Unemployment Drops No Thanks to the Obama Administration

The Hill reports unemployment dropped to 10% from 10.2% in November as the economy shed 11,000 jobs.  This makes November's losses the lowest since the recession began.  Losses in the construction, manufacturing and information industries were offset by seasonal hiring, increases in temporary jobs and new hiring in health care:

Unemployment dipped to 10 percent last month, according to the Department of Labor, as job losses in the  construction, manufacturing and information industries were offset by job gains in temporary help services and healthcare. Labor said the 11,000 job losses meant payroll employment was "essentially unchanged" for the month.

In short, holiday hiring has picked up some of the slack and health care has been the only industry adding jobs through this economic slump.  Heaven forbid the government should leave well enough alone and restrain itself from taking over this industry.

No doubt you will hear the administration lauding this as proof of their economic intervention.  The administration should be grateful but not self-congratulatory, a point made by Jim Geraghty at NRO:

However, if you hear any fool on the left contending that the Obama administration can be credited with turning the economy around, the BLS release gives us a lot of reasons to point out that our economy has steadily deteriorated during this year: "Last month, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over) rose by 293,000 to 5.9 million. The percentage of unemployed persons jobless for 27 weeks or more increased by 2.7 percentage points to 38.3 percent."

Also note that "construction employment declined by 27,000 over the month." Every month since the stimulus passed, employment in the construction field has dropped, confirming the president's admission that the "shovel ready" slogan of the stimulus package was bunk.

Although this number is likely to go back up in 2010, at least those who are seeking work have had some relief through the holidays.  

H/T: Memeorandum

Jon Stewart Sees a Bit of Deja Vu in the Afghanistan Speech

It's not often I would post a Jon Stewart clip two days in a row, but this is a good one. Stewart is not only one of the few comedians who finds humor in criticism of the Obama administration, he is one of the few willing to be critical at all. Stewart compares Obama's speech to Bush's speech 2007 and finds a few similarities. The difference, in my opinion, is Bush believed in the mission and wasn't signaling anything less than full commitment when he sent our military to battle. Stewart doesn't see that same resolve, "Our resolve is unwavering, but it turns out our Discover card is over the limit."

This is a bit long but funny and to the point, no one really liked Obama's Afghanistan speech:

Rasmussen: There are a lot of Global Warming Skeptics out There

When the administration repeats the mantra of the global warming advocates, "the science is settled," they should be cautioned a majority of Americans are skeptical of that science. According to a new Rasmussen poll 52% of Americans believe there is significant disagreement among scientists on global warming, while just 25% believe there is agreement, 23% are not sure. A majority believe the science has been tainted:

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.

There seems to be a huge disconnect between the White House spokesman Gibbs, the energy Czar Carol Browner and the American public who view this science as corrupt. The skepticism doesn't appear to have come solely from revelations from the CRU emails alone according to Rasmussen:

This skepticism does not appear to be the result of the recent disclosure of e-mails confirming such data falsification as part of the so-called “Climategate” scandal. Just 20% of Americans say they’ve followed news reports about those e-mails Very Closely, while another 29% have followed them Somewhat Closely.

 As the President prepares to fly off to Copenhagen promising to cut emissions by 17% which would require the backing of legislation such as cap and trade, the American people are dubious.  He leaves at a time when the unemployment rate is over 10% and the economy despite protestations otherwise is a shambles.  His trip to Copenhagen which will be capped off by his award of the Nobel Prize serve to reinforce the narrative he is in love with the man in the mirror and is out of touch with the realities facing most Americans.

H/T:  Ed Morrissey be sure to read Ed's excellent analysis on this poll.

Jon Stewart Tackles Hacked Global Warming Emails

Unlike the rest of the MSM, Jon Stewart acknowledges the leaked emails from the CRU at the University of East Anglia.  It doesn't convince him there's no man made global warming, however, this will get the news out to a wide audience who tend to get their news from "the Daily Show" or "Colbert."  Stewart starts with a reminder of the ACORN scandal and moves on to the hacked emails which get a full airing to some of the most damaging emails.  At the very least the scandal has given true believers pause to think about the credibility of the scientists.  There are some great lines here including, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming debunked via the very Internet you invented.”

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Allahpundit notes Jim Inhofe, who gets his share of ribbing in this piece, must be fairly happy with the attention:

No less a skeptic than Jim Inhofe was sufficiently pleased with this bit to post it to his own YouTube account, even though its primary target ultimately is, er, Jim Inhofe. Think of it as the “Daily Show” equivalent of Obama’s new timetable: Very far from ideal, but probably the best you’re going to do from a lefty.

"Obama's Magic No Longer Works"

Via Twitter
Gabor Steingart delivers a blistering review of Obama's Afghanistan speech in an editorial at Der Spiegel.  Here is just a sample of the often eloquent but thoroughly devastating treatise that targets Obama the leader as  pointedly as his speech:

Political dreams and yearnings for the future belong elsewhere. That was where the political charmer Obama was able to successfully capture the imaginations of millions of voters. It is a place where campaigners -- particularly those with a talent for oration -- are fond of taking refuge. It is also where Obama set up his campaign headquarters, in an enormous tent called "Hope."

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.

The New York Times does its' level best, however, to put the best possible face on the dueling messages:

If the contrasting messages seemed jarring at first, they reflect the obstacles Mr. Obama faces in rallying an increasingly polarized country that itself is of two minds about what to do in Afghanistan. For those who still support the war, he is sending more troops. For those against it, he is offering the assurance of the exit ramp.

 Buried at the bottom, the Times quotes Peter D. Fever, a Duke University specialist on wartime public opinion and former Bush advisor on the futility of the effort to assuage his base with promises of an exit ramp:

His message is “heavily laced with language aimed at mollifying his base, which is strongly antiwar, rather than reassuring the middle and those who support the war now,” said Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University specialist on wartime public opinion and a former Bush adviser. “It’s a triangulation heavy on trying to win over the people who probably can’t be won over. And a lot of that messaging could sow doubts.”

H/T: Memeorandum

Rove Corrects Matt Lauer's Revisionist History on Afghanistan

Jake Tapper points out two direct references to failures of the Bush/Cheney administration made directly and indirectly in tonight's Afghanistan speech:

1) President Obama said starting in early 2003 and "for the next six years the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention – and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world." And "while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated."

2) In his 3rd graph the president made a reference to the Taliban as "a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere."

One might say "Blame Bush," is the only consistent strategy this administration has at its disposal.  Obama's "Blame Bush" approach to the presidency frequently involves a lot of revisionist history rarely if ever challenged by the adoring media.  Matt Lauer set the stage for this early in the day as he attempts to blame the need for Obama to send additional troops to Afghanistan on the above mentioned "failures" of the Bush administration.  Unfortunately for Lauer, he attempted to rewrite history during an interview with Karl Rove.  Rove sets the record and Lauer straight, leaving Lauer fumbling for an alternate strategy to have his "gotcha" moment with Rove.  Matt should know by now there are no "gotcha" moments with Rove who can outwit the likes of Lauer with one hand tied behind his back.

This is the highlight from the following clip which shows just a portion of the interview:

ROVE: Well look, first of all, they, resources were sent as they were needed, but I would remind you this, President Obama is in no position whatsoever to criticize what President Bush did. Because in 2007, President Obama, then a member of the United States Senate, voted against war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan. If this was so vital, then why did he not speak out? He was chairman of a committee overseeing NATO. He could have easily called a hearing to say, "I'm concerned about this issue." He did not. The Foreign Relations committee had three hearings on Afghanistan. He bothered to show up at one, and I can find no evidence he raised a single point or asked a single question. So President Obama is not in a place to be critical of, of this. He can look back and rewrite history, whatever, but at the time, he didn't speak out on this.

Read the entire transcript below the jump.
H/T: Yid with Lid

Krauthammer, Stoddard and Hayes Critical of Obama's Speech

Following Obama's speech on Afghanistan Bret Baier gets reactions from Charles Krauthammer, A.B. Stoddard and Steve Hayes who seems to agree Obama's speech was weak. Hayes begins by describing the importance of the role of Commander in Chief and goes on to say "this speech felt very small to me." Hayes is critical of Obama's urging the common security of the world is at stake and then in the next sentence says we are going to leave. This is no exaggeration as it is quite literally the next sentence from the transcript:

“Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.”

“Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.

It's Beginning to Look a lot Like 1994

Politico reports Republicans are winning the recruiting battle for the coming 2010 midterms while Democrats see candidates dropping out of tough races. Democratic members of Congress who thought themselves assured reelection are finding themselves facing tougher prospects for reelection.

But in 2010, defense is the name of the game for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is defending several dozens vulnerable freshmen and second-term members, while also protecting veteran members who could find themselves in newfound trouble. It will be a lot more challenging for a first-time candidate running in a tough district to get financial support from the DCCC when the party is worried about defending its own.

Politico cites examples of strong candidates who might be poised in a more favorable political environment to give Democrats a few choice pick-ups, who chose instead to withdraw:

Over the last week, three Democratic candidates touted by national strategists abruptly withdrew from their races: Solano Beach Councilman Dave Roberts (running against California Rep. Brian Bilbray), state Rep. Todd Book (running against Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt) and Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers (in the seat held by retiring Rep. Zach Wamp).


In a neutral political environment, the seats held by Bilbray, Schmidt, and the open Tennessee seat would be enticing targets for Democrats. Democrats aggressively contested the first two seats in both 2006 and 2008, and experienced unexpected success in Southern open seats over the last two elections.

 The political winds have indeed changed.  Locally I can add Patrick Murphy (D, PA-8) has Republicans coming out of the woodwork to oppose him in 2010.  Recently a former Bucks County prosecutor and Marine reservist Dean Malik announced he would seek the GOP endorsement.  A moderate Warrington PA resident Jeffrey Schott had already announced his intentions to seek the GOP nomination.  The two candidates are not alone according to the Morning Call:

Malik and Schott may have competition for the coveted GOPendorsement. Patricia Poprik, vice chairman of the Bucks County Republican Committee, said at least eight people have contacted party leaders about running.

Though Murphy is not on the NRCC targeted list, the current political mood suggests there are no safe seats and Murphy should know this better than anyone.  In 2006 he unseated incumbent Mike Fitzpatrick (R) when the tides had clearly turned against Republicans.  Consider the eight hoping to challenge Murphy a sign of the times.

UPDATE- Linked at Examiner.com by Beth Hegedus "Montgomery County Republican Examiner"  Thank you and welcome Examiner readers!

Update II:  Via Memeorandum  Hotline on Call reports that a second leading Blue Dog is retiring.   This second retirement in a matter of days is a harbinger of some bad times ahead for Democrats:

Indeed, Hotline's Amy Walter wrote last week that, of all potential Dem retirements, a Tanner announcement would send the biggest shockwave through the party. After all, the thinking goes, if a longtime leader of the Blue Dogs decides now is the time to hang it up, what does that say for others in his position (like MO's Ike Skelton, AR's Marion Berry or WV's Alan Mollohan)? They've all skated to re-election in recent cycles, yet all saw their CDs go quite strongly to McCain.

 Karl in The Greenroom has an excellent post on this topic citing recent polling from PPP ( a Democratic pollster) that shows a large bloc of  Democratic voters think the party is too liberal:

In fact, it is larger than the bloc of Democrats think their party’s too conservative. Yet there remains a body of opinion on the Left that thinks going Left is somehow going to help the party in the 2010 midterms. It turns out that it may not help them with Democrats, let alone Independents.