"The antiwar movement should also be a cautionary tale for those taking part in the tea parties and other anti-spending rallies, which were bascially nonexistent during Bush's big spending, borrowing, and bailouts," Jim Antle writes @AmSpecBlog. "The left used opposition to the Iraq war mainly as a recruiting tool for their various causes (while the respectable center-left and neo-left mostly supported the war until it became unpopular). It was, as...[Cindy]Sheehan admits, mostly an anti-Bush, anti-Republican movement. For the tea partiers to have any real success fighting the growth of government, they have to be more than an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat movement." One benefit of loudly condemning George W. Bush's embrace of oxymoronic big-government conservatism is that when Obama's army cries hypocrisy over criticism of Dear Leader's embrace of big government your conscience is clean. One drawback of muting criticism of George W. Bush's spending spree is that when you turn up the volume on Barack Obama's your authority has a critic has already been undermined. This is why Antle's point is so important. Most observers of the antiwar protests, including opponents of the Iraq war such as myself, realized pretty early that the war served as a proxy issue on which the Left could air a series of grievances--Enron, the Florida recount, tax cuts, etc. Anyone disbelieving this should ask themselves why the antiwar protests have evaporated. Should the teaparty and townhall movement devolve into a strictly anti-Obama movement, rather than an across-the-board anti-big-government movement, they will face similar irrelevance.

You've been reading too much Byron York if you think that the left is apathetic about the war escalation. DailyKos and those who initially supported the war were only using the issue to score political points and are not the entirety of the left. What the hell does "respectable center-left" mean? Oh yeah, those who agree with state and corporate domination.

Tell me about Bush and Cheney again? How about the Chicago way? Eyuh.

“Earlier this week, AT's Rick Moran highlighted the Obama Administration's decision to invest $2 billion to finance offshore drilling in Brazil. Many good questions there, including the pertinent question of why offshore drilling is okay for Brazil, but not for the U.S.

Since the initial story broke late last week, Bloomberg has reported that billionaire Democratic donor George Soros acquired over $800 million in Petrobas stock during the second quarter of the year, ultimately selling 22 million common shares and acquiring 5.8 million preferred (read "dividend paying") shares recently.

Is it a coincidence that Obama backer George Soros repositioned himself in Petrobras to get dividends just a few days before Obama committed $2 billion in loans and guarantees for Petrobras' (sic) offshore operations?……….

……..Unfortunately, this is just the latest in a long string of issues emanating from the White House that cause Americans to question the integrity and good sense of the Campaigner in Chief's administration. Consider what we've learned in just the past several days.

Senior adviser David Axelrod is still owed $2 million by the advertising firm he ran until leaving after Obama's election. This firm, now run by Axelrod's son, is a key player in the healthcare reform advertising effort.

The administration, which Obama promised would be the most bipartisan ever, has floated a trial balloon to gauge reaction to achieving healthcare reform with only Democrat votes. This came after significant backtracking on the so-called "public option" deemed essential by the far left.

Many Americans are still furious about being spammed by Axelrod with a message about healthcare reform, and the dirty tactics of those opposed to the president's plan. Many are also still incensed about the fact that the White House set up a snitch email account and actively encouraged Americans to report any "disinformation" they heard from others regarding healthcare reform.”

Amen, Dan.

Remember the special election law pushed by Ted Kennedy that was passed in 04’ that required that the Governor (Mitt Romney at the time) could not appoint a replacement for U.S. Senate and that a special election needed to be held instead? Remember that? That was awesome.

But apparently, not awesome enough in 09’ because the same guy who pushed the changing of the state law back then, is now asking to have it reversed as it’s apparent he will not be able to keep his seat very much longer.

If it weren’t for the dyer straights the Senior Senator is in, would have thought that ACORN was somehow involved.

I know that there is a moral equivalency involved here, but is it not clear that Obama is far exceeding any excesses or control that Bush demonstrated and in a more destructive way at a more rapid pace? For that I think he deserves much criticism.

The libs have been doing the Alinsky "hypocrite" thing that they scan about looking for things that they can equate to other things. Some of them don't match up. We on the right have to rise up and say "Don't try that tired ol' Alinskyite crap on me, pal."

Just because I gave money to one free one Nigerian princess doesn't mean that I have to give money to free another. And if by any chance I give money to a second, it doesn't indebt me to keep paying for princesses that I never hear from again.

Just because I consented to the Tarp spending, doesn't mean that with a fair knowledge of Economics, I have to assent to the next $700 billion bill. Especially when I can see it's not a stimulus package, but a pork and party-machine bill. Relieving some of the damage cause by mark-to-market, turning hefty unrealized losses into realized losses on the books, made sense. I don't know that it made $700 billion worth of sense, but policy caused the problem, the government should be liable for some of the damages--that was back when it was going to relieve the effect of "Toxic Assets".

It was actually possible, under that plan for the government to get back more money than they put in, if the MBSes rebounded, simply because 1) there are no investors in the government, 2) it doesn't have to keep a good P/E ratio in order to attract revenue, 3) doesn't have to report financial losses to itself in the same way. Even if the MBSes were to lose 10% of their value, when the loss stabilized, investors could buy them back knowing that the previous loss was already discounted in the price, and the securities wouldn't be hot potatoes, so they could even start to appreciate as an instrument, once the new base was set.

It's a far different thing from throwing money at Acorn, firing the CEO of the world's largest corporation, swindling debt holders out of senior status, spread rumors about controlling salaries in ever wider arcs and talking about saving money on healthcare by substituting pain pill for corrective treatment.

They're different, and as long as you can clearly make a difference you can have different reactions to each situation.

It gets scarier. But we knew it was coming.

Fresh off of putting us another trillion in the hole with 'stimulus' while printing another trillion we don't have and pushing Cap and Trade through the House and now working to ram a flawed, unread and unknown monstrosity of a healthcare bill through Congress, Obama had a meeting today on immigration reform to get that legislation started.

Because even though we have laws and borders that we don't uphold, our immigration system is broken. Or so the Messiah says.

This guy and his way left policies will be a disaster for this country and not only does he not know what he's doing, he doesn't care. As long as his ego is fed he thinks he has an imperial mandate to forward his agenda.

This will all turn out badly.

asdf,

Obama may very well be a disaster for this country the same way Bush was, but for different reasons than you're citing.

Question is, why do we need a Congress or a Constitution when we have Obama, his ego and his Czars?

This should tell you all you need to know. And these guys want to manage and fund 1/6 th of our economy?

"WASHINGTON -- The federal government said it would end cash-for-clunkers rebates at 8 p.m. Monday, after high consumer demand threatened to drain the new-car discount program weeks earlier than expected.

Obama administration officials had initially expected the $3 billion program to last through Labor Day, Sept. 7. But a big wave of summer buyers, as well as administrative bottlenecks, prompted officials to end the program early.

The White House has no plans to seek congressional approval for more funding, a senior administration official said.

Meanwhile, government-controlled car makers General Motors Co. and Chrysler LLC offered dealers temporary cash infusions to cover the U.S. Department of Transportation's delays in paying dealers for cars scrapped under the initiative."

PMA, you keep talking about the big corporate boogeyman and it’s effect on the healthcare industry. Typically, you associate big corporate with those nasty evil old Republicans.

So what say you about the Obama and his handlers being all giddy about the $150 million in drug industry ads supporting Obamacare and the fact that it was reported this week that White House senior adviser and chief campaign strategist David Axelrod's former public relations firm (which will still pay him $2 million he’s owed), AKPD Message and Media, has made over $24 million in ad contracts supporting Obamacare? And this is just one of many PR firms run by Obama strategists.

The very big pharmaceutical companies touting rationed government health care as a good thing being in the tank for the White House for big dollars? Say it ain’t so!

The wars over! no more cindy sh*thead every 5 min. on the news. oops i forgot theirs a democrap in the white house. but hey irag aint on fire kinda looks like afganitan is. you know Dan the JUST WAR. well Dan what we do? more troops? pull out? ahh, thats what i tell all welfare daddies to do, but they dont. oh well. but hey, OBAMMIE say he go git BINBOY in pakistan, well im still waiting.