First, we got the massive bailouts and so-called stimulus plans. And the economy shrank, unemployment rose and companies continued to go out of business or become subsidiaries of the federal government. But Obama claims these are just more signs that his plan is… working?

Obama spoke Monday about “modest progress” in the economy, citing fewer jobs lost last month than expected. He said he hopes to build on that in the months ahead with stimulus programs.

Unemployment hit a 25-year high. Modest progress? General Motors declares bankruptcy. Modest progress? Trillions of debt piled up with nothing to show for it. Modest progress? Someone might want to check and see if Barry’s gotten back into the blow. But don’t ask the MSM to investigate… they’re too busy swooning over Obama’s BS.

[T]he inability to measure Mr. Obama’s jobs formula is part of its attraction. Never mind that no one — not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics — actually measures “jobs saved.” As the New York Times delicately reports, Mr. Obama’s jobs claims are “based on macroeconomic estimates, not an actual counting of jobs.” Nice work if you can get away with it.

And get away with it he has. However dubious it may be as an economic measure, as a political formula “save or create” allows the president to invoke numbers that convey an illusion of precision.
…
Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and — presto! — you have the president claiming he has “saved or created” 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

Even the administration, itself, is finally admitting the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were BS.

By now, according to earlier White House economic models, the nation’s unemployment rate should be on the decline. The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.

He’s been such a complete disaster for the economy, he’s actually restored trust in the Republicans to better handle the issue. Modest progress.

So now he’s shifting his focus to healthcare. Apparently he wants to wreck this system beyond repair as well. You know, leave a lasting legacy or something. And once again, he’s trotting out more unsupported claims and imaginary figures to ram a new economic disaster (healthcare) plan through the American landscape.

The main White House argument for health-care reform goes something like this: If we spend now on a hugely expensive new insurance program for the middle class, we can save later by reducing overall U.S. health spending. This “tastes great, less filling” theory could stand some scrutiny, not least because it is being used to rush through the greatest social spending program in American history.

What if this particular theory turns out to be a political illusion? What if the speculative cost savings never report for duty, while the federal balance sheet is still swamped with new social obligations that will be impossible to repeal? The only possible outcome will be the nationalization of U.S. health markets, which will mean that almost all care will be rationed by politics.

Just wait. Obamacare will be fast-tracked through Congress as a way to save the economy (but wasn’t that the intended result of the trillions in spending in bailouts and stimulus bills?) and when the plan turns out to be a complete failure and the economy is pushed further into the crapper, we’ll hear the administration talking about its overly-optimistic estimates and excuses about how they didn’t comprehend the true landscape before passage of the disaster.

Rinse and repeat. This is what you get when you put an inexperienced community organizer in control of the greatest nation on earth. But hey, at least he talks real good, right?

In a completely expected and long-anticipated, unsurprising move, Arlen Specter announced today that he’s going to disenfranchise the voters of Pennsylvannia who elected a Republican to the Senate by switching his party affiliation to Democrat, and shifting the balance of power to a filibuster-proof total of 60.

I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

Of course, most normal conservatives have found his political philosophy to be in line with Democrats for years now.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Someone apparently confused “big tent” with “big spend”…

It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.

Translation: Pat Toomey’s announcement recently that he’s running for the Republican nomination in the Republican senatorial primary means Specter’s RINO career in the Senate will be coming to an end shortly, so he’ll take the DNC payoff and hope to earn a committee chairmanship in the process.

I have not represented the Republican Party.

On this, we can agree.

But don’t worry, Specter says he will still oppose card-check…

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.

And we know how much Specter’s word is worth…

Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday that he will not run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat, but might run as an Independent.

“I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense — and I don’t want to overstate this — is a national asset because if one was gone, you’d only have 40, the Democrats would have 60, and they would control all of the mechanisms of government. [Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.”

While you’re at it, can you please take Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and John McCain too? We might as well just use this opportunity to drain the swamp entirely.

There must be a big election tomorrow…

December 12th - CNN Poll: Obama catches Clinton in New Hampshire
January 7th - Hillary tears up
January 8th - New Hampshire primary.
January 9th - Clinton wins back women, narrowly takes New Hampshire

So since it worked so well the first time, here she goes again…

February 3rd - Poll: Obama erases Clinton’s lead
February 4th - Hillary Clinton cries in Connecticut
February 5th - Super Tuesday
February 6th - ???

But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

Michelle has asked readers to help Nancy Pelosi pick a title for her new memoir.

Here’s my entry:

It’s so bad, it’s even ranking worse than HMOs.

Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Maybe it’s because Americans a realizing that the Democrats’ campaign rhetoric was loaded with empty promises and zero actual intention of addressing corruption…

Remember when Nancy Pelosi promised:

“We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks,” Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, “and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.”

In the spirit of “transparency and openness”… she would not provide information on her earmarks.

Neither would most of Congress.

Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership’s promise of “openness and transparency” in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers’ pet projects.

Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.

Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn’t respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn’t.

Let’s look at what else Democrats promised:

With their votes, the American people asked for change. They cast their ballots in favor of a New Direction.

They called for greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.

Here are some examples of that “greater integrity”:

1. Working with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff who Democrats used as a poster boy for corruption during the 2006 campaign season.

2. Awarding committee chairmanships to Congressmen being investigated by the very agencies he’d oversee.

3. Ranking members of the Judiciary Committee admitting to breaking ethics rules.

4. Members who chair subcommittees that appropriate billions of dollars to companies controlled by the member’s spouse.

5. Increasing the amount of contributions from lobbyists and special interests… above and beyond what the previous Congress accepted.

6. Balking at tough lobbying reforms.

7. Violating the very ethics rules put in place by your very own Congress.

8. Selecting a registered lobbyist, that represents the oil industry, the tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical industries and American Indian gambling interests, to run your PAC.

And on top of the “greater integrity” they called for “greater civility”…

“The American people called for greater civility in how Congress conducts its work, and Democrats pledge to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship, and to act in partnership - not partisanship - with the president and Republicans in Congress.”

And we see how well that’s working out.

Nancy Pelosi’s “most ethical Congress ever” received good news today… Democrat William Jefferson has been indicted on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering.

The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years. He is charged with racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Not to worry, he should be free just in time for the midterm elections… in 2242.

Court records indicate that Jefferson was videotape taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant. Most of that money later turned up in a freezer in Jefferson’s home.

And the guy is still serving as a Democrat Congressman. The party must be so proud.

When people ask me why I wasn’t upset about the Democrats taking control of Congress last Fall, I point to examples like this:

The class of 41 freshman House Democrats has selected a registered lobbyist to form its political action committee, in what ethics watchdogs and Republicans are calling a contradiction of their promise to end a “culture of corruption” in Washington.

The custodian of the Democratic Freshmen PAC is William C. Oldaker, 65, whose most-recent lobbying clients include the oil industry, the tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical industries and American Indian gambling interests.

Seriously, the best campaign against a Democrat in the White House in 2008… is Democrats in Congress now.

Long gone is the notion that Pelosi and crew actually meant to keep their promise to “drain the Congressional swamp of corruption”… hell, they’re not even bothering to try and keep up the facade any longer. Their message is now, loud and clear, “We’re Democrats, we’re corrupt, and to hell with the rest of you.”

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.

Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.

So much discomfort that all but 2 voted against taking ethics action against one of their own.

Murtha, known for his gruff manner and fondness for pork barrel projects, did not dispute claims that he charged across the House floor May 17 to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

To make matters worse, the threat violated ethics rules put in place by this very Congress in January.

So what was Rogers doing that got Murtha so mad? He was trying to strike a $23 million earmark Murtha tried to attach to some legislation. You know, earmarks… those pork-barrel appropriations for special interests in a representative’s home district.

Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a $23 million Murtha earmark—a targeted spending item—for a drug intelligence center in Murtha’s district.

In a House speech Monday, Rogers said Murtha threatened him by saying, “you will not get any earmarks now and forever.” Rogers, backed by House GOP leaders, said Murtha’s threat violated congressional ethics rules.

But never fear, according to the AP, Murtha is just “known for his gruff manner and fondness for pork barrel projects.”

And I guess William Jefferson just has a fondness for using freezers as piggy banks and Dianne Feinstein just has a fondness for appropriating government funds through her husband’s checking account. And the most ethical Congress ever just has a fondness for taking money from lobbyists.

“Democrats” and “ethics” go together like “Muslims” and “peace”.

Looks like people don’t care much for the Democrat swamp:

According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year. The high point for the congressional approval rating so far this year was the 37% approval measured in February.

Good job, Democrats, your approval rating is 4 points lower than evil George Bush.

With ratings like this, Nancy Pelosi can now audition to anchor the CBS Nightly News.

Come on, did you really think they were going to keep their campaign promises?

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They’re also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats’ campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

The water just keeps gettin’ dirtier and dirtier…