What a difference a year makes.

While President Obama, flanked by the arrogant and clueless Pelosi and Reid, endeavors to ram through his health care disaster, two articles from vastly different sources make clear Obama has lost the spring in his step and been blindsided by his inability to move mountains on the force of his own personality. No sensible person thought he would – or should – be able to do this. Clearly, his inner circle and the fawning media were betting his messianic abilities would overcome the mountain of difficulties he would inherit as President.

First, Fred Hiatt of WaPo discusses Obama’s Happiness Deficit:

Here’s a theory about why President Obama is having a tough political time right now: He doesn’t seem all that happy being president.

I know, it’s the world’s hardest job, and between war and the world economy collapsing, he didn’t have the first year he might have wished for. And, yes, he’s damned either way: With thousands of Americans risking their lives overseas and millions losing their jobs at home, we’d slam him if he acted carefree.

Still, I think Americans want a president who seems, despite everything, to relish the challenge. They don’t want to have to feel grateful to him for taking on the burden.

No, we shouldn’t have to feel grateful. Don’t do us any favors. Yet, judging by the fact that the President’s personal popularity still eclipses that of any and all of his policies, he has not done us too many favors so far.

I started thinking about this a few weeks ago when Obama confidant David Axelrod, noting that the president always makes time for his daughters’ recitals and soccer games, told the New York Times, “I think that’s part of how he sustains himself through all this.”

Really? Is the presidency something to sustain yourself through?

He did ask for this job; we didn’t make him take it…

Good point, Mr. Hiatt. Mr. Obama spent $750,000,000 to get the job. At most press conferences, speeches, and the State of the Union, he seems put upon and exasperated, as if he is doing us a favor by being here. This echoes Mrs. Obama’s earlier statements during the primaries where she intimated a person of Barack’s “caliber” was lowering himself to enter the political fray.

But schmoozing with foreign leaders, like President George H.W. Bush? In a column last week, Jackson Diehl pointed out that Obama’s relations with just about every counterpart are prickly.

Does he recharge by heading back to the campaign trail, rolling up his sleeves and wading into the crowd? Obama will do that if he has to, to save his health-care bill. But he can’t persuade us he gets much of a kick out of it.

And here’s what makes this so complicated: The fact that Obama doesn’t get a kick out of adoring throngs is one of the qualities that made him so appealing in the first place. Unlike with Clinton, we never felt as though he needed us; he’s a secure, self-confident adult.

Is this guy kidding – all Obama enjoys are adoring crowds. Has Mr. Hiatt forgotten all the stagecraft involved in the fainting fans, or those who shouted “I love you, Barack!!” from the throngs in the audience. They are life’s blood to this man.

He talks about Obama’s family values and tries his best to be supportive. Hiatt is loathe to admit what really has gotten this President’s goat is that the job isn’t as easy as he thought it was going to be. Hiatt continues:

We understand that, even without war and recession, it wouldn’t be easy. His predecessor partied and stuck him with the tab. The Republicans are reliably obstructionist; his Democrats reliably unreliable. The media are carping, superficial and relentless. He is a prisoner of the Secret Service.

And yet. It’s hard to remember so far back, but the administration didn’t come to town with the sense of weariness and duty that it now projects. Unlike the Bush crowd, which never stopped kvetching about having to leave Texas, the Obamas and their circle spoke about the honor of service and the excitement of being in the nation’s capital.

A year later, here’s how they came across to People Magazine:

“It was their first interview of the New Year on Jan. 8 in the rose-colored library on the ground floor of the White House. President Obama spoke in such a hush about the loneliness of his decisions on war and terrorism that one could hear between his words the tick of an old lighthouse clock across the room.”

Less lugubriousness wouldn’t necessarily buy him a health-care bill. But in the long run, Americans might find it easier to root for or with Obama if he’d show us, despite everything, that he’s happy we hired him.

You can’t keep the balloon filled with air forever. Eventually, substance has to overtake style. It is folly to think otherwise.

Hillary knew from the beginning how hard this was going to be. That’s why she made a point of saying she is a fighter who will fight for us. Clearly, that is why her popularity has overtaken Obama’s. The lady never stops working. We may not agree with her every move, but know she is making the best of what is in front of her, working within the policies she has been charged to implement. She never makes us feel she is doing us a favor by being here.

I don’t think the President needs to look happy. No President could look happy in the current world climate. But he – or she – does need to look like he relishes every challenge and can’t wait to dig into the problem with determination and focus. A “Fellas, can’t I just eat my waffle” attitude isn’t cutting it.

Second, Der Spiegel offers a devastating article, Losing Faith in the Messiah, Obama Unites Israelis and Arabs in Disappointment:

Hopes were high in the Middle East when US President Barack Obama took office last year. But instead of progress toward peace, he has shown indecision and hesitancy. With many in the region united against Iran, he is in danger of letting a golden opportunity slip through his fingers.

US President Barack Obama glided off the stage to thunderous applause. He had just given a speech that commentators around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world, would characterize within minutes as “historic.” [snip]

As the Israeli reporter, Nachum Barnea, recalls, Obama was “like a teacher, full of knowledge and persuasiveness.”

Eight months later, the president was forced to admit that he had not even come close to reaching the goal he had set for himself. “We overestimated our ability to persuade [both sides] to [negotiate],” he told Time reporter Joe Klein in the White House Oval Office in January. “If we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.” It was an astonishing admission.

Never before had a US president enjoyed such trust in the Middle East — and gambled it away in such a short time. Obama has vacillated to an extent that has confused friend and foe alike, even baffling veteran observers of the region.

It is an astonishing admission – and one that smacks of incompetence. Prior Presidents have been stronger, smarter and better students of world affairs, yet they were still not able to bring peace in the Middle East. How many times did Hillary tell us that his foreign policy was naïve at best. It is astonishing, and somewhat frightening to think this man was hitting his own koolaid more than the history books.

Confused friend and foe alike? If President Obama has in fact confused both his friends and foes alike, it is done with deliberation. He is repeating his behavior out on the campaign trail – telling a different story before each audience. This is no longer possible. Governing is choosing. Not campaigning.

No wonder he looks unhappy.

Further, an article was just posted tonight indicating President Obama will be on ESPN to fill in his brackets for the Final Four for men and women.

Where does he find the time?

Those are some forceful words from Senator Byrd. What did President Clinton do? Clinton acknowledged that Senator Byrd was correct, and dropped the pursuit of Reconciliation to pass Healthcare back in the 1990’s.

My question to Senator Byrd is: why are you not arguing in the exact same manner against Obama’s desire to use this process for the EXACT SAME REASON???

How about Senator Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota on Reconciliation? This was Senator Conrad on the floor of the Senate recalling the debate over President Clinton’s consideration of Reconciliation for Healthcare:

And now? Oh, you know what’s coming. Now Conrad has signaled he is willing to use this budgetary procedure to pass Obama’s exceedingly flawed (and not even completely written) Healthcare bill.

I might add, he was that upset in 2001 over a $138 Billion dollar initiative? Ahahahahah, isn’t that just precious? Especially considering Obama and the Democrats racked up $223 Billion in DEBT just this past month alone!! In just ONE month they have spent more $90 billion MORE than Bill Clinton’s Healthcare Initiative. Wow, Senator Conrad, way to really stick to your budgetary guns there.

No wonder Democrats are referred to as the “Tax and Spend” Party. I used to take offense at that, but they are earning that label in a big way now.

And then, there is Obama as a US Senator on how we cannot use Reconciliation. Yo knew it was coming. Oh, make sure to check out the date when he is talking about getting a bill to his desk to his sign:

Did you catch that? September of 2007 he was already claiming the presidency. Talk about hubris. Now? You know that, too. Obama wants to use it. In the following video from the Blair Street Summit, Obama’s essentially saying we are a bunch of dumbasses who don’t care how Congress does its job:

Here’s a newsflash for you, Obama – we DO pay attention to how things get done in Washington, or not, and how much you all are listening to us or not. You most definitely are NOT.

Just to digress for a moment, I just wonder why in the world this man wanted this position so much that he was willing to lie, cheat and steal to get it when he CLEARLY has such little regard for the people whom he is SUPPOSED to be serving. Must be those perks he mentioned in the first video because it isn’t any respect he has for us.

And talk about HYPOCRISY. Byrd, Conrad, and Obama are poster boys for it in their flipflop about Reconciliation to shove this extremely expensive, pork laden, Big Pharma gifting, increased insurance premium making, Medicare curring healthcare bill down our throats.

Obama wants to “get ‘er done” before he leaves next week, another false deadline.

To that end, the House Democrats have locked themselves away in their “transparent” attempt to come to some agreement about this bill so they can try and meet Obama’s time frame.

So glad they are spending SO Much time on this when 462,000 people have filed for unemployment this WEEK. The numbers were expected to be lower.

In my own state, the front page news included that unemployment in South Carolina has hit another record high:

Employers cut 27,700 positions throughout the month, including seasonal jobs in tourism and retail, as the jobless rate reached 12.6 percent, the state Employment Security Commission said Wednesday.

South Carolina’s unemployed population — a total of 273,455 residents — is the biggest on record.

Compare that number with the data recorded several years ago and a grim picture emerges. That figure, for example, never topped 100,000 people in 2000. Throughout 2005, the number averaged 140,000.

“It gives us a sense of how many jobs the economy needs to create in order

to put a majority of people back to work,” said economist Don Schunk of Coastal Carolina University. “More so than the unemployment rate, (that number) tells us how far we have to go before we return to some sense of normalcy.”

The preliminary January rate eclipsed the previous record set in December. That number originally came in at 12.6 percent, but it was revised downward to 12.4 percent last week, based on more current information.

So, yes, Congress, by all means, cancel all of your other meetings like you did today (Thursday), continue to focus all of your time and energy on a healthcare bill we have been telling you for months we do not want, while we continue to lose our jobs, our homes, and our faith in you.

November cannot come soon enough.

Van Hollen Charges Five With Election Fraud

Five Wisconsin residents have been charged with criminal counts of voter fraud in the November 2008 general election, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today.

Two of those charged – Maria Miles, 36, of Milwaukee, and Kevin Clancy, 26, of Racine – worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the embattled community organizing group.

“The complaint alleges that Miles and Clancy submitted multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals, and also were part of a scheme in which they and other (special registration deputies) registered each other to vote multiple times in order to meet voter registration quotas imposed by ACORN,” the Van Hollen release says.

Both were charged with one felony count.

Attempts to reach ACORN today were unsuccessful.

Hmmm – I wonder if they have tried the Community Organizations International (COI) name? Just a suggestion.

The ACORN employees were not the only ones:

Also charged was a couple – Herbert, 60, and Suzanne Gunka, 54, both of Milwaukee – for allegedly double-voting in November 2008, once absentee and once at the polls.

Michael Henderson, 40, was hit with two felony charges of being a felon who cast a ballot even though he was still on probation. The Milwaukee man was convicted in 2005 in Rock County with two felonies for bail jumping and one disorderly conduct misdemeanor.

He was sentenced to five years’ probation.

Each felony count for voter fraud carries a maximum penalty of 3 1/2 years behind bars and a $10,000 fine. All five individuals are scheduled to appear in court on April 20.

The charges were brought as part of the Milwaukee Election Fraud Task Force.

Van Hollen’s announcement comes the same day that No Quarter disclosed that the Milwaukee County prosecutor for election fraud accused Milwaukee police of sitting on their hands and failing to investigate these cases for the first half of last year.

The prosecutor, Bruce Landgraf, said the Milwaukee Police Department began looking at election fraud cases last year only after Van Hollen’s agency ” stepped up to start the work MPD should have commenced immediately after your referral.”

Landgraf was addressing a city election official.

Doesn’t this just make you wonder how widespread the voter fraud was in 2008? Given ACORN’s multiple state charges, I think it’s safe to say these are not isolated incidents in Wisconsin.

At some point, Obama’s sycophants are going to have to admit and accept that ACORN is corrupt. These are not the first charges by a LONG shot, nor have all charges been dropped, as many supporters would like to claim (for voter registration fraud).

And even if those folks cannot the reality of what ACORN is, and the crimes it commits in an effort to further its partisan politics, American taxpayers should not be funding this organization. While ACORN may do good work in other areas, it simply cannot be trusted with voter registration in any way, shape, or form. That has become abundantly clear. As they say, where there is this much smoke, there is most definitely fire. To say ACORN has had one brush fire after another is an understatement, as is: STOP GIVING THEM OUR MONEY ALREADY!

Ahem. In this election year, better keep an eye out for more smoke from ACORN. Where’s Smokey the Bear these days? I think we could use him, don’t you?

(As many of you know, I have written on ACORN numerous times, far too many to list here. If you wish to see previous posts, here are two recent ones: here, and here.)

For some folks at MSNBC? Seems like it, given this recent departure. Craig Crawford, an MSNBC mainstay, has quit the network, even leaving before his contract was out. Wait until you read why that is in this article, MSNBC Political Analyst Craig Crawford Has Left the Network – In A Very Public Way. (Photo by Terry Ballard)

It confirms what many of us have been saying for a while:

Writing on his blog at CQPolitics.com, Crawford says he has found the network “unrewarding for me,” – and expands on his reason for leaving in a comment to Mediaite.

Crawford last appeared on MSNBC on February 5, as a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where he regularly appeared (according to TV Eyes). The blog post came exactly one month after that appearance. Crawford wrote:

Three months short of my current contract I sent the following to the boss, Phil Griffin: “Phil, Just wanted to give you the heads up that my situation with MSNBC has become so unrewarding for me that I’ve decided to move on. — Craig”

But he really expanded on the reasoning in the comments:

i simply could not any longer endure being a cartoon player for lefty games, just gotta move on to higher ground even if there’s no oxygen

i have never and never will forgive Chris for calling me a racist after the West Virginia primary (the last time I will ever go on air with him). Probably should have resigned then and there, but better late than never.

“Cartoon character for lefty games”?? Holy smokes! Tell us how you really feel, Craig:

We asked Crawford what he was referring to regarding Chris Matthews, and to expand on why he left the network. He responded by email:

I haven’t felt like a good fit for MSNBC since the presidential campaign, and the hard turn toward point-of-view programming. No particular event brought this on, just my desire to try other outlets and have more fun. As far as Chris is concerned, on Morning Joe after the West Virginia primary he accused me of always defending Clinton and what he claimed to be her racially motivated campaigning. That’s the problem. Trying to be fair became seen as bias in the new thinking over there. But I do wish my many pals at MSNBC nothing but good things.

This appears to be that incident from Morning Joe.

Dang, Craig, maybe you could have spoken up a bit more back then, giving it back to Tingly Leg that Hillary ISN’T racist, and for Tingles to claim she is, and calling you a racist, too, was nothing short of reprehensible and slanderous? Just asking. So, tell us more:

The decision by a Countdown regular to leave MSNBC because of his the way he perceives the network is a notable one. Although Crawford isn’t purely left-wing, he is a commentator that represents the left perspective. His exit, and his reasoning, show some level of discontent among those who may be politically on the same team at MSNBC.

Crawford says on his blog he will be on Fox & Friends as a guest on Monday, although FNC says he won’t be. He also writes in the comments that he is a “free agent.”

> Update: Crawford took down the F&F booking info shortly after publication.

Some interesting comments at both Craig’s blog, and at Mediaite about Craig’s decision. Many people support him, but a number of MSNBO viewers attack him for going to “Fox and Friends.” Now there’s a surprise.

It is mighty interesting that Crawford has departed the network before his contract was up, and especially the reasons why. I reckon it is better late than never. Oh, no, wait – because he colluded in MSNBC becoming MSNBO, participated in Hillary-bashing even if it was in staying silent in the face of blatant falsehoods about her from other commentators. And he did participate in their “lefty games.” Now, we are stuck with Obama wrecking our country. But, hey – if things keep going this way, there will be fewer “journalists” willing to make Obama’s presidency a success, like Good Ol’ Chris Matthews. I guess that’s something.

Welcome to the Kool Aide Free zone, also free of Hopium smoke. Glad you made it out, Craig.

Lady de Rothschild has continued to stay in the political landscape, and has the following post in The Daily Beast. What a post it is:

Obama’s shortcomings were eminently foreseeable, says one of McCain’s most prominent Democratic backers. Lynn Forester de Rothschild on how the president’s fake bipartisanship could never hide his true leftist agenda.

The failures of the Obama presidency were clearly telegraphed by the Obama candidacy. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Back in September 2008, as a lifelong Democratic Party loyalist and activist, I backed John McCain; I told The New York Times, “I love my country more than my party.” Supporting a Republican was the last thing I expected to be doing in the fall of 2008. But I knew it was my only choice, given the decision by the Democratic Party establishment to reject 18 million voters in favor of the inexperienced and ideological Barack Obama.

His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America.

After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that, during the campaign, we already knew what kind of president he would become.

Yes, most of us DID know what kind of president Obama would become, hence why so many of us supported Clinton:

The health-care summit vividly demonstrated Mr. Obama’s fake bipartisanship. When he was a candidate, we celebrated when he said, “We are not red or blue states. We are the United States of America.” But candidate Obama had no record of bipartisan behavior. Ironically, the one time that Obama entered into a bipartisan effort was with, of all people, John McCain. He reached across the aisle to draft ethics reform legislation with Senator McCain. But when Obama returned to the Democratic establishment with a bill that did not meet their favor, he backed away fast. It was candidate McCain who had worked productively and regularly with Democrats, like with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration. The record told me more than the rhetoric about which candidate would honestly respect the other side and reach across the aisle to find the best solutions for America.

Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist. Sure, he made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. He promised “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business,” a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional employee hired through 2010, removal of penalties for early withdrawal of 401(k) savings during the recession, and no administration jobs for lobbyists. Perhaps the best of all was the promise he made in the Mississippi presidential debate when he said, “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America.

Oh, sure he would. Many of us knew Obama would give the same kind of attention to the issues that came before him as he did while an IL Senator (“Present!”) or as a US Senator (“I changed my mind!” like he apparently did in regard to a promise made to John McCain), and so many more (remember FISA, for instance?). Ahem. Some of us were paying attention, though:

Again, I chose to look beyond the rhetoric to the record. At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. It was also obvious to ask what kind of president would have voted “present” on 129 difficult votes while in the Illinois State Senate. He was always thinking about how to keep every constituency happy; how to maintain his viability for the White House. In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists.

So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign. Standing on the steps of the old Illinois State Capitol, announcing his candidacy for president, Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. He had said so all along. His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America. It is telling that under Obama’s presidency, according to Sunday’s CNN Poll, 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans see the federal government as a threat to the rights of Americans.

Holy crapoli. There are some pretty bad numbers, especially for the “Transformational King” that was supposed to be Obama, especially this soon. Again, “We Told You So:

Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope. (Lady de Rothschild is chief executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company. She is a director of the Estee Lauder Cos. and The Economist Newspaper Ltd.)

Interesting points by Lady de Rothschild, don’t you think? Here she is explaining why she said, “Told You So”:

I love this woman – an excellent role mode during Women’s History Month. I think she is fantastic – so eloquent, so knowledgeable, so diplomatic, so RIGHT, especially about Bill Clinton, and SO right about Barack Obama. Told you so…

The embattled liberal group ACORN is in the process of dissolving its national structure, with state and local-chapters splitting off from the underfunded, controversial national group, an official close to the group confirmed.

“ACORN has dissolved as a national structure of state organizations,” said a senior official close to the group, who declined to be identified by name because of the fierce conservative attacks on the group that began when a conservative filmmaker caught some staffers of its tax advisory arms on tape appearing to offer advice on incorporating a prostitution business.

Ah, yes – this is all the fault of that pesky James O’Keefe and those mean Republicans. It has absolutely ZIP to do with ACORN being under investigation in at least 14 states for voter registration fraud, and is under federal indictment in Nevada, or their participation in the mortgage lending crisis, or anything like that.

The article referenced above also has this Update:

A person familiar with the New York reorganization said the new group has a new board, including some relative outsiders, like an official at the union Workers United, Wilfredo Larancuent, as well as most of the old leadership.

But the impact appears to be minimal.

“It’s not like this is some kind of hostile thing,” said the New York source. “This is what Fox has produced. National Acorn and Bertha Lewis are continuing doing their thing, but the New York flagship has been forced into this new organization.”

“As far as the work in the communities and policy campaigns, no one will notice the difference,” the source said. “It’s people who still believe in their basic mission of fighting for poor people.”

ALSO: National ACORN says it continues to exist, despite the departure of state chapters, including also California’s, which departed under similar terms last month.

Yes, yes, it is clear – this has nothing to do with voter registration fraud, voter fraud, bad mortgages, or the fact that this is SUPPOSED to be a non-partisan organization that is working primarily to hep Democrats, including Obama, elected to office. Nope – it’s all because Fox News and James O’Keefe are mean to them. I got it.

Do they really think we are so stupid that we are not going to KNOW they are the same group as before? Hey, we’re not in Congress or anything – we aren’t THAT easily duped. I’m pretty sure we can keep up.

But guess who apparently cannot? Oh, yes indeedy – President Obama. Remember this little clip from his interview with George Stephanopoulos?

Wait until you get a load of THIS one:

Again, do these politicians really NOT know we have VIDEOTAPE??? Holy moley, Obama, you are way too young to be that forgetful. Oh, wait – that’s not forgetfulness, that’s flat out lying. No doubt, once ACORN has finished changing its name and banners, he’s going to claim he has NO idea who or what that organization is.

Hey, here’s a fun little contest we can have. “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” is a bit dated as an expression, and we so need a new one for Obama and the numerous whoppers he lets fly (not to mention most politicians). What pithy saying can you craft that about Obama and his numerous lies? This should be fun. Oh, and prize ideas, too, would be welcome. Have at it!

In the latter days of the Carter presidency, it became fashionable to say that the office had become unmanageable and was simply too big for one man. Some suggested a single, six-year presidential term. The president’s own White House counsel suggested abolishing the separation of powers and going to a more parliamentary system of unitary executive control. America had become ungovernable.

Then came Ronald Reagan, and all that chatter disappeared.

The tyranny of entitlements? Reagan collaborated with Tip O’Neill, the legendary Democratic House speaker, to establish the Alan Greenspan commission that kept Social Security solvent for a quarter-century.

A corrupted system of taxation? Reagan worked with liberal Democrat Bill Bradley to craft a legislative miracle: tax reform that eliminated dozens of loopholes and slashed rates across the board — and fueled two decades of economic growth.

Later, a highly skilled Democratic president, Bill Clinton, successfully tackled another supposedly intractable problem: the culture of intergenerational dependency. He collaborated with another House speaker, Newt Gingrich, to produce the single most successful social reform of our time, the abolition of welfare as an entitlement.

Krauthammer hits the nail on the head:

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills and an ideological compass in tune with the public, the country was indeed governable.

One needs experience, depth of knowledge on policy and the workings of government as well as specific understanding of the needs of Americans in order to move this country forward. Tone deaf policies that do little to solve those needs will not lead to a good result.

Krauthammer continues:

It’s 2010, and the first-year agenda of a popular and promising young president has gone down in flames. Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health-care reform — lie in ruins.

Desperate to explain away this scandalous state of affairs, liberal apologists haul out the old reliable from the Carter years: “America the Ungovernable.” So declared Newsweek. “Is America Ungovernable?” coyly asked the New Republic. Guess the answer. [snip]

Yet, what’s new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic — and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

Krauthammer goes on to dissect the latest liberal complaints about Republican’s use of the filibuster pointing out Democrats did the same in blocking GW Bush’s judicial appointments. Their complaints that Congress’ structure impedes progress is likewise blather to provide cover for an administration that has lost control of its message.

…Indeed, the Senate with its ponderous procedures and decentralized structure is serving precisely the function the Founders intended: as a brake on the passions of the House and a caution about precipitous transformative change.

Krauthammer took time to praise another Democrat along the way:

Leave it to Mickey Kaus, a principled liberal who supports health-care reform, to debunk these structural excuses: “Lots of intellectual effort now seems to be going into explaining Obama’s (possible/likely/impending) health care failure as the inevitable product of larger historic and constitutional forces. . . . But in this case there’s a simpler explanation: Barack Obama’s job was to sell a health care reform plan to American voters. He failed.”

He failed because the utter implausibility of its central promise — expanded coverage at lower cost — led voters to conclude that it would lead ultimately to more government, more taxes and more debt. More broadly, the Democrats failed because, thinking the economic emergency would give them the political mandate and legislative window, they tried to impose a left-wing agenda on a center-right country. The people said no, expressing themselves first in spontaneous demonstrations, then in public opinion polls, then in elections — Virginia, New Jersey and, most emphatically, Massachusetts.

That’s not a structural defect. That’s a textbook demonstration of popular will expressing itself — despite the special interests — through the existing structures. In other words, the system worked.

I also read an interesting piece by Joe Scarborough yesterday, discussing his own conservative principles. He stated that while he may not agree with President Obama’s agenda, he prays for him daily to find a successful way to lead for the sake of our country. He said “if his grandmother could pray for Carter, he could pray for Obama.”

My prayer is that the President starts paying more attention to the message Americans are sending him and less attention to those like Nancy Pelosi who are arrogant in continuing to tell the rest of us to get lost. Perhaps he would then find the country is governable.

The packaging of a fantasy is an art in and of itself cleverly crafted by publicists, ambitious stage parents and cynical editors. The formula is fairly simple. The performer must always be portrayed as single and wholesome. Marriage, homosexuality, bizarre personality quirks, poor grooming, violent tendencies, psychological issues, consumption of alcohol and/or drugs and smoking must be concealed at all costs lest the fantasy, and possibly a career, go up in smoke. Chastity rings a la Jonas Brothers are a big plus. The star has to be accessible but always slightly out of reach, cute but never sexual, perfectly behaved….and rather bland. Attracting and keeping the attention of young female fans, who tend to be fickle when it comes to the cuties they admire, is easier said than done.

But it’s impossible to put off the inevitable. The girls realize they’re at a puppet show when they see the strings. The star turns out to be a regular guy. After shedding a few tears and pouting a bit, the heartbroken and disappointed girls move on to the next object of their undying love.

During Campaign 2008, the American press corps hit a double by acting as both the editors of fluffy teenage magazines AND their audience: Weepy, starstruck young girls. The campaign coverage was breathless in its uncritical hero worship of candidate Obama while treating Hillary Clinton like the evil woman who comes between the adoring fan and the object of his/her adoration. The Yoko Ono of politics, if you will. The McCain camp spoofed this silly dynamic by putting out an ad drawing attention to the American Idol-like press coverage of the Obama campaign (the ad was removed from YouTube for copyright violations). And imagine how the press corps would have reacted if Bill Clinton had given his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention standing in front of a set bearing a distinct likeness to a Grecian temple.

Over a year has passed since Obama was sworn into office. Only now are the media beginning to ask whether the man they lost their heads over is the same guy from 2008. The jury’s still out with many in the press corps who continue to keep hope alive. For those who refuse to face the reality that Barack Obama is not the political Donny Osmond, the latest craze is blaming advisors for the Obama administration’s lack of legislative accomplishments. Never mind that Rahm Emanuel was not elected President and that it really doesn’t matter whether Valerie Jarrett chooses to hold court at a restaurant in Georgetown instead of pressing the flesh at an event (and you know things are getting dire when anyone in Obama’s circle is compared unfavorably to Bill Clinton, a man still reviled by the Washington press establishment). These people were appointed by the President to carry out his wishes. If Obama thought they were doing him a disservice they would be fired. The new narrative casting aspersions on the aides is a cop out. It advances the idea that these advisors fell out of the sky, formed a cabal and are now freelancing instead of following the orders of the First Boss. Nonsense.

Obama spent his first year holding a series of town halls, public meetings, press conferences and television interviews. But the bottom line is that legislatively the party has ground to a halt. The foolish narratives advanced by the media aren’t helping much. So the Republicans won an addition seat in Massachusetts? Yes, it’s a significant and important political story, but in a world populated by grown-ups going from a 60-40 supermajority in the Senate to 59-41 does not give the Democrats an out to fold their tents and go home. The Republicans haven’t achieved a supermajority in living memory but were still able to advance a controversial agenda during the tenure of George W. Bush. The fear and defeatism emanating from the Democratic caucus demonstrates an inability, or unwillingness, to lead. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s performance has been particularly timid. What ever happened to the Harry Reid who served as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission:

A man named Jack Gordon, who later married LaToya Jackson, tried to give Reid a $12,000 bribe. Reid let the FBI videotape Gordon offering him the bribe, and then, according to aLas Vegas Review-Journal account, he “put his hands around Gordon’s neck and said, ‘You son of a bitch, you tried to bribe me.’” That’s right, Senate Democrats are being led by a man who once tried to strangle LaToya Jackson’s future husband-manager.

The media have reached a crossroads. They can either do a group hug and cry over a dream deferred, an illusion they helped create, or they can stop searching for scapegoats and covering Obama as they would any other politician.

Will this happen? It’s hard to tell. It appears that the press have moved on to swoon over their next fascination: American Idol, er, Campaign 2012.

–
Cross Post from: ThePakistanUpdate.com

“My advice to the President is, with a great deal of respect, take New York off your radar screen,” the state’s senior senator told reporters. “Find another location.”

The most logical place,” added Schumer, “is in some isolated military base that is completely far away from population centers and is self-contained.”

Schumer’s middle-of-nowhere, military-base criteria came a day after President Obama said he has “not ruled out” bringing the trial to Manhattan Federal Court – despite a taxpayer tab estimated at $1 billion over five years.

We had thought after the shocking election of Scott Brown to Teddy Kennedy’s old senate seat, the message would have been clear. For a strong Obama ally like Schumer to come out publically and say ‘do not have the trials here’ – since the President seems to be hemming and hawing on this – it is a pretty good sign that Schumer is feeling the heat in his own state.

Part of the backlash that swept Scott Brown into office involved his campaigning on stopping the terror trials from being held in NY. The exhorbitant costs and added security the trials would involve, and who would pick up the tab, were issues upsetting to many. Politico is reporting that other Democrats in Congress likewise are running away from civilian terror trials, which are polling as very unpopular with the American people.

I advocated for Martha Coakley in the MA election and believe she was irrevocably hurt by saying these trials should be held in New York, and by allying herself with the Obama Administration, allowing him to campaign for her. This seemed to indicate she would be the crucial 60th vote on Mr. Obama’s unfortunate health care bill, however reluctantly. This sealed her fate. But as we have seen, the herd mentality in both parties makes it near impossible to stand alone. Trapped between being ostracized by her own party or going along to get along, she became the casualty, and scapegoat, of the message voters wanted to send the President and Congress. Once again, a qualified woman was cast aside.

Sen. Schumer is reading the tea leaves, both from MA’s special election and his own poll numbers, which are on the decline. Understandably, he is looking to protect his own behind with voters. This is yet another situation where President Obama’s policies are becoming toxic to his fellow Democrats.

Insiders said Monday that while the White House has all but taken the city off the table, it doesn’t want to make it official until a new site is lined up. The search is believed to extend well into the hinterlands, such as Colorado and Kansas.

AG Holder proposed 4 different location in upstate NY to Schumer, all of which he nixed.

“I told him that I was familiar with all four and none of them would work,” Schumer told the Daily News.

Further,

Some believe the whole debate may be moot, given GOP legislation that would block the feds from spending any money to try Guantanamo detainees in civilian courts. It is picking up support from Democrats too, such as Staten Island Rep. Mike McMahon.

“The political landscape has changed dramatically on this,” said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.).

Mayor Bloomberg tried to stay out of the fray yesterday but reiterated that if the trial comes to New York, “We expect the federal government to pay for it.”

It appeared the Administration was going to backtrack on the NY trial location, yet by Senator Schumer choosing to draw a line in the sand publically, he indicates the American people’s voices are being heard. It will be curious to see who else is listening and what, if any, effect this will have on future policy.

What say you?

This video explains why I haven’t uploaded many videos lately. It is the first in a three-part series that tells of a musical I have been working on, which I hope will at least provide some entertainment for my friends on No Quater and on my Youtube channel.

If you enjoy musicals, you might enjoy this affectionate parody of musicals in general and some of the great classic musicals like West Side Story, My Fair Lady, Damn Yankees, Singing In The Rain, a Chorus Line, Hello Dolly, How to Succeed in Business (Without Really Trying), and a number of others.

Two more videos are to follow (unless everyone hates the first one!)`

Naturally, my prejudices are evident in the video, even if it is about something as seemingly innocuous as musicals. Political correctness is one of them.

…the movement shuns any semblance of political elitism. And although many activists here embrace Palin as a spokeswoman, they are deeply divided over whether they want her as their leader — or whether they want any leader at all.
Palin understands this.

“I caution against allowing this movement to be defined by any one leader or any one politician,” she said Saturday night. “The tea party movement is not a top-down operation. It’s a ground-up call to action. . . . This is about the people, and it’s bigger than any king or queen of the tea party, and it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.”

Palin, by some accounts the standard-bearer of the Republican Party, in her speech took an unusual step of encouraging competitive party primary campaigns.

“Contested primaries aren’t civil war,” she said. “They’re democracy at work, and that’s beautiful.”

I appreciate her point about contested primaries. It’s time we shake up the political landscape and inject some new blood into the process.

According to The NY Times…

…pressed about the relationship between the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement, and whether the latter should become a third party, Ms. Palin suggested the two should be compatible.

“The Republican Party would be really smart to start trying to absorb as much of the Tea Party movement as possible,” she said. “This is a beautiful movement because it is shaping the way politics are conducted. You’ve got both party machines running scared.”

I suppose she is pushing for Republicans to absorb the tea partiers since they adhere to somewhat more conservative principles, though I don’t know if I’m comfortable with this either. A third party has never been able to take hold in this country and the worry is in siphoning off votes that ulitmately wind up keeping a less than desirable representative in power.

The Republican Party, as it stands now, is just as big a problem as the Democratic Party. Too much entrenched interest plagues both. Her comments about both “party machines running scared” lends some comfort, however.

I would rather not see this movement co-opted by any organized group that is already toxic. My concern is not about small or large government but smart government. Unlike the false way in which the movement was first characterized, I don’t have any problem with paying taxes – I have a problem with waste. I don’t have a problem with health care reform. I have a problem with insurance giveaways, pork, cuts to Medicare that endanger seniors in this country and a lack of transparency. I don’t have a problem with either party as much as I have a problem with corruption in both.

It is also interesting that after the disgusting sexual slurs that greeted Tea Party protesters last year, being called “teabaggers” by everyone from Senator Chuck Schumer to newscasters Anderson Cooper, David Schuster, and pundits like Olbermann and Maddow, not to mention our POTUS making “teabagging” comments as well, now The New Yorker, Newsweek and more are referring a bit more respectfully to “The Tea Party Movement.” No matter how these news outlets tried to diminish the numbers of participants in rallies and protests last year, clearly, more than a few have figured out they would be wise to treat tea parties members with a little more respect. Quite a stunning turnaround. Palin’s “running scared” comment would seem to be accurate.

The greatest effect this movement can have is to scare officials in both parties into remembering how to do the people’s business, instead of their own or that of their cronies. Congress needs to emerge from its insulated bubble, drop the elitist attitude and be more respectful to the concerns of its constituents. To the extent that Sarah Palin can assist in drawing attention to ordinary Americans who want more attentive representation for their hard earned tax dollars and contributions, her “lightning rod” is most welcome.

What is your forecast for the Tea Party Movement? What effect would you like it to have? And is it something that will help or hurt in the long run.

Please tell us what you think…

“This isn’t how responsible families do their budgets. When times are tough, you tighten your belts,” Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.

“You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage,” Obama said. “You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.”

The comments quickly sparked a flurry of reaction from federal, state and local lawmakers in the Silver State, which had an unemployment rate of 13 percent in December.

Tough choices? Like sticking a bunch of pork in the stimulus bill? Like bailing out Wall Street and saying the heck with Main Street. Like holding back stimulus dollars till an election year so he can boost the Democrats’ prospects in the midterms while people have been losing homes and jobs, suffering horribly all through 2009? Those tough choices?

His preaching on the subject comes as a shock indeed considering this President in his first year has spent more than all other Presidents combined. He hosts half million dollars pizza parties, averaging a party every three days. He had the most expensive inauguration ever, clocking in at about $170 million, spent $6 million on a faux Grecian temple at the Convention and spent three quarters of a billion dollars to get the Presidency in this “no lose year” for Democrats. Do as I say, not as I do.

Anyone will tell you, modeling good behavior works a lot better than preaching. Something Mr. Obama might want to make note of, considering he has a bad habit of living beyond his means. It takes nerve to ask others to sacrifice when he and the First Lady spare no expense for themselves on the taxpayers’ dime. Why should we be surprised at his spending the taxpayers’ money so recklessly when his own past indicates the same pattern.

He bought a house he couldn’t afford with the help of Tony Rezko, then under indictment. Obama later said, “it was boneheaded” yet he feels quite comfortable telling other Americans the proper way to “tighten their belts.” When credit card companies wanted to charge usury rates, Obama did nothing to oppose them.

The President and First Lady had an opportunity to lead by example in the sacrifice department. Unfortunately, they have repeatedly demonstrated they are far more concerned with enjoying the perks and toys of office than tightening their own belts as a way to both inspire the American people and to show that they “feel our pain.”

“I’ll do everything I can to give him the boot,” Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said … adding that he was incensed when he heard about the comments and said he would no longer welcome the president here if he visits.

“This president is a real slow learner,” said Goodman, who is not affiliated with a political party.

Nevada’s economy has been hit hard with foreclosures, unemployment and bankruptcies during the past two years as consumers everywhere tighten leisure spending and companies spend less on meetings and conventions.

And when your own Senator Majority Leader, the much maligned Harry Reid – most likely the man who lit a fire under Obama to run in the first place – condemns your remarks, you know you’ve stuck your foot in it: Reid issued a statement:

“Reid to Obama: ‘Lay off Las Vegas’.

“The President needs to lay off Las Vegas and stop making it the poster child for where people shouldn’t be spending their money,” Reid said. “I would much rather tourists and business travelers spend their money in Las Vegas than spend it overseas.”

Obama’s reply was insipid at best:

“I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money, to have fun,” Obama said, according to the letter. “There is no place better to have fun than Vegas, one of our country’s great destinations.”

Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, complained that Obama “failed to grasp the weight that his words carry.”

Well, Ensign hits the nail on the head. How can this man be the POTUS and not understand that his every remark is tracked to within an inch of its life. If the President voices disapproval about a city – it’s revenues falter. How could he not know that?

Las Vegas’ Mayor Goodman concluded with this telling remark:

“Sometimes when he’s not using his monitors and reading what he says, he doesn’t think…”

The President doesn’t think? Is that the reason why Axelrod and Co. never want the president to go off script? Is Goodman implying that without his trusty TelePrompTer, POTUS’ handlers never know what is going to happen? Like Obama’s careless remark that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” before he knew the facts of the case. That little nugget arguably went a long way toward costing the Democratic Party the MA Senate seat.

Goodman also said Obama has a “psychological hang-up” about Las Vegas. So I offer one of two theories about his remarks:

1. Perhaps his sensitive nature is still holding a grudge against Las Vegas because Hillary won the Nevada primary – forcing Obama to have to fight on for the nomination.

2. The “my uncle liberated Auschwitz” syndrome – he is just looking for the nearest convenient sound bite, accurate or not.

He figures no one is going to challenge him on the accuracy of his remarks or take him to task for them. Why wouldn’t he believe this? The media hasn’t bothered to do their jobs so far. It never occurs to him that his careless words – pulling the nearest example out of his, er, hat that he can find, can have serious repercussions to others – being that he is the President of the United States.

As Hillary Clinton once said, “you don’t need a President who looks down at you.”

Millions of Americans are hurting. They watched a man win a historic election, promising change only to see politics as usual and worse, a White House that is deaf, dumb and blind to their concerns. A spendthrift who tells everyone else how to sacrifice is as elitist as he is out of touch.

Someone needs to remind the President that when he mouths off, he is not an adjunct lecturer getting cute at a cocktail party, spouting some witty bon mot for the entertainment of his hangers on.

Words are not just words anymore. The President is being held accountable for them — if not by the media, then by the voters. It would be helpful if he held himself accountable as well.

The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

Bevan goes on to state:

If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were “snuck in” – presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists – that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.

This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats’ legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn’t. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care – the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.

So even the President is admitting to this. Anyone protesting this debacle was called the dirtiest of names by the likes of the arrogant Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer because we dared to question their 2,000 page health care monstrosity. The Dems may have snuck it in? Why would they try to do that? Don’t they have our best interests at heart.

I do not recognize this party anymore. Even Dianne Feinstein made the comment that we just couldn’t understand the depth and breadth of this legislation. Apparently, we understood it a lot better than certain folks would have liked us to.

Though the President brazenly behaves as though the American people trust his every utterance, the latest Rasmussen Reports polling on the President’s SOTU speech show just how deep that trust deficit has become.

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false.

Perhaps trust might be reclaimed by realizing one basic principle. The time for transparency is before and during negotations on important legislation — not after the fact, when someone has spent the better part of a year trying to shove it down the American gullet, while denying the very thing they now admit to be true. Further, what assurances do the American people have that as health care legislation continues to morph in Congress, more of these types of dangerous provisions won’t be “sneaking in.”

Health care reform is necessary. Congress first needs to prove they can be trusted to repair and improve the current system before we hand them the reins to gut it altogether.

Here’s a hot flash, Mr. President. I like my doctors. I like my health care plan. I don’t want anyone messing with it, especially if what they are offering will degrade the level of care my family and I now receive.

It is hard to believe the above isn’t a skit from SNL, too. Holy smokes.Huh, I guess not being able to see those transcripts and stuff is kind of important AFTER all.

And just for the hell of it, I have to share this little story with you about the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Taxpayers Pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s In-Flight ‘Food, Booze’ . I’m sure that’s in the Constitution, or the Declaration, or somewhere, that we should be shelling $1,000 a WEEK for food and booze for the Speaker:

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey … and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for “in-flight services” – including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That’s almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

“Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. “And these documents suggest the Speaker’s congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else.”

Holy freakin’ frijoles, really?? And Obama gets up there mouthing crapola about cutting back? Please. The article continues:

Pelosi, D-Calif., recently joined President Obama on a Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her “sense of entitlement,” the group said.

“Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline,” the evaluation said.

And WND reported almost a year ago that Pelosi was shown to have been erratically canceling and rescheduling flights, as one would with an on-call taxi service.

Do the tone-deaf lawmakers in D.C. make your blood boil? Read all about Washington and its politics of corruption in “Breach of Trust.”

“We have … folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc,” said one Department of Defense e-mail then.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi’s requests for aircraft.

“Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” it stated. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case’…”

The e-mail noted that the speaker’s office had “a history of canceling many of their past requests.”

Just in case you were wondering, it is not FREE to prep these jets for possible use. Um, did Obama proclaim her Queen of the United States or something when we weren’t looking?? How full of herself can she possibly be?? Oh, wait, there’s more:

Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi’s demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco’s airport.

“She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker. …”

Said another, “This is a battle that we are bound to lose if we tell the speaker(’s) office. In the end, this is what will happen. I wish that I could say this is a one-time request, but we know it will probably happen again in the future.”

Yet another indicated a deep level of frustration:

“Here is the laydown: there are five G5s. Two are broke. Two off on CODELS. One slated for priority White House… we should keep on G-III for now for Tuesday afternoon and start sacrificing goats and chickens.”

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi’s military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

HOLY SHIT. That is just obscene. Can you see the smoke coming out of my ears? Oh, but wait, there is still more:

Among the newest highlights revealed:

* Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker’s family.

* One CODEL traveling from Washington, D.C., through Tel Aviv, Israel, to Baghdad, Iraq, May 15-20, 2008, “to discuss matters of mutual concern with government leaders” included members of Congress and their spouses and cost $17,931 per hour in aircraft alone. This flight included the purchase of the long list of alcoholic drinks.

* According to a “Memo for Record” from a March 29-April 7, 2007, CODEL that involved a stop in Israel, “CODEL could only bring kosher items into the hotel. Kosher alcohol for mixing beverages in the delegation room was purchased on the local economy i.e. bourbon, whiskey, scotch, vodka, gin, triple sec, tequila, etc.

Pelosi’s office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

Judicial Watch Inc. describes itself as a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.

Maybe Judicial Watch could give Obama some tips on what exactly is in that Constitution, at least so this “scholar” knows the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Sounds like Pelosi better sit in, too…

Congressman – Senator – Vice President – 37th President of the United States Lyndon Baines Johnson was a crude, tactless man. Bobby Kennedy loathed him. The photograph of Johnson taking the oath of office on Air Force One standing next to a shocked, blood-spattered Jacqueline Kennedy is one of the most tragic and iconic images of the 1960s. Conspiracy theorists driven by hatred of Johnson’s Vietnam policies – including filmmaker Oliver Stone – believe Johnson had a hand in Kennedy’s death, a theory that despite lack of proof is stubbornly resilient.

Mystery shrouds Johnson’s election to the Senate in 1948, which many believe Johnson stole with a little help from his friends. In one infamous precinct, 202 ballots were cast alphabetically – all by “voters” who were dead at the time the election was held.

Johnson was a flagrant womanizer. He was ill-mannered, foulmouthed, crooked, stubborn and dead wrong on Vietnam. His tactic for getting his way, known as “the Johnson Treatment,” consisted of a little carrot and, when necessary, abundant stick. When charm didn’t work blackmail and brute force did the trick.

He didn’t like to lose and threw more than a few elbows to win. The “Daisy Girl” ad, which ran only once during his campaign for President against Barry Goldwater in 1964, is still considered one of the most effective attack ads ever made. Accusing your opponent of being a lunatic may not adhere to the Marquess of Queensbery rules but it wins elections.

So why remember this bully and lout?

Because when it came to doing the right thing for the little guy, Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat with a capital “D,” a politician who defied all expectations by being far ahead of his time. As President, he was responsible for designing the “Great Society” legislation that included laws that upheld civil rights, Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, aid to education, and helping the disadvantaged in his “War on Poverty.” All while fighting dyed-in-the-wool racist Congressmen, Senators and Governors and a public that had not yet reached a higher state of enlightenment on race relations. And all this without a White House Chief of Staff.

Does Lyndon Johnson sound like the sort of President who would have allowed members of his party to defy him and not feel the sharp end of the stick? Would Senators like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have been able grind the legislative process to a halt with no repercussions? Punishment would have been swift and severe. Committee assignments – gone. Funding for re-election – gone. You want to be a maverick? Political Siberia awaits.

Consider the new President’s conversation with Martin Luther King three days into Johnson’s term following the Kennedy assassination (and consider that he regarded civil rights an important enough issue that he spoke to MLK while the country was still in mourning). Consider his record on civil rights. Going after the Ku Klux Klan. Appointing the first black Supreme Court justice.

LBJ was no fool. He knew the risks of pushing a progressive agenda. “We have lost the South for a generation” Johnson said about the fate of the Democratic party after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But sign it he did.

His presidency has largely been defined by the debacle of Vietnam, by anti-war protesters chanting “hey hey LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” He was not a well-loved man when he left office.

But his amazing legacy of social reform brought about by sheer grit and determination remains.

When can the U.S. expect Obama to learn from his predecessor? When will he understand that allowing Congress to squabble like spoiled children and set the President’s agenda is allowing the tail to wag to the dog and makes the party – particularly the President – appear weak and indecisive? Or that the seating of one more Republican Senator doesn’t nullify the results of the 2008 election? That voters want a president who backs up his oratorical skills with action? That “change” wasn’t a focus group-approved slogan for voters, but an actual promise? That just because you inherit a mess of a war from your predecessor doesn’t mean you continue along the same path into quagmire – a dilemma that dogged Johnson’s presidency?

Obama is not Lyndon Johnson. He does not possess Johnson’s remarkable political skills or experience or his cutthroat approach to getting his way. Obama is an outstanding orator. But is he capable of gutsy leadership? Can he get his party in line?

The jury’s still out. During an ABC News interview following Scott Brown’s victory in Massacusetts, Obama warned Democrats in Congress not to “jam” a health care reform bill through now that they’ve lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

Lyndon Johnson is rolling in his grave.

–
This piece was first published at: ThePakistanUpdate.com