Funny, I would call Ducky's comment a 'complete pantload.'

Bob said...

Ducky says: "Yeah, Obama is Lenin."

Be careful of what you say. The Demo thought police could easily take your words out of context, and you could be fodder for Herr Obama's new Reich.

Z said...

Beamish, absolutely.
What the heck else did he mean?

AOW....it's almost scary to think this guy doesn't think he's promoting class warfare. Maybe he's not as smart as the lefties thought.

SF; I'd not seen much of Murdock; he really does get it right.

Ducky; Everybody's always wrong, I know. You know better. And we're just scared.
Read it again, how many times must we say that?

Bob, the left doesn't understand they'll be on the chopping block, too.

Brooke :)

Z said...

AOW; OH MY GOD!

"it's our turn" ?
Little have they known that it's been their turn for lo these many years we've been hoping and encouraging Black Americans to DO THEIR BEST, PLEEEEASE?
(of course, that doesn't go for all our Black friends who HAVE worked hard and succeeded, right? SOMEHOW they'd figured out when we did that hard work brings rewards...and it has, and at least my black friends have never been on welfare and I KNOW they're not alone!)

Wow...!
But, this is all good. Americans of all colors, if they're not so left-indoctrinated that they can still think, find this kind of thing pandering and prejudiced...bring it on.

Ticker said...

Herman Cain called it "race warfare" and said Obama was a liar if he called it anything else but class warfare. Now that is calling it like it is.

Mark said...

"To get anything through the Senate you need 60 votes.

Ducky needs to go back to school and this time, pay attention in "Reading Comprehension 101".

The article doesn't say the Senate failed to pass legislation. It says they haven't even voted on much. You don't need a 60% majority to consider a vote, Ducky. Geeez.

Z said...

ticker, imagine? I just had an idea for a post and your comment just showed me I've got to do it, thanks.

Mark..thanks for that. I knew there was a hole in Ducky's thinking but I didn't have time to consider;

see you all later..

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

And yet, on the other hand, Maxine Waters is pissed that Mr Obama took blacks slightly to task.

That said, Mr Murdock is 100% correct. Stop your whining. You OWN the White House and its concomitant bully pulpit, along with the Senate and darned near the house, along with the media and upper education.

Simply not happy with that, it's beyond time, Mr Obama thinks, to really begin that race war. And there will be, sir, push-back.

BZ

Impertinent said...

"This is Obama calling for a race war."

Guess it took 3 years for the Jeremiah Wright to finally reveal himself in Comrade O's philosophy?

There already is a race / class war and it's been going on for the last generation or two. Thanks to Sharpton, Calypso Louie's militia, the CBC, ( the klan in tan ) Jerkson, Rangel ( who as a censored dirt bag, crook and a thief get a award ) and the foul, corrupt Maxine.

Just listen tho the hate from Shabazz of the "New Black Panthers". Hell...he's as bad as Armadinnerjacket at Columbia.

These monsters are always ready to take a dump in the racial pond when things begin to look better.

Ducky's here said...

No, z, not everybody but if you try to form the truth (whatever that is) from a strict doctrinaire narrow band of commentators you ain't gonna find it.

beamish said...

Given that the statistical likelihood of someone who has ever voted for a Democrat will go ding dong and start killing people indiscriminately is too damned high to ignore, we need to be prepared for these anti-American terrorists in our midsts.

Leticia said...

It's always been about race with Obama. And for some odd reason despises the wealthy Americans and wants to take away their money and give it to dead-beats who refuse to work but are able to.

He should put his money where is mouth is.

You had better believe he wants division in America and has been successful at it.

I wonder what liberals say about Mr. Murdock? Will they also label him a traitor to his race as they have to Hermain Cain and Allen West? Because they disagree with Obama's policies?

Dave Miller said...

Actually Mark, when a filibuster is invoked, there can be no vote.

So if one Senator can invoke that filibuster, anonymously I might add, how does legislation even get brought up for a vote?

Reid, as have many Senate majority Leaders before him, tries not to bring legislation up for consideration unless there are the required 60 votes.

It is just the way it works. The Senate could change tomorrow to 52 Republicans, and we would have the same situation with the Dems filibustering.

Z, do you think Mr. Murdock would then be chastising the GOP for failing to have votes in the Senate?

Perhaps to be consistent, he'd have to right?

Pris said...

We have a do nothing Senate, thanks to the Democrat leadership.

Whaddayasay, we work to change that, folks? Get out that charge card or checkbook, and donate to conservative Senate candidates. No matter how little we can contribute, it all adds up.

beamish said...

So if one Senator can invoke that filibuster, anonymously I might add, how does legislation even get brought up for a vote?

Anonymous filibustering? BWHAHAHA!

Under current Senate rules, the Senate Majority Leader (that's Harry Reid, a Dem) has the power to intervene whenever there's a "secret hold" placed on legislation.

So, why doesn't he?

Z said...

Ducky, I need to remind you that Conservatives usually read all sides of issues; of course, we can hardly help hearing the leftist side, anyway, if we're watching any network news or CNN or TV shows or films, or.....most dinner parties in the L.A. area, trust me.

As I've said before; we are forced to be more 'doctrinaire' here at blogs because we don't have time or energy to examine from every viewpoint, sadly...tho I see some good in lots of liberal viewpoints.
Plus, I'd never give you or any other lib here the pleasure. TRUST ME.


Dave, what are you talking about? You think that if Murdock didn't do that, it would be fair?

One thing you apparently haven't learned from me thru my blog is I do believe in fairness and I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Actually, I'm sorry I haven't kept a special 'label' for that on my blog. If I ever could find the time, I'd like to go back and put all my posts together where I HAVE given credit to the left.
And I believe Murdock would absolutely condemn the Right if they were behaving as disingenuously as the Reid-ites seem to be now.
Why aren't they at it? DO they resent giving credit to the Right's good ideas? It's important to realize that the Right HAS come up with jobs plans, alternate health care plans, etc., and that your media's not telling you.

it's also important that the truth in Murdock's article is known. Were I a leftist, I'd be ashamed of what their media holds back from voters.

Beamish; exactly

T.O. Geezer said...

AGREE! :-)

Bob said...

I think Ducky makes a good point with, "if you try to form the truth (whatever that is) from a strict doctrinaire narrow band of commentators you ain't gonna find it."

The only problem is that whenever a liberal shows up on a predominately conservative site, he/she tend to make ad hominem arguments, and rarely reference factual events. I know people may gang-up on someone like this, but that is unavoidable.

I don't have an example right now, but I know Z will not tolerate bad language, nor somebody who cannot make a point without denigrating others. I am sure that she can furnish examples where this happens.

I have seen conservatives show up on liberal blogs when they are received with name calling and downright dirty language.

I would personally like to see blogs everywhere set rules that support disciplined argument. Very few do.

Bd said...

The 'do nothing-ness' of this congress is a result of GOP obstructionists who'd rather see us slump into a recession than see Obama succeed-even if it means the middle class suffers.

The Congress before 2010 has been the most productive in recent history.

www.whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com

Bd said...

Leticia said...

It's always been about race with Obama. And for some odd reason despises the wealthy Americans and wants to take away their money and give it to dead-beats who refuse to work but are able to


Polly wanna cracker?

Z said...

Bd, stop believing the pablum; you're sounding silly.

You insult Leticia's comment... "And for some odd reason despises the wealthy Americans and wants to take away their money and give it to dead-beats who refuse to work but are able to.."

Can you show her and all of us differently? Would love to see how someone doesn't come to that conclusion.
Let's forget 'despises the wealthy Americans' and substitute ' pays no attention to the Constitution'...I'd like to hear your response to that, too (sort of, not really) :-)

Elmers Brother said...

Thats rich, big dummy (BD) cuts and pastes from a website and then in the next comment gives SF a hard time.

Hypocrite!

Elmers Brother said...

Sorry I meant Leticia...you also parroted duhkkky...this is too much!

Z said...

Bob, good points; I hadn't deleted much more than about five comments in the last 3 years since I opened geeeeZ, but I've had to quite a lot the last six months; the leftwingers are springing into action because of the election. They're all getting primed; you'll be hearing talk radio get the ubiquitous pre-election phone calls that say "I USED to be a REPUBLICAN, but I just CAN'T vote for them again, because........" It's hilarious. Usually, the hosts recognize the actual voices after a while and get them some fun, but.... never fails that they'll be there.

YOur comment reminds me of when Tony Snow died and the Huffington Post crashed due to the huge amount of "glad he's DEAD" comments they got. SHe's never replaced that day's blog; you'd never know that happened but we all know. You know how the left behaves every time CHeney is seriously ill.....the comments at leftist blogs are unbelievably nasty..
Yet, when Teddy Kennedy died, I was so gratified to see all of us bloggers on the same theme ...we all admitted we didn't like his politics but some of us talked about how nobody should suffer like that, others talked about what a loss to his family.....gave him credit for years of service.

There's always quite a difference in the tones between the Right and the Left.
Picture ANY Rightwinger saying anything remotely close to what Bill Maher says or allows on HIS show? Remember he had comics talking about Mr Bachmann F'ing michele hard because she's so awful.....?: The other day Maher said something about Palin f'ing (he uses the whole word, of course) black men but she's racist?

I'd like one lib here to link me to anything the Right's said like that in any quasi-mainstream cable channel or blog.

Chuck said...

Mark beat me to it

The article doesn't say the Senate failed to pass legislation. It says they haven't even voted on much. You don't need a 60% majority to consider a vote, Ducky.

Following that Dave made the point that Reid will not bring up something that would fail anyways, which I must admit I don't blame Reid for. It would be a public relations mess for him and any leader, Democrat or Republican, worth his salt would do the same.

The problem with this though is that the Democrats aren't even proposing a plan.

Their game plan is to sit on the side lines and blame the GOP. The hope of Obama and the rest of the Democratic party is that the voters will place more blame on the GOP than they do on the Dems and will therefore vote Democratic.

Impertinent said...

"It would be a public relations mess for him and any leader, Democrat or Republican, worth his salt would do the same."


And that is exactly why these 120 days a year workers, paid by we the US Taxpayer have a DISAPPROVAL rating of 88%!

The 12% that approve of this worthless government...are employed by it.

They're not the least damn bit afraid of bad "PR"...they don't care if we hold them in contempt....they only care about themselves, their pensions, their perks, their power, getting re elected on lies and more lies.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Well, now the Democrat Governor of North Carolina and Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget have both come out solidly in favor of doing away with elections.

Typical leftism. When all else fails, resort to destroying democratic institutions and setting up death camps.

beamish said...

The Democratic solution to not getting things through Congress?

Doing away with Congress...

beamish said...

If ever there was a ripe time to repeal the 17th Amendment and get state legislature representation back in the Senate, this is it.

Z said...

"Well, now the Democrat Governor of North Carolina and Obama's former director of the Office of Management and Budget have both come out solidly in favor of doing away with elections."

Beamish..WHHHAAAAAAAAAA...??

Z said...

IS THIS A JOKE?

beamish said...

Nope! Sorry, no joke.

[see my blog]

MK said...

Somebody ought to tell obama that the problem with telling lies and just making sh!t up is that there comes a point when no one will believe anything you say, no matter if it's actually true or not, they simply won't listen.

If obama wants to know how that feels, pick up the phone ol boy and call our prime minister.

Dave Miller said...

CHuck, you've hit on what I believe should be the undoing of the Senate. There is no such thing as straight up votes anymore because there is always some Senator who will invoke, or threaten the filibuster.

It has reduced that body to needing 60 votes to anything no matter the party.

The reasons? Maybe an all to strong emphasis on party unity before legislation. I do not know, but something it seems, needs to change.

Beamish said Under current Senate rules, the Senate Majority Leader (that's Harry Reid, a Dem) has the power to intervene whenever there's a "secret hold" placed on legislation.

And then asked why doesn't he?

Does it make a difference whether it is anonymous or public? Would knowing that Sen Jim Demint has threatened to filibuster any law he does not agree with change the metrics?

It wouldn't and you know it.

But as to why... WHile you may disagree, Reid loves the Senate. He's an old line fight 'em hard kind of guy for his side.

As such, he does not want to be the first Majority leader to cross that line.

Leaders from both parties have held that rule as almost Holy Writ.

It is as Chuck said... It would be a public relations mess for him and any leader, Democrat or Republican, worth his salt would do the same.

No leader worth his salt would bring up legislation doomed to fail.

That is why Mr. Murdock has not much legislation from this Senate.

beamish said...

Does it make a difference whether it is anonymous or public? Would knowing that Sen Jim Demint has threatened to filibuster any law he does not agree with change the metrics?

Sure it would, if Harry Reid though that he could wrangle up enough votes to shut down a filibuster.

And remember, a filibuster only lasts as long as the Senator can talk. They can't take breaks for meals, restrooms, sleep, or even a smoke break.

If Harry Reid is afraid he can't wait out (at the extreme most) all the Republicans windbagging it before taking a vote, maybe he's got a bad bill on his hands.

net observer said...

I genuinely hope this interpretation of Obama trying to start a race war is nothing more than a harmless joke. I cannot imagine -- and maybe it's wishful thinking on my part -- anybody seriously believing that.

Z said...

net, I don't think anybody actually thinks he WANTS a race war but I wish he'd do something like speak publicly about the black FLASH MOBS, telling those kids what a bad choice that is to make in one's life, etc.

Remember when he sided on the black prof's side immediately before hearing the details of that house arrest near Harvard, I believe it was?

He finally goes to a church for Easter this last season and he picks a FREE SLAVE CHURCH. WHY?

Why not be an AMERICAN? BE BOTH COLORS! Every other president should and HE IS BOTH COLORS!

I fault him for doing very little to help race relations, I truly do. Then we have Maxine Waters mad at him for not being black enough? disgusting.

beamish said...

I genuinely hope this interpretation of Obama trying to start a race war is nothing more than a harmless joke. I cannot imagine -- and maybe it's wishful thinking on my part -- anybody seriously believing that.

How else would you interpret a "stop complaining and put on your marching boots" speech?

March where? For what? March happy, no complaints?

Recall, this speech to the Congressional Black Caucus came after the CBC's chairman claimed that they would have already marched on Obama's White House if only he weren't black.

So, where does Obama want to redirect black political anger and militancy?

You've either got to conclude that Obama's speech had no substance or meaning whatsoever, or that it was a call for a race war.

Considering Obama's own Freudian slip about "Jews / janitors" not paying enough taxes and recent calls from Democrat leaders to cancel holding elections, we've seen enough world history to know leftism inevitably concludes with the marching men hauling other people away to death camps.

I wish it could be a "harmless joke," but one does not vote for Democrats without a serious contempt for the existence of the US Constitution.

Mark said...

I'm OK with concluding that Obama's speech has no substance or meaning whatsoever. None of his speeches do, after all.

Dave Miller said...

Beamish, you might want to check your Senate rules... these days a series of senators can engage in the filibuster, so it is not just one person that must keep the debate going.

Also, even the threat of a filibuster, from either party, is usually enough for a Senate majority to not bring up a specific piece of legislation.

Now since we know which party has been pretty active in using the filibuster since 2008, we can pretty easily identify why the Senate has passed fewer bills than the House.

It is a simple answer and one Mr. Murdock should have known, or at least acknowledged.

beamish said...

Dave,

I would argue that it is not the filibuster that is the problem with the Senate, but rather the 17th Amendment to the Constitution that completely eliminated state government representation at the federal government level.

But you couldn't have national political parties voting for the interests of R or D in the Senate rather than say, the interests of the government of the state of Alabama vs. the interests of the state of Tennessee as the founding fathers intended.

Repeal the 17th Amendment and you completely end partisan gridlock and the whole bullshit contest.

Z said...

Murdock's points are excellent and informative.