White House Officials: Don't Believe Everything Obama Says on Healthcare

More and more, it just seems that Obama’s the good looking guy who can read the teleprompter best:

After President Obama’s big speech on health care, I was among the first to note that I couldn’t see how he could possibly keep his promises. Now, according to the Associated Press, the White House has backed off Obama’s promises made just last Monday…

…Here is Mike Gonzalez at Heritage on Friday:

Less than 24 hours after Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner questioned the veracity of President Obama’s persistent claim that, under his health care proposals, “if you like your insurance package you can keep it”, the White House has begun to walk the President’s claim back. Turns out he didn’t really mean it.

According to the Associated Press, “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” How’s that for change you can believe in?

I’m sorry, but it seems to me that “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally” means, “look, we just have Obama to say things really well to gull the fools, but we’re going to do whatever the heck we want, instead”. Quite honestly, I don’t know how we can rely on any Presidential statement – we’ll never know if it was given to Obama as window dressing or if its the real policy he’s being told to advance. Who did we elect President?

Twitter Updates for 2009-06-21

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-06-21

The Obama Honeymoon Is Ending

Recent polling by Gallup and Rasmussen indicate that approval of Obama’s job performance is dwindling.

Gallup’s latest poll records Obama’s lowest job approval yet at 58% (with 33% disapproval). This is obviously not a horrible rating, but, what I find most interesting is the approval by party ID:

Obama has lost ground with Republicans and Independents. Now, I am sure most would write off low approval from Republicans as expected, but an 8-point drop with Independents in two weeks is very significant. It is also interest to note that Obama has only gained ground with Democrats. Which only speaks to Obama’s polarizing nature. Obama has made many blunders in his short time in office, and has on occasion, done things that have upset his base. Not releasing photos of detainees being interrogated, a perceived lack of action on the homosexual agenda, etc. Past poll internals have shown Obama personally getting more support than the policies he is promoting, so, it is only a matter of time before support from Democrats takes a hit.

The Rasmussen poll also shows bad news for Obama. Their latest daily tracking poll also shows a new low for Obama. There presidential approval index weighs ‘strong approval’ against ‘strong disapproval’ and finds, for the for time a negative president approval index rating:

The trend in the above graph is undeniable. I know some on the left would love to write off the numbers as being influenced by sour grapes from McCain voters, but Obama’s early high approval clearly showed a willingness from voters on the right to give Obama a chance, which is normal at the start of any presidency. Even after the contentious 2000 election, George W. Bush entered office with high approval.

What is causing the rapid decline in Obama’s approval? Well, as I stated before, the policies he is promoting have significantly less support than he does. His flip-flopping on campaign promises, his blunders, hypocrisy, and incompetence has been chipping away at the carefully crafted, focus group-tested image he made for himself during the campaign.

Phrase of the Day

What to do about those who state there is no absolute right or wrong:

If he really does think there is no distinction between virtue and vice, why, sir, when he leaves our house let us count our spoons – Samuel Johnson

Two Events in the War on Christianity

One:

A Pagan group in Britain has accused a Catholic social club of religious discrimination for refusing to host a Pagan group’s Annual Witches’ Ball on the grounds it was ‘not compatible with the Catholic ethos.’

Sandra Davis, 61, a High Priestess of the Pagan group, initially had reserved Our Lady’s Social Club in Stockport, Manchester for her group’s Annual Witches Ball. When she called to make payment arrangements, she was told the event could not be held there and must find another venue. She told the Daily Telegraph she was “appalled” and said her congregation was “shocked” that there can be such “religious discrimination.”

“We’re normal people who follow an earth-based religion and want to enjoy ourselves.

“We thought we were bridging the gap with other religions but misconceptions still exist, like we sacrifice animals.

“Does the church check everyone’s beliefs before allowing them in the club?” she asked.

Fr. John Joyce from the Diocese of Shrewsbury explained to the Daily Telegraph why the event could not proceed at the Catholic club.

“Parish centers under our auspices let their premises on the understanding users and their organizations are compatible with the ethos and teachings of the Catholic Church,” he said.

“In this instance, we aren’t satisfied such requirements are met.”

Two:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the news that the Education Committee of the New York City Council has approved two new Muslim holidays, Eid Ul-Fitr and Eid Ul-Adha, to be added to the school calendar:

“On January 14, I testified before this very same committee requesting equal rights for Catholics: Jewish and Islamic religious symbols are displayed in the schools every December, but Christian symbols are banned.

“With the exception of Councilman Tony Avella, and a few others, the Education Committee showed no interest in appeasing Catholics.

“But its members are apparently capable of demonstrating great sensitivity to Muslims.

“Speaker Christine Quinn, who was raised Catholic—and who has shown no interest in the push for parity that the Catholic League wants—is now urging all City Councilmen to vote for this new round of Muslim rights.

“What’s at work is the politics of multiculturalism: tolerance for some, intolerance for others. But this fight isn’t over yet.”

If we don’t allow representatives of the Enemy to use our property, we’re discriminating. If we’re refused access to someone else’s property, we’re not being discriminated against. Boiled down: Whatever offends Christians must be allowed, whatever shows tolerance for Christians must be banned. This is the trend of things, and why we Christians insist there is a war upon our faith – certain people (including the odd alliance of political leftists and Moslem extremists) want us out of the public square and unable to even retreat to private places for our own defense. Essentially, we aren’t wanted at all and the sooner we’re destroyed, the better our enemies will like it.

Well, sorry to say, the gates of Hell will not prevail – so, you who want us gone may as well just give up. I know you won’t, but you are wasting your time, and putting yourselves at exceptional long term risk.