This exemplifies what is wrong with the Obama presidency.

"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama said when asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."

As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."

It's amazing that Obama is going to admit; lower taxes result in job creation! I'm not exactly sure how extending unemployment benefits leads to job creation. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that it does. If, as Obama claims, extending unemployment benefits -- and approving the Keystone pipeline will both create jobs -- why not do both?

Why must we do one or the other? Obama claims to have been focused on jobs since his first year in office. But Obama also claims that paying people to not work will result in job creation, so I doubt the legitimacy of his claims.

Obama's own Jobs Council has suggested oil be derived from more local sources.

In a new report, Obama's jobs council urges him to expedite the production of fossil fuels close to home, in part by "allowing more access to oil, gas and coal opportunities on federal lands."

I believe the real reason for denying the Keystone pipeline permit is completely political. Obama doesn't want to anger the environmental movement before the 2012 presidential election. If he angers a few thousand union workers in the process it's no big deal. Union workers will most likely to vote Democrat anyway. If reelected Obama is almost certain to approve the pipeline project, by that time he won't need the support of those concerned about the environmental impact.

In the meantime blocking the pipeline will cause another issue. Canada is not going to wait on the US political process to sell their oil.

President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.

Harper “expressed his profound disappointment with the news,” according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project’s merit and that the company is free to re-apply.

Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc. to move crude from Alberta’s oil sands to British Columbia’s coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets.

Obama just can't help himself when it comes to angering our allies. We also loose the opportunity to import more of our oil from a politically stable country -- Canada.

How is this in the best interest of the United States?

This just bleeds journalistic integrity. It's like saying, "John Huntsman exits and endorses Mitt Romney, who said 'I like being able to fire people." Is this supposed to pass as objective?

I know that there are plenty of people out there who don't like Newt Gingrich, but this is just goofy. The editor who put this on the BBC homepage was obviously not asked by Gingrich to join-in on the fun.

Either way I have seen some strange things before from the likes of Newt. I wrote about this before. It's hard to know whether he's really that loose with his beliefs, or if he's trying to attract the Magical Moderate Voter. Newt has been everywhere on every issue it seems, but he has done one thing positive. He has proven that Conservatism is longed for. When Newt speaks as a Conservative he is welcomed by people. People who are looking for someone to say what most of us are thinking.

If Newt realizes that there are more Conservative voters than "Moderates" in the voter base, he might just get the nomination.

Only time will tell. Let's see how Newt does in tonight's debate.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

For all the reasons to vote for Mitt Romney; none seems more notable than the fact that Mitt Romney is not Barack Obama. Still there are plenty of reasons to question Romney's credentials when it comes to core beliefs. Take the individual mandate in Massachusetts for example; Romney said that those decisions should be made by states and not the federal government. I take further issue with it. I think that no government entity should ever have the right to mandate that you purchase something, by virtue of your existence. That's a pretty serious conflict with conservative beliefs. That's a pretty troubling position. Does this mean that Romney believes that health care is a right? Romney sounds more like a moderate at best. Quite a while back I did a post on Moderates. I explained in great detail how it's hard to get behind someone who doesn't really stand for anything. If Romney has conservative core beliefs, why didn't he stand up for these beliefs when he was governor of Massachusetts? Why would he stand for them now?

The real problem lies in the fact that the Republican field has no conservative candidate in the race. That's not to say that there aren't any conservatives in the party; it's just that none of them stepped up this time around.

Mitt has a really big hurtle to get over, it's not looking more conservative than Obama, it's being conservative enough to get voters out. If Romney wins the general election it won't be because of his positive stance and message; it will be because of negative sentiment for Obama. Remember the stump speech that Romney gave in New Hampshire. There was little mention of what he would do other than to undo what Obama has done. While that is not a bad position to have, it seems a little narrow to me. We'll have to see if he expands on this.

Conservatives are more likely to vote for someone when they know where that person stands. This knowledge includes actions not just stated positions. Romney has to be able to convince the conservative electorate that he's not just full of hot air. But hey, he's not Obama right? That's got to count for something.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

This comment was on the CBS Cleveland website.

Here is what the article looks like now; they have since corrected it. When I first viewed the article the spelling was still incorrect; I failed to get a screen shot fast enough...

It's funny when people find these things. I wonder who the editor is, and if they still have a job?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

What does all of this really mean? Well there are a few ways to look at it. From what I can tell from the stories I have read; most of the people going to the "Occupy whatever" protests are not really sure what they are for or against.

Take note of how those in the "movement" consider things. It seems to be more about anti structure more than anything else.

A worldwide shift in revolutionary tactics is underway right now that bodes well for the future. The spirit of this fresh tactic, a fusion of Tahrir with the acampadas of Spain, is captured in this quote:

The beauty of this new formula, and what makes this novel tactic exciting, is its pragmatic simplicity: we talk to each other in various physical gatherings and virtual people's assemblies … we zero in on what our one demand will be, a demand that awakens the imagination and, if achieved, would propel us toward the radical democracy of the future … and then we go out and seize a square of singular symbolic significance and put our asses on the line to make it happen.

The time has come to deploy this emerging stratagem against the greatest corrupter of our democracy: Wall Street, the financial Gomorrah of America.

On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat one simple demand in a plurality of voices.

Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a straightforward ultimatum – that Mubarak must go – over and over again until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated demand?

The most exciting candidate that we've heard so far is one that gets at the core of why the American political establishment is currently unworthy of being called a democracy: we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington. It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY, we're doomed without it.

This demand seems to capture the current national mood because cleaning up corruption in Washington is something all Americans, right and left, yearn for and can stand behind. If we hang in there, 20,000-strong, week after week against every police and National Guard effort to expel us from Wall Street, it would be impossible for Obama to ignore us. Our government would be forced to choose publicly between the will of the people and the lucre of the corporations.

These people actually think that Obama is going to end corruption? Do they not realize that the Solyndra scandal has Obama's name all over it? There were Senators paid off with promises of federal money in order to get the Obama health care bill passed. The list goes on and on.

In reality I think the people behind this movement have their own best interest in mind. I'll explain. Once you take the wealth from those who have it, what's left? If you destroy the mechanism by which wealth is created, there will be only a finite and decreasing amount of wealth. The people who are behind this movement are already wealthy, otherwise they would be (like those at the protests) chopping themselves off at the knees. As I have said before, once public opinion is so against the wealthy; who will want to work their way up to the "hated class"?

This "movement" is not a movement at all because there are large financial backers namely unions. The protesters are nothing more than people who want something for nothing. Since when is a large grouping of misinformed people a "new tactic"? Obama was elected by a large group of misinformed people; did they get what they were after?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!