Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

"Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

"Alright, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do." 

"FEC records show that Kuchera's top officials proceeded to donate more than $45,000 to Murtha and his PAC over the next three election cycles, and an analysis of Murtha's recent fundraising efforts shows an even more dramatic increase in Kuchera's contributions."

The Federal Reserve could print enough money to accommodate all of that debt, in which case the dollar will collapse and the U.S. will be looking at a South-America-style run on its debt.

Or the U.S. government could get its fiscal act in order with higher taxes. For that to happen, income taxes would approximately have to double.

Nice, huh?

And so what, exactly, is contained in this stimulus bill that the lefties in Congress are insisting upon?  Well, check out this entry from the WaPo's Economy Watch blog.  Included in the bill, which even the blog calls a "classic Congressional Christmas tree" is the following:

Bonds for school building;
a $25 dollar weekly increase in unemployment checks; 
"a one-time additional SSI payment to low-income elderly and disabled recipients." 

In other words, it's a bunch of traditional liberal priorities being shoved down the public throat in the guise of supposedly remedying a crisis.  How, exactly, all this is supposed to "stimulate" the economy isn't clear to me.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone in the press asked Speaker Pelosi or President Obama?  This is no time for Republicans in the House and Senate to go wobbly -- or else they're just part of the problem.

Nice to see the New York Times is celebrating Obama's Inauguration:

Down on the Bowery last night, the New York Times hosted an inauguration party at the New Museum to fete Barack Obama's nascent presidency.

 ... When I arrived at the party, an attendant instructed me to wear a red, white, and blue pin showing an illustration of Obama in profile with the date 01/20/09 stenciled in white, all floating above the Times' logo. The gift bag contained a twelve-inch by twelve-inch poster of the same image. The marriage of the Times' flag and Obama's silhouette was jarring. One guest remarked that the poster looked like something put out by Pravda — state-run liberal media. (Except with less red and more blue.)

The film “Slumdog Millionaire” has emerged as the leading candidate for this year’s Best Picture Oscar and focused international attention on the agonies of India’s downtrodden. In the film, the intrepid hero seeks to escape destitution through a TV quiz show, but for India’s 200 million real-life Dalits, or “untouchables,” an entrepreneurial attitude to small business provides a far more reliable approach.

Chandra Bhan Prasad, the leading advocate for these desperately poor multitudes, drew admiring attention from the New York Times. “Along with India’s economic policies, once grounded in socialist ideals,” the newspaper wrote, “Mr. Prasad has moved to the right. He is openly and mischievously contemptuous of leftists. ‘They have a hatred for those who are happy,’ he said.” That realization should provide more real-life benefits than the make-belief triumphs in a movie, no matter how well-made.

During yesterday’s confirmation hearing, Mr. Geithner gave answers to committee member questions about his tax compliance problems.  The nominee’s answers to the committee and during the vetting process give me pause.  The explanations for irregularities have ranged from statements that he should have known, to proclamations that if only his accountants had warned him he would have done the right thing.  I received a message yesterday from a constituent in Dubuque expressing concern about this nomination.  The constituent wrote, “If the man cannot handle his own finances, how is he going to handle the country’s?”