VIDEO: “Stimulus czar” Biden falls asleep during Obama’s deficit speech

Via ABC’s The Note blog:

Michael Muskal at the LA Times Top of the Ticket blog writes in response:

Vice President Joe Biden was given another big job by President Obama on Wednesday and the burden may have driven Obama’s go-to guy into a moment of sleep or, at least, contemplation.

Biden, who has more than a nodding acquaintance with deficits, debts and federal budget woes, was caught apparently deep in thought or catching a few winks while Obama outlined his plan for dealing with the deficit. […]

In his speech, the president explained that Biden would begin meeting with lawmakers from both parties next month with a goal of trying to work out a bipartisan deficit reduction plan.

Methinks our “stimulus czar” is suffereing from a deficit in things needed to stimulate him to keep him awake during his bosses speeches … ;)

On a more serious note, Ed Morrissey sums up the speech nicely in the headline to his post on the topic: Obama’s solution to deficit: spending, ObamaCare, and tax hikes. In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) who, along with fellow colleagues, unveiled the House Republicans’ proposed FY2012 budget last week, blasted President Obama’s remarks as nothing more than partisan rhetoric filled with inaccuracies. Prepared remarks:

“When the President reached out to ask us to attend his speech, we were expecting an olive branch. Instead, his speech was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to address our fiscal crisis. What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander-in-chief; we heard a political broadside from our campaigner-in-chief.

“Last year, in the absence of a serious budget, the President created a Fiscal Commission. He then ignored its recommendations and omitted any of its major proposals from his budget, and now he wants to delegate leadership to yet another commission to solve a problem he refuses to confront.

“We need leadership, not a doubling down on the politics of the past. By failing to seriously confront the most predictable economic crisis in our history, this President’s policies are committing our children to a diminished future. We are looking for bipartisan solutions, not partisan rhetoric. When the President is ready to get serious about confronting this challenge, we’ll be here.”

Extended remarks from Rep. Ryan in which he talks about the demagoguery coming from the President and how we need leadership:

As to the demagoguery, Jake Tapper made a nice catch on the President’s anti-demagoguery rhetoric from January 2010 vs today’s speech. It pretty much denotes an epic flip flop from Obama. No surprise there.

You can read the full text version of the speech here.

Pelosi: “Elections shouldn’t matter”

**Posted by Phineas

Well, at least she gets points for being honest about her elitist, anti-democratic, nigh-on fascist* values. While speaking to students at Tufts University last week, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives**, the woman who not too long ago was second in line to be President of the United States, had this to say:

To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. Because there are so many things at risk right now — perhaps in another question I’ll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do…But when it comes to a place where there doesn’t seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.

“Elections shouldn’t matter.” We’ve seen this time and again since last November: at the national level, the President and the Democratic leadership regularly act as if they hadn’t suffered a total repudiation at the polls, still pushing an agenda the nation clearly rejected. And at the state level, they’ve brought out their allies in Wisconsin, Ohio, Washington, New Jersey, Idaho, and soon in Sacramento to intimidate the elected representatives of the people and overturn the results of a democratic election. Tells you all one needs to know about the leadership of the Democratic Party — and why they should never, ever win another election in our lifetimes.

via Lance

LINKS: Real Clear Politics has the video. Historian Steven Hayward analyzes this and shows how it represents a continuity in Progressive thought from its foundations to the present.

*Trust me, I’m not exaggerating — Read Goldberg’s book. This appeal to “shared values,” a unity that rises above politics, a “third way” — it’s all straight out of the Progressive/liberal fascist manual and has a history stretching back more than 100 years.

**You know, the chamber often called “The People’s House,” whose frequent elections are supposed to better reflect popular will. But, if elections “shouldn’t matter as much as they do,” then who are the Representatives representing?

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

WH visitor logs show just how secretive “most transparent admin in history” really is

Where’s the left wing outrage? Via Viveca Novak and Fred Schulte of the Center for Public Integrity, writing at The Politico (hat tip: Bryan Preston):

Similarly, the logs are missing the names of thousands of other visitors to the White House, including lobbyists, government employees, campaign donors, policy experts and friends of the first family, according to an investigation by the Center for Public Integrity.

The White House website proudly boasts of making available “over 1,000,000 records of everyone who’s come through the doors of the White House” via a searchable database.

Yet the Center’s analysis shows that the logs routinely omit or cloud key details about the identity of visitors, whom they met with and the nature of their visits. The logs even include the names of people who never showed up. These are critical gaps that raise doubts about the records’ historical accuracy and utility in helping the public understand White House operations, from social events to meetings on key policy debates.

Among the many weaknesses found by the Center’s review of the database:

• The “event” description in the logs is blank for more than 205,000 visits, including many that involved small meetings with the president and his key aides.

• Five junior staff aides together received more than 4,440 visits. By contrast, then-chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, famed for his workaholic schedule, is listed as having fewer than 500 visits.

• Less than 1 percent of the estimated 500,000 visits to the White House in Obama’s first eight months — a time when the new administration was bustling with activity — have been disclosed, according to the Center’s analysis.

• The logs include names of people cleared by the Secret Service for White House entry who apparently never showed up. The Center analysis found more than 200,000 visits with no time of arrival, an indication that the person didn’t enter the White House, though there is no way to be certain. For instance, actor Ryan Gosling is listed at a West Wing event with members of his band, Dead Man’s Bones, in October 2009. But Gosling’s representative, Carolyn Govers, said the actor did not go.

• Two-thirds of the more than 1 million names listed are people who passed through parts of the White House on guided group tours.

Read the whole thing to get even more insight into the hush-hush nature of this administration as exemplified by the WH visitors list.    Other visitors include AFL-CIO big wig Richard Trumka, who has visited the WH some 48 times, but on only 12 of the visits were the reasons why he was visiting recorded, according to CPI.  And let’s not forget about those meetings between Obama admin officials and lobbyists that are held in conference rooms just off of WH grounds, meetings that – obviously – don’t need to be recorded on the WH visitors list.

Remember, when this administration talks up its record on “transparency”, what they really mean is how “transparent” they are with the records of prior administrations, not their own.  The real “transparency” here is, well, how transparent their sneaky little agenda is.