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?

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.

“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 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.

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

Like her or hate her, Sarah Palin has a habit of getting to the heart of the matter, deflating the b.s. balloon, or going for the jugular, depending on your perspective. This is her latest message to President Obama, posted on her Facebook page tonight. It upsets the apple cart of the denial-type spin that Obama’s surrogates have been spouting on the Sunday morning talk shows. What do you think?

Mr. President: Please Try, “I’m Listening, People,” Instead of “Listen Up, People!”

We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

- Sarah Palin

What issues would you like to see President Obama address in his SOTU speech. How would you like to see him change course and do you think that is possible?

Rep. Marion Berry’s parting shot [who has decided to retire rather than risk running for re-relection], published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.

But the jaw-dropper is Berry’s claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.

The retiring Berry, who doesn’t say when the remarks were made, now scoffs at Obama’s 50-or-below approval rating:

Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.” [snip]

My, my, President Obama. Cocky, aren’t we? Did he make that statement before NJ and VA or after? Was that statement made to Rep Berry before MA, or after? Considering he of the boundless ego went to all three states to campaign for candidates who lost.

Obama’s ego really is on the line here, isn’t it? He is so jealous of the Clintons he must best them at every turn. He has to show the world how much more charisma he has than Bill. Good luck with that. He has to show the world how much smarter he is than SoS Hillary. Good luck with that, considering her accomplishments, and now her popularity, has so eclipsed his.

So tell me, what do you think of President Obama’s assessment that he will stave off bleeding in the midterms on the sheer force of his scintillating personality? Or “successful policies.” Or new found populist rhetoric. Will the public line up to buy it once again?

Inquiring minds want to know…

That would be Mort Zuckerman. If you are not familiar with the name, you surely are with the U.S. News and World Report, of which he is Editor-in-Chief, or the New York Daily News, which he owns (along with other properties). He is a gazillionaire (okay, just a billionaire), and he supported Obama in the 2008 Election. Now, he is just a tad put out as his Op-Ed, “He’s Done Everything Wrong,” indicates (h/t to Andy):

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.

This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.

In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.

Holy moley! Bear in mind, this man, Mr. Zuckerman, was a SUPPORTER. I sure can’t disagree with his assessment, though. He continues:

Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it.

Even that is not the worst part. He could have said, “I know. I promised these things, but let me try to do them one at a time.” You want to deal with health care? Fine. Issue No. 1 with health care was the cost. You know I think it was 37 percent or 33 who were worried about coverage. Fine, I wrote an editorial to this effect. Focus on cost-containment first. But he’s trying to boil the ocean, trying to do too much. This is not leadership.

Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.

I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.

You and me both, Mr. Zuckerman. But if I may be so bold, perhaps lofty words are not a prerequisite for the highest office in the land. Just saying. Perhaps you should have looked a little deeper into how much Obama enjoyed the adoring masses, buying the PR spin that he was The One. The problem is, he started to believe it. He believed/believes it really is all about him. But, as a truly great president said, “I feel your pain.”

And speaking of Clinton:

One business leader said to me, “In the Clinton administration, the policy people were at the center, and the political people were on the sideline. In the Obama administration, the political people are at the center, and the policy people are on the sidelines.”

Again, YES. I hate to keep harping on this, but why were you not capable of seeing this BEFORE?? When Obama regurgitated Deval Patrick’s speeches, that should have been a clue that it was absolutely NOT about policy, but all about politics. When he continually took Hillary Clinton’s policy positions for his own, instead of crafting them himself, that should have been a bit of a clue. But no. Zuckerman, and to many like him, failed to see what was right before their eyes. They believed the hype, too:

I’m very disappointed. We endorsed him. I voted for him. I supported him publicly and privately.

I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster. You have to get the money as quickly as possible into the economy. They didn’t do that. By end of the first year, only one-third of the money was spent. Why is that?

He should have jammed a stimulus plan into Congress and said, “This is it. No changes. Don’t give me that bullshit. We have a national emergency.” Instead they turned it over to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who can run circles around him.

It’s very sad. It’s really sad.

He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”

The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts.

Well, for a moment, perhaps, but even in other countries, people are waking up (check out The Telegraph, or Der Spiegel sometime). But here’s the thing: by caring more about appearances than policy, being liked more than fixing problems, Obama, and all who voted for him, have done this country a tremendous disservice. We told you it wasn’t American Idol for which he was running, but the presidency.

There is still some delusion, though:

It’s really interesting because he had brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign. I don’t know what has happened to them. His appointments present somebody who has a lot to learn about how government works. He better get some very talented businesspeople who know how to implement things. It’s unbelievable. Everybody says so. You can’t believe how dismayed people are. That’s why he’s plunging in the polls.

I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

Did you mention by how much Obama has run up the National Debt? You know, the one he has increased by $1.7 TRILLION since he took office? And he’s looking to increase it by even more. Oh, yippee.

If I may return to another part of Mr. Zuckerman’s editorial, no offense, sir, but OBAMA didn’t have “brilliant, brilliant political instincts during the campaign,” his HANDLERS, Axelrod and Plouffe. did. Had you taken just a few minutes and used the considerable resources at your disposal, you could have looked into his REAL record in IL. You would have seen the shenanigans he employed to even get elected. Now, maybe YOU think that is “brilliant,” but I see it as being an indicator of the man’s moral fiber, and his “win at all costs,” mentality, no matter who he steps on, or what kind of damage he does. Perhaps what Zuckerman is seeing now, is the failure of Axelrod and Plouffe to pull the man off the Campaign Trail and him getting to work. Obama still hasn’t stopped, as he heads off to Ohio on Friday.

Still, at least he is finally getting is. In this interview with Neil Cavuto (h/t to Logistics Monster), he can barely contain himself:

Mr. Zuckerman made some mighty interesting assertions in there, didn’t he, especially in terms of housing? Welcome to the reality based community, sir.

Indeed, slowly but surely, the Kool Aide is wearing off, but not until Obama has done untold damage to out country – IN ONE YEAR. Will he be able to turn it around? I don’t know, but that would presuppose he was capable of introspection, and a willingness to actually listen to the people, as opposed to talk, talk, talking to us (though apparently, he hasn’t talked at us enough – we just don’t get it, you know – because apparently, we are all a bunch of mo-rons not to buy his healthcare bill). Just a thought.

In the meantime, maybe we have all learned a lesson after this presidential election, and after the Massachusetts election. People can be hoodwinked, but not forever. When they wake up, they are none too happy at the lies they were told. That’s why we have elections, and this year is shaping up to be mighty interesting indeed…

One area in which Obama seems to be falling short is on his promises regarding Darfur, according to the organization, Save Darfur Coalition. Recently, they sent a message to their members asking them to:

Tell Obama to match his campaign promises with decisive leadership.

One year ago today Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. As he took office, he promised high-level leadership to bring peace to Darfur and all of Sudan.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s strong words in the campaign have yet to be accompanied by the kind of decisive leadership we expected from the new President.

Millions of people in Darfur still live in camps with the ever-present threat of violence. All of the people of Sudan continue to live without even the most basic human rights. Now, indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir is preparing to steal the country’s first election in 24 years.

We must not let this happen.

Tell President Obama we need his personal leadership to make sure the United States and the world do not to legitimize Omar al-Bashir’s corrupt, genocidal regime.

Secretary of State Clinton took a small step forward when she recently called on Sudan “to suspend elements of the national security and public order laws that are incompatible with free and fair elections.” But her words still lack the support of the President himself, who has remained silent instead of calling out Khartoum for its lack of progress.

Sudanese security forces continue to harass and intimidate their political opponents. Violence and insecurity in Darfur will make voting difficult—if not impossible. The regime in Khartoum wants to use the upcoming election to tighten its grip on power and insulate its leadership from the reach of international justice.

We must act now. Send a message directly to President Obama and tell him that the United States must not recognize the results of an illegitimate election.

Thank you for your support and your activism.

Sincerely,
Mark Lotwis
Save Darfur Coalition
Donate to Help Save Darfur

Let’s take a step back. Just what did Obama promise to do about Darfur? Here he is speaking about Darfur, and other areas, including the toll it takes on one’s soul to not act in this Save Darfur Coalition video:

And yet, despite the “stain” on one’s soul, and the continued genocide, the United States is falling far short in stepping in. Make no mistake, this is a dangerous, dangerous area, especially for women and children. Secretary Clinton spoke about this very issue in terms of rape being used as a tool in Sudan and Darfur:

It is impossible to not be moved by Secretary Clinton’s description of these acts of brutality against women and children in Darfur, and other areas in the world. It is haunting, it is tragic, and it is unacceptable.

Secretary Clinton also spoke about the goals for the region of Darfur in October, 2009:

Worthy goals, to be sure. But words are not enough to save lives there, nor unfulfilled commitments. Action is what is warranted, what is needed, what is demanded, to end the genocide in Darfur. According to a former top UN investigator:

accused the Obama administration of failing to enforce a five-year-old arms embargo in Darfur, Sudan, and said weapons continue to flow into the region.

I cannot even fathom why this Administration would fail in such a task. The former inspector continued:

Enrico Carisch, a Swiss national who until October led a U.N. panel investigating violations of the arms embargo, contrasted the administration’s efforts with those of President George W. Bush, noting the previous administration’s strong advocacy of sanctions against Sudan.

“In contrast to that leadership of 2004 and 2005, the United States appears to have now joined the group of influential states who sit by quietly and do nothing to ensure that sanctions work to protect Darfurians (emphasis mine),” Carisch said in written testimony for an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa.

A damning indictment indeed. For a candidate who spoke such powerful words, who spoke of a “stain” on the human soul to not step in when crimes are being perpetrated against the Darfurians, to now just sit on the sidelines is unthinkable.

And not for nothing, but the very administration Obama is constantly blaming, Bush’s, did better than Obama is. Wow.

Carisch was not done:

Carisch said key architects of the U.N. arms embargo — the United States, France and Britain — have lessened their commitment to enforcing sanctions as U.S.-led efforts to revive peace talks in Sudan have gained traction. “Increasingly it looks like poorly understood and under-enforced U.N. sanctions are being sold out in favor of mediation whose success is far from ensured,” he said.

Now you know the Obama Administration had something to say about this:

Obama administration officials challenged Carisch’s characterization, saying that Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been a passionate proponent of tough sanctions and recently implored the world body to provide a more candid account of the Sudanese government’s misbehavior in Darfur.

“The Obama Administration is actively engaged in ensuring enforcement of all UN sanctions regimes. Given the priority that this Administration attaches to Sudan — and Ambassador Rice’s well-known hard-line views on the issue, it is not credible to say that U.S. efforts have been anything less than vigorous,” Rice’s spokesman, Mark Kornblau, said in an e-mail. “The United States is the most active member of the Security Council in pushing for better enforcement of sanctions and action to protect civilians in Darfur even in the face of a divided Security Council.”

Ah, yes – Susan Rice, the ambassador to whom Obama gave equal footing with Secretary of State Clinton. Evidently, she is not doing her job very well, despite the protestations of the Obama Administration:

Carisch alleged that large amounts of foreign ammunition and weapons, principally from China and Chad, have illegally made their way into Darfur in recent years, fueling a conflict that has left more than 300,000 dead and driven more than 2.7 million from their homes.

There is no way in hell to put a positive spin on THAT, though the Administration might try. Those numbers are staggering.

As Candidate Obama said, “the United States has a moral obligation anytime you see humanitarian catastrophes. We are the most powerful nation on earth. We have the most stake in creating an order in the world that is stable and in which people have hope and opportunity. And when you see a genocide, whether it’s in Rwanda or Bosnia or in Darfur, that’s it’s a stain on all of us, that’s a stain on our souls. We’ve got to to have a protective force on the ground…”

Certainly, Obama, like any US president, has a lot on his plate (some he could have waited to do, like Health care so it was done right the first time). But when people are literally dying, when women and girls are being raped routinely, and when people are being displaced from their homes in massive numbers, it would seem action should come SOONER than later. It should come as promised, it should be stepped up, not stepped down from previous levels, and it should happen now before more lives are lost, whether through genocide, or sexual violence, or displacement. Now, Now is the time.

Ron Christie offered a piece on The Hill’s pundit blog yesterday entitled “Amateur Hour Is Over.” In it he notes the security failures of the Obama Administration from the alleged Somali terrorist plot to assassinate the President on the date of his inauguration, the failure of Desiree Rogers to stop party crashers at a White House dinner and the near massacre caused by a terrorist on an airliner bound for Detroit. Christie faults everyone around the President as rank amateurs. Perhaps he is correct. But that is not what piqued my interest about this piece.

Christie’s article is just one of many that have lately seen the light of day where prior KoolAid drinkers are coming up for air and feeling disillusioned about the mythic figure they worked so hard to elect. Christie’s approach brings a particular type of cognitive dissonance into sharp relief. Namely, he stops just short of ever blaming the Commander in Chief for choosing these people to work for him in the first place. He is the President. He picked these people. He gives them their marching orders. He cannot pretend and we cannot pretend that he has nothing to do with it.

In article after article, the complaints range from fury over the outsourcing of the disastrous health care bill and failed $787 billion stimulus bill to Madame Pelosi to Obama’s disturbing and detached attitude to a terrorist who almost killed 300 people over U.S. soil on Christmas Day. Maureen Dowd complained of his “dithering” on Afghanistan – but a decision on an increase in troop levels was one he had supposedly made eight months before he finally made it. Whose fault was that? He is always “being given bad advice” or “his speechwriters need to do better.” No one blames Obama. I thought he was supposed to be “right on Day One.”

Bob Herbert of the New York Times has penned several pieces rightly complaining that we are not focusing on job creation. But does he think President Obama is not aware of the pain Americans have been feeling on the economy? He campaigned on the fact that job creation was Job One. Post inauguration, Obama instead forced health care (not going into effect for years), and cap and trade down our throats when a different agenda was clearly required in order to right the ship on the economy and to keep people in their homes with food on the table. Again, why does Herbert think this is happening? These are deliberate choices. Never waste a good crisis, remember?

I always wonder if pundits like Christie stop short of blaming Obama because they cannot admit to themselves that the person they hired for this job is a rank amateur as well, or worse, that he simply does not care about the immediate needs of the American people. Perhaps Christie, too, fears being called racist if he is anything less than worshipful about the mythic figure Axelrod and the media did such a wonderful job of selling to the American people in 2008.

How heartbreaking it must be to have bought the shiny new toy only to find out it doesn’t quite work as promised. These past months, I recall reading pundit commentaries attacking tea partiers, insulting them as “Tea Baggers.” Pundits claim they are not protesting government excess and corruption, but that they are hateful citizens who simply cannot accept that Barack Obama is our President. Yet his sycophants are the very ones who cannot seem to accept that he has the job. They are so busy providing cover for him, putting as much protective space as possible between him and the decisions he must make.

It is easier for some to trash friendships and turn their back on logic, even family to hold on to their belief systems. Oddly, these pundits do not realize by passing the buck, and letting it stop short of ever hitting President Obama’s desk, they too are admitting that he is not up to the job – or that he is merely the front man for shadowy corporate masters. You cannot have it both ways. It is not possible to refer to the Obama Administration as “amateur hour” and yet pretend that the President is brilliant. He must share responsibility here.

Robert Gibbs is one of the worst press secretaries I have yet seen. He is rude, talks out of both sides of his mouth and is a very poor spokesperson for the POTUS. As a loyal Obama operative, he got his proper reward, and we are hurting for it. Keeping him on is an executive decision, too. And it comes from only one place.

There is an old and rather crude saying: “Sh*t rolls downhill.” In all the years I’ve been in the work force, in any successful company, good morale and competence bleeds from the top down. No matter what kind of magnificent support team you have, if management is bad, all the competence and hard work in the world will not be able to keep the company afloat if the powers that be are mismanaging it.

I ran into a voter of President Obama’s who referred to him as a “charismatic figurehead.” But he cannot both be a figurehead and a brilliant leader who is capable of 11-dimension chess. Sooner or later the pundit class will have to choose – just as the President cannot continue to vote ‘present’ and will have to make a choice about what is more important – the American people or protecting his own ego.

Christie complains about Obama having poor advisors. But as our poster Felizarte pointed out, even with the best advisors, one must have the knowledge to properly evaluate that advice. Christie concludes his piece with the following:

The time for amateur hour is over. The president and the American people he has sworn an oath to protect demand excellence and competence at this critical time in American history. Those either incapable or too mired in bureaucratic niceties to serve the American people need to go. The stakes are far too high.

Clearly, this is a paragraph everyone at the White House needs to see. The President has sworn an oath to protect us and as such need to take Executive responsibility for what happens on his watch. Today, President Obama finally uttered the words “the buck stops with me” after a solid year of blaming President Bush and everyone else under the sun for every misstep. Let’s see if he means it.

I love John Kass of the Chicago Tribune. He is one of the very, very few columnists who tried to warn us about Obama, Obama’s record (or lack thereof), how he came to be a Senator, and all about Chicago Politics. Simply put, he was a voice crying out in the wilderness.

And now, he has turned his pen (or keyboard, as the case may be) to the rumor that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief Thug And Chicago-Style politician, may be running for mayor of Chicago in this article,

Rahm In The Mayor’s Race Would Be Quite A Fish Tale. Indeed. Here is Kass on this possibility:

On my first day back at work after vacation, the political news from Washington hit me like a cold dead fish in the face:

Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago?

That’s enough to freeze the bowels of every voter in the land.

“Emanuel, the most political animal in this town … is said to have told people that the ( White House) chief of staff role is an 18-month job and that he is considering a run for mayor of Chicago,” wrote columnist Sally Quinn in the Washington Post on Tuesday. (Tribune photo by Jose M. Osorio / December 18, 2008)

With Hollywood continuing to suck up to the Obama administration, imagine the benefits of a Rahmsian mayoral campaign. HBO’s “Entourage” could film here. The lead character, a charismatic Hollywood agent named Ari, is based on Rahm’s brother, Ari.

Just think of the scenes at Cafe Bionda and Tavern on Rush, and the parts for Rahm’s Chicago buddies, the entourage he’ll need to run things if he’s mayor. State Sen. Jimmy DeLeo (D-How You Doin?) could play Turtle and handle the parties. Corrupt former city water boss Donald Tomczak, who’ll be released from federal prison this year, would thrill “Entourage” fans in the role of Donny Drama.

The White House could have thrown cold water on the idea. Instead, a White House source told the Tribune that “Rahm is 100 percent focused on the job at hand — serving President Obama as his chief of staff.”

From such non-denial denials, a demonic campaign may yet be hatched. If so, I might get down on my hands and knees and beg Mayor Richard Daley to stay. This would frighten the mayor and quite possibly unhinge him — permanently.

Now THAT should give you an idea of what it would be like for Rahm to take the helm of Chicago from someone who lives in Chicago. Kass, undeterred, did something too few journalists seem capable of these days. He picked up the phone to seek answers as opposed to relying on whatever rumor mill put this out:

So I called a mayoral source. “It’s news to us,” said the source. “The mayor has no intention of not being mayor.”

Whew. If the prospect of a Rahm mayoral campaign is frightening, just think if Daley retired and played the geezer, an old man with trousers high, bragging about how he did everything he pleased and nobody could do anything about it.

Of course, he’d want to show up at his old haunts. That’s when every politician he terrified over the years would line up to insult him. Don’t even mention the cops and firefighters. Daley couldn’t handle that kind of retirement.

So if Daley’s not the mayor, it means either he’s passed on or he’s taking a long vacation on some exotic beach, drinking gin and tonics, watching “Entourage” DVDs.

The Washington Post is an esteemed newspaper. But the editors eat in Washington. They don’t eat in Chicago. Yes, papers from Washington and New York periodically dispatch their foreign correspondents to our gritty Midwestern precincts to chronicle our quaint, earthy ways. But they never quite get it.

Don’t you just love this guy? “Quaint, earthy ways” – too funny. Oh, if a presidency hadn’t hinged on that kind of thinking:

Just one year ago, Obama was in his first miracle phase, feeding the multitudes with two fish sandwiches and five hot dog buns. He was applauded as a reformer, even while putting Chicago City Hall guys in charge of the world.

Later, a few journalists were annoyed at Obama’s penchant for meekly bowing down before measly foreign kings and emperors. But bowing meekly is what every young Illinois state senator does when summoned to the mayor’s office in Chicago.

When the president installed Rahm as his chief of staff, the Washington media were turgid with respect, praising Rahm as a shrewd political alley fighter, a maestro of profanity, a former ballet dancer tough enough to send a dead fish to an enemy, just like a Hollywood gangster.

Naturally, the national media marveled that Obama selected a Clinton guy, Emanuel, to run things.

That is because the National Media didn’t bother to do their jobs, as we know all too well:

But Rahm is no Clinton guy. He’s a Daley guy.

And if folks in Washington weren’t so besotted with all that primo Hopium they’ve been smoking, they’d have understood this.

Preach it, brother, preach it!

There’s more:

And, legend has it that Rahm sprouted fully formed from the navel of mayoral brother Billy Daley. Rich even assisted at the birth, and according to the dusty hieroglyphs, is said to have shrieked:

“Push, Billy! Push! Billy, I can see the head! Don’t give up! Push!”

The Washington establishment also ignores how Rahm got elected to Congress in 2002 from Illinois’ 5th District. The district’s Democratic state central committeeman, DeLeo, had something to do with it. So did all those illegal City Hall patronage workers swarming the precincts, led by Donny Drama, currently in federal stir for the nasty habit of taking bribes.

Exactly the same way they ignored how OBAMA got elected to office, or that the one time he couldn’t get everyone OFF the ballot, he LOST. Oh, yeah. Betcha didn’t know that. And he only won his US Senate seat because they managed to unseal sealed divorce records, thus forcing the Republican, Jack Ryan, to drop out right before the election. (You may NOT have heard that there was another Democrat, Blair Hull, who also had his sealed divorce records unsealed. Voila, he was out of the race, too. There is reason to believe that it was David Axelrove and Obama who forced that to happen, too, according to the link above. Who knew, right?) So, Obama ran against Alan Keyes. One of my cats could beat Alan Keyes in an election. That was no big feat. But, no. They didn’t bother:

Yet as if by tacit agreement, Rahm’s Chicago back story doesn’t make national news. But neither did the mayor’s reaction when Rahm was made chief of staff of the Chicago Way.

“It’s a gain,” Daley said last year. “It’s a real gain, gain, gain.”

Unless it’s a fish. A real fish, fish, fish.

And it’s really cold. (jskass@tribune.com)

A “gain” indeed. And we have seen just what kind of “gain” – Chicago Politics Writ Large.

I guess that is one thing about which Obama told the truth. He isn’t a Washington politician – he is something worse – a Chicago politician. And we are seeing exactly how that is playing out across the country now…

“In the oval office, you can’t just vote present.”
— Hillary Rodham Clinton

“If you want to know what someone is going to do, take a look at what they’ve done.”
— General Wesley Clark

Huffington Post of all places offered a brilliant article by Drew Westen, Ph.D*.,entitled Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator. Westen’s skillful deconstruction of President Obama laments that Obama doesn’t believe in anything enough to fight for it. He points to the real reason Obama’s polls are tumbling –- the American people are waking up to his continuously voting “present” on issues that matters to them.

I am humbled by Westen’s comprehensive article. I may not agree with everything he says, but this is a true believer with a rational argument. I will not quote the bulk of it, though I’d like to. While principle stops me from including a link to H/P, I do suggest you read it in its entirety. So many of us who were ostracized and insulted last year more than suspected this would be Obama’s style of “governing.” Prof. Westen states it very well:

What’s costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

Bingo. By the way, if this piece appears on HuffPo with many echoing agreement in the comments, hell has indeed frozen over:

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn’t hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president’s leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress’s penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

What’s costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn’t a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

Consider the president’s leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there’s a conflict, because if there’s a conflict, he doesn’t want to be anywhere near it.

…We have seen the same pattern of pretty speeches followed by empty exhortations on issue after issue.

But the true fighter who would have been able to act as Westen wishes is Hillary. She would lead, unafraid to deal with a tough issue or go to the mat and fight for it. Her frank demeanor, history of reaching across the aisle, indefatigable nature and willingnesss to take on President Bush (as she did with RU486, benefits of Guardsman and first responders) demonstrates her credentials in that regard. Her tireless work now as SoS only enhances that reputation. Westen continues:

The president has, on more than one occasion, gone to Wall Street or called in its titans (who have often just ignored him and failed to show up) to exhort them to be nice to the people they’re foreclosing at record rates, yet he has done virtually nothing for those people. His key program for preventing foreclosures is helping 4 percent of those “lucky” enough to get into it, not the 75 percent he promised, and many of the others are having their homes auctioned out from right under them because of some provisions in the fine print. One in four homeowners is under water and one in six is in danger of foreclosure. Why we’re giving money to banks instead of two-year loans — using the model of student loans — to homeowners to pay their mortgages (on which they don’t have to pay interest or principal for two years, while requiring their banks to renegotiate their interest rates in return for saving the banks from “toxic assets”) is something the average person doesn’t understand. And frankly, I don’t understand it, either. I thought I voted Democratic in the last election.

Same with the credit card companies. Great speech about the fine print. Then the rates tripled. …

The president has exhorted the banks, who are getting zero-interest money, to give more of it to small businesses. But they have no incentives to do that. …

The time for exhortation is over. FDR didn’t exhort robber barons to stem the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the upper 1 percent, and neither did his fifth cousin Teddy. Both men told the most powerful men in the United States that they weren’t going to rip off the American people any more, and they backed up their words with actions. Teddy Roosevelt was clear that capital gains taxes should be high relative to income taxes because we should reward work, not “gambling in stocks.” This President just doesn’t have the stomach to make anyone do anything they don’t want to do (except women to have unwanted babies because they can’t afford an abortion or live in a red state and don’t have an employer who offers insurance), and his advisors are enabling his most troubling character flaw, his conflict-avoidance.

Westen’s next comment is as surprising as it is damning.

Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I now change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I couldn’t stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided policy after another. With Obama, I can’t stand them because I realize he doesn’t mean what he says — or if he does, he just doesn’t have the fire in his belly to follow through. He can’t seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is. He’d make a great queen — his ceremonial addresses are magnificent — but he prefers to fly Air Force One at 60,000 feet and “stay above the fray.”

As a lot of bloggers on this and other sites have noted, who would have thought the façade would peel away so quickly?

It’s the job of the president to be in the fray. It’s his job to lead us out of it, not to run from it. It’s his job to make the tough decisions and draw lines in the sand. But Obama really doesn’t seem to want to get involved in the contentious decisions. They’re so, you know, contentious. …

Do you think Americans ought to have one choice of health insurance plans the insurance companies don’t control, or don’t you? I don’t want to hear that it would sort of, kind of, maybe be your preference, all other things being equal. Do you think we ought to use health care as a Trojan Horse for right-wing abortion policies? Say something, for God’s sake.

He doesn’t need a chief of staff. He needs someone to shake him until he feels something strongly enough not just to talk about it but to act.

Odd that Westen describes Obama, a man elected because of his “vision” as clearly lacking a coherent vision or message, likewise condemning his willingness to throw women and gay voters under the bus to the bargain…

He doesn’t want to talk about social issues, even though they predictably have gotten in the way of health care reform and will do the same on one issue after another. Abortion? You don’t advance a progressive position by giving a center-right speech at Notre Dame that emphasizes cutting back on the number of abortions without mentioning that sex education and birth control might be useful means to that end, mumbling something about a conscience clause that suggests that pharmacists don’t have to fill birth control prescriptions if it offends their sensibilities, and allowing states to use health care reform to set back the rights of women and couples to decide when to start their families based on somebody else’s faith. If you believe that freedom includes the freedom to decide when you will or won’t have a child, say it, say it with moral conviction, and follow it up with action. Perhaps something as simple as this: “I won’t sign a health bill into law that forces women and couples to have a child they did not intend and are not ready to parent because of the dictates of someone else’s faith or conscience.” You know what? A message of that sort wins by 25 points nationally, and you can speak it in Southern and win with evangelical Christians in the deep south if you speak to them honestly in the language of faith. That shouldn’t be hard for a president who is a religious Christian.

Gays? Virtually all Americans are for repealing don’t ask/don’t tell (except for conservatives who haven’t yet come to terms with their own homosexuality — but don’t tell them that, or at least don’t ask). This one’s a no-brainer. Tell Congress you want a bill on your desk by January 1, and announce that you have serious questions about the constitutionality of the current policy and won’t enforce it until your Justice Department has had time to study it. Don’t keep firing gay Arabic interpreters. But that would require not just giving the pretty speech on how we’re all equal in the eyes of God and we should all be equal in the eyes of the law (a phrase he might want to try sometime). It would require actually doing something that might anger a small percentage of the population on the right, and that’s just too hard for this president to do. It’s one thing to acknowledge and respect the positions of people who hold different points of view. It’s another to capitulate to them.

Make your case to the American people, make it evocatively, and draw the line in the sand. That’s how you earn people’s respect. That’s the only thing that will bring Independents back.

This White House has no coherent message on anything. The message on health care reform changed even more frequently than the interest rates on credit cards last Spring, and turned a 70-30 winning issue into its current 30-50 status with the public. Last week on the Sunday news shows, I remember watching in disbelief as Larry Summers smugly told the 15 million Americans out of work that the recession was definitively over and that all economists agree. Then Christina Romer, another of the President’s chief economic advisors, announced on the next show that the recession is definitely not over.

That’s simply inexcusable. [snip]

To be honest, I don’t know what the president believes on anything, and I’m not alone among American voters.

[snip]

Abortion? Who knows. Gays? I suspect intellectually he believes in equal rights but deep down he thinks they’re icky. Something is sure holding him back from doing the obvious. Immigrants? He probably has an opinion, but he’s not going to waste political capital on them; he sold them out in 15 seconds on health care. Foreclosures? Nice speeches, and I’m sure it really concerns him when he hears the stories of families firsthand. But not enough to divert the cash from the lenders to the borrowers. And the problem is, the average American knows it. Job creation? Would be nice, and I presume he believes that people who want to work ought to be able to work. But when 700,000 people were losing their jobs a month in his first few months of office and over millions have lost their jobs on his watch… three letters should have come to mind: W – P – A. President Roosevelt had no legs to stand on, but he sure had spine.

Westen concludes by discussed the concept of “Obampromise” – no policy or principle is enough to fight for if it means pissing off the moneyed interests he relies on.

And here are a few more choice quotes. Frankly, I couldn’t agree more:

…[The] international community is just starting to learn that his eloquence doesn’t always have much behind it.

…[I]t would be hard to name a single thing President Obama has done domestically that any other Democrat wouldn’t have done if he or she were president following George W. Bush.

What’s they’re seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That’s a recipe for going nowhere fast — but getting there by November.

If one’s entire being has always been about pleasing people, ‘being a blank slate onto whom people can project their dreams,’ how should such a person suddenly grow a spine of steel when the number one quality they possess is the ability to craft a façade and protect it at all costs.

Secretary Clinton warned everyone about voting for a man who voted “present” 130 times in the State Senate, and who waffled on his positions constantly on the campaign trail. His stalling for months on the Afghanistan decision, then pretty much doing what we figured he was going to do anyway, is just one case in point. President Obama had never before evidenced the ability to lead or make tough decisions. In 2008, we were told that didn’t matter. The very qualities he lacks are precisely the ones he is lost without. Only no one is willing to give him memo. Certainly not his staff.

Years from now, books will be written on the mass delusion that captured the nation to put such an inexperienced and insincere man in office.

*Westen is a Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

This is perfect Sunday fare, and rich coming from someone who routinely appeared with Keith Olbermann on Countdown (until they broke up back in August last year). That would be Dana Milbank. Oh, yes, this is priceless:

Obama The Mortal

Some parishioners in the Church of Obama discovered last week that their spiritual leader is a false prophet.

Consider the blow suffered by the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who issued a plaintive plea to the president on the eve of his announcement that he was sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. By escalating the war, Moore wrote:

“[Y]ou will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.”

Obama, of course, was not moved by his follower from Flint. The real question is why Moore, and those millions and multitudes of whom he wrote, thought that Obama would do otherwise. Obama never said during the campaign that he would pull out of Afghanistan; in fact, he had promised to escalate. “As president, I will make the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be,” he said in July 2008, vowing to send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan. “This is a war that we have to win.”

Yet Moore is surely right about the disillusionment of Obama’s supporters. Even before the surge announcement, support among liberals for Obama’s Afghanistan policy had dropped 22 points since July, to 59 percent from 81 percent, according to a Post-ABC News poll. Overall liberal support for Obama had drifted down to 80 percent from 94 percent in the spring — and, given the noisy complaints from the left last week, that number seems likely to fall further.

I wonder what Moore thinks now that Obama didn’t pay any attention to him? Not sure why he ever thought Obama would, but there you have it. As Milbank points out:

It was bound to happen eventually. Obama had become to his youthful supporters a vessel for all of their liberal hopes. They saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy — and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest.

Certainly, Obama gets some blame for encouraging the messianic cult as he stumped for change and hope. “I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept,” he would say as he wrapped up speeches. “Let us reach for what we know is possible: A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Uh, you think? Encouraging it?? That is exactly what Axelrove and Plouffe wanted – to craft Obama as the next coming (remember the whole “the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” crap?), and Obama was all too willing to go along. That isn’t exactly a newsflash, at least to us in the reality based community. We were aware of what the Obama camp was doing, and why. No doubt, it was so people wouldn’t pay attention to this:

In other cases, Obama truly has gone back on campaign vows. Even some of his advisers are disappointed that he has moved so slowly to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Civil libertarians are justifiably disappointed with his decision to continue much of the Bush administration secrecy. Clean-government types are understandably frustrated that Obama vowed that lobbyists “will not get a job in my White House” but now grants waivers so that lobbyists can work in key administration jobs.

But at least as much blame for the disillusionment goes to progressives who simply expected too much of him. Some are disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner proposed even higher defense spending than George W. Bush did — but Obama never said he would cut the Pentagon’s budget. Many liberals are disappointed that he isn’t pushing the “public option” more forcefully in the health-care debate — but it was never something Obama emphasized during the campaign.

For all of Obama’s soaring oratory about hope and change, it was plain even during the campaign that his record was that of an incrementalist. His signature legislation — health care in the Illinois Senate and ethics in the U.S. Senate — were evolutionary improvements, not revolutionary overhauls. His Afghanistan policy, likewise, is above all a pragmatic, nonideological strategy. He stayed true to his campaign promise to take the fight to the Taliban, but he also tried to build a consensus.

His record? Just which record would that have been exactly? The one in which Emil Jones slapped Obama’s name on legislation for which he had done exactly NOTHING? And what did he do in the US Senate besides blow off promises made on the campaign finance reform committee, or fail to hold any meetings for the committee for which he was chair (that pesky boring one that just dealt with stuff like Afghanistan)? Is that the new definition of “incrementalist”? Sure, whatever you say, Dana.

Back to Afghanistan:

You’d think his supporters might applaud this sort of thoughtful, methodical leadership as a repudiation of the Bush style of government by political theory. Instead, they’re using words such as “O’Bomber” to describe the president. MoveOn.org launched a petition drive against the policy. Code Pink, the group that heckled Bush officials for years, heckled Obama advisers on Capitol Hill last week. The liberal Web publisher Arianna Huffington told Charlie Rose that the policy “puts into question his whole leadership.”

This is what happens when true believers mistake a mortal for a messiah. (danamilbank@washpost.com )

“Thoughtful”? “Methodical” Oh, right – that is “Upside down world” speak for “hemming and hawing”, “dithering,” and “dragging one’s feet.” Got it.

And Dana, you and a lot of the rest of the MSM were hyping Obama as a messiah, too, so make sure you shine that spotlight on yourself and your colleagues, while you are at it. Obama couldn’t have gotten his “message” across all over this land without the sycophantic collusion of the media. Just sayin’.

We all knew this was going to happen. At some point, Obama’s most devoted followers were going to start letting the reality pierce their veil of “Hope, Change, And Unicorns for Everyone!” It would have been BETTER had this happened 18 months ago before this charlatan got into the White House, aided and abetted by some of the very folks Millbank mentions above, as well as the media.

Okay – can I finally say this? I told you so. We told you so. Time to get up off your knees, shake the Kool Aide dust out of your head, and realize you have been had, on the 7th level with Tom Cruise kind of being had by some self-proclaimed messiah.

We welcome you to the Reality Based World. And with this being Sunday and all, I reckon we can say our prayers are starting to be answered. Halle-damn-lujah.

Turns out, we should be mighty concerned:

“I sleep like a baby,” says U.S. Air Force Colonel Randy Larsen (Ret). “Every three hours, I wake up screaming.”

It’s little surprise that Larsen has such trouble getting shuteye. As executive director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, Larsen spends his days and many nights visualizing mushroom clouds over U.S. cities and emergency rooms clogged with victims of biological attacks. Among his many solutions to America’s WMD challenges, this may be the easiest: Let Americans get immunized against smallpox and anthrax.

“Smallpox and anthrax are our two biggest biological threats,” Larsen tells journalists gathered here on November 16 by the Heritage Foundation. “Smallpox and anthrax are the only biological threats for which we have FDA-approved vaccines. We have enough smallpox vaccines for every American, but not enough anthrax vaccines even for 10 percent of our population. Once we increase that supply, we can take these two risks off the table.”

Let’s stop there – why is there only sufficient vaccinations for 10% of the population for a deadly biological threat? Why are we not getting them? Why are they not discussing this as a critical component of ANY health care reform? Just wondering. And for good reason:

Voluntarily immunizing Americans against these two diseases would deter terrorists from plotting such attacks. Even vaccinating some Americans would create “herd immunity,” whereby those who stay healthy would impede an epidemic’s progress, much as firebreaks retard advancing infernos.

Larsen’s commission offered this sobering conclusion last December: “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.”

Holy crapoli – that is a most sobering assessment. It gets worse: In an October 21 progress report, this bipartisan board cautioned that “a one- to two-kilogram release of anthrax spores from a crop duster plane could kill more Americans than died in World War II,” specifically, 380,000 (emphasis mine). “Clean up and other economic costs could exceed $1.8 trillion.” “Dark Winter,” a June 2001 high-level simulation exercise, assumed that a covert smallpox attack would infect 3.3 million Americans, one-third fatally.

A biological attack’s psychological impact would be incalculable, especially if healthy Americans saw their smallpox-infected neighbors as contagious “enemies” to be shunned.

That is a staggering number – more people could be killed by a relatively small amount of anthrax than died in WWII. And the idea that smallpox-infected people would be shunned, and viewed as “enemies” is a threat I can see played out in my mind’s eye, unfolding like a Hollywood movie.

There is more, and this will make you sit up straight in your chair:

America’s Islamofascist enemies have stayed busy in this sphere.

“I was directly in charge…[of] the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax,” Khalid Sheik Mohammed told a Guantanamo military tribunal on March 10, 2007. KSM was 9/11’s chief architect and al-Qaeda’s self-described “Military Operational Commander.”

The Commission’s crop-duster scenario was conceived after Americans discovered two Afghan anthrax laboratories. “The 9/11 Commission Report” says Jemaah Islamiah agent Yazid Sufaat “would spend several months attempting to cultivate anthrax for al Qaeda in a laboratory he helped set up near the Kandahar airport.”

Interestingly enough, Sufaat was captured thanks to information that American interrogators gleaned after waterboarding KSM. Had America not dampened KSM’s nose, US soldiers or civilians already might have had Sufaat’s anthrax up their nostrils.

“Four pounds of anthrax…carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the US, are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour,” laughed Kuwaiti professor and terrorist sympathizer Abdallah Al-Nafisi in a speech broadcast February 2 on Al-Jazeera and translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. “One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this ‘confetti’ all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real ‘celebration.’”

Four pounds – smaller than a regular size bag of flour – is all it would take to kill 350,000 Americans. It boggles the mind, or at least, mine.

Oh, and yes – THAT KSM. The one who is being provided a civilian trial courtesy of Eric Holder and Barack Obama (h/t to SFIndie for highlighting that important aspect).

With our current border control issues, I think we can all see how this kind of attack could happen. Especially when I tell you that the Obama Administration, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to CUT the number of border patrol agents, by a total of 384. I thought that was ridiculous when it was just a matter of the current stream of illegal immigrants getting into our country as is, much less when the specter is raised of an Anthrax-bearing al Qaeda terrorist is coming through the tunnels.

There are, of course, issues with widespread vaccinations:

Today’s dilatory federal rollout of swine flu shots offers little confidence that government can deliver smallpox and anthrax inoculations with speed and tranquility, especially after a shocking attack turbocharged public anxiety.

Instead, these vaccines should reach thousands of hospitals, clinics, and doctors’ offices now. Americans calmly could request them during routine medical visits, rather than overwhelm government agencies amid widespread panic after thousands of citizens have fallen ill — or worse.

Al-Qaeda and other vicious killers surely have a “To Do” list of horrors they would love to hurl at us infidels. Let’s deny them at least these two potential murder weapons.

Mr. Murdock, a New York-based commentator to HUMAN EVENTS, is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

I don’t know about you, but this scares the bejesus out of me. Our borders are already porous, through no fault of the border control guards – there are simply too few of them, and fewer now, thanks to Obama. I cannot even IMAGINE the logic – or lack thereof – that went into that decision, but this very real scenario, by a respected member of the Intelligence Community, should give us all pause.

There is a solution, though, and a relatively painless one at that. Vaccinations would solve the immediate problem, and minimize the potential threat. The time is not soon enough, especially if an attack of Anthrax is imminent. Even still, better to begin now than wait until it is too late.

Now, about those border guards…