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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article referenced above also has this Update:

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

But the impact appears to be minimal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait until you get a load of THIS one:

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

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

Well, one promise among many Obama has yet to fulfill, is the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” And if Rep. Ike Skelton has anything to say about it, a repeal will not happen (H/t to Logistics Monster), as this headline indicates,Skelton Opposes Repeal Of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. That’s jake, really:

The leading House Democrat on military policy said Friday that he opposes repealing the law that bans openly gay people from serving in the military.

Seventeen years ago, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) played a major role in crafting the controversial law known as “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” When President Bill Clinton wanted to lift the ban preventing gay people from joining the military, Skelton opposed the move. The end result was a compromise under which gay service members would conceal their sexual orientation.

Now, after President Barack Obama pledged during his campaign and first year in office to repeal the law, Skelton finds himself on the opposite side once again.

“I am personally not for changing the law,” he said during a C-SPAN “Newsmakers” interview that will air Sunday.

Because the military is engaged in two major conflicts, in Afghanistan and Iraq, changing the law would create “disruption” that can cause some “serious problems,” Skelton said during the interview.

See, to me, that seems like the PERFECT time to repeal this oppressive, unjust bill. Don’t we NEED more people who want to serve their country? I would think so, but apparently, Skelton doesn’t see it that way:

He said the full House Armed Services Committee won’t hold a hearing on the repeal of the law. Rather, the Personnel subcommittee will hold the hearing at some point this year.

Skelton also said he would oppose efforts to repeal the law in Congress — setting the stage for a potentially intense debate within his own committee with Democrats who want to see the law repealed.

Meanwhile, Skelton’s Senate counterpart, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said that the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the issue at the end of January.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen are prepared to testify before the Senate.

Gates said at a press briefing that there are continuing conversations within the Pentagon about “implementing the president’s intent.”

Obama has come under increasing pressure from gay-rights advocates to move on the repeal. Gay-rights advocates are eyeing the change in law for this year, but it is unclear how Obama will proceed. The Pentagon has moved slowly on the issue and there have been reports of internal dissent on how fast changes to the law should be instituted.

Great. This doesn’t bode well for the repeal of this intolerant law given Skelton’s position, and Obama’s continued unwillingness to address this issue. I, for one, am not at all surprised, and I sure am not holding my breath for it to change.

Once again, yet another promise for change that has gone by the wayside. Many of us knew it; too many believed it. Now, here we are – not even the same place we were before since Skelton is coming out against repeal. Anyone else sick of these machinations?

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.

Well, it’s official: Scott Brown won the US Senate seat in Massachusetts, easily one of the most liberal states in the Union. Brown’s win is the first by a Republican in that state since 1972. Holy moley. Time and time again, people claimed the Healthcare Bill the Democrats are trying to ram through as the reason they voted for Scott Brown. If this isn’t a wake up call to the Democrats, I don’t know what is.

And yet, there are people like Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who seems completely oblivious to the massive alarm bells ringing throughout the country. One would think this would filter into her, but apparently no:

“The reports of its death, as Mark Twain would say, have been exaggerated,” Larson added. “We’re going to move forward, and we’re going to pass health care reform.”

This afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said much the same. “Whatever happens in Massachusetts, we have to do that,” she said. “And whatever happens in Massachusetts we will have quality affordable health care for all Americans, and it will be soon.”

Oh, boy. Add to that the ramped up call for the “Reconciliation Option,” including by the organization, Credo, which sent out an email immediately following the declaration of Brown’s win asking people to sign this petition:

Your message to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use ‘reconciliation’ to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

In case you don’t know what “reconciliation” means, they are suggesting the Democrats use a 51 majority vote to shove through this bill with its payoffs, bribes, and strong-arming. I might add, this tactic was designed for use with BUDGET bills. Clearly, Credo didn’t like the message Massachusetts sent, and believes it is a better idea for the Democrats to inflame passions against this bill even MORE by using a filibuster-proof tactic. Nice.

Make no mistake, the Democrats are trying mighty hard to figure out how to get this bill through regardless of what the people say. I mean, really – it’s not like it’s their JOB or anything to care, right? Ahem.

On the other side, though, one of my favorite Democratic senators (and one I have supported), is Sen. Jim Webb of VA. This was his immediate response to Scott Brown’s win:

Less than 15 minutes after the race was called for Republican Scott Brown, the first of what could be many conservative Democrats asks for leadership to put the brakes on health care reform.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) congratulated Brown on his win and delivered a zinger:

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

That is more like it. He is hearing the message the people are sending, and wants to take a step back here, and look again at this bill.

But Senator Webb is not the only one. You may be a bit surprised by this, but Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, warns against changing horses in mid-stream (of course, my cynical side says he is a bit worried about his seat in the future, too):

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”

Gee, ya think?? You know, it is amazing what it takes to actually get through to these people. Maybe if this doesn’t hammer it home, this great piece by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will:

The problem for the Democrats in Massachusetts was not Martha Coakley; it was the Obama agenda. In 2008, voters believed that they were electing a person who would focus on the economy with laser intensity and lead in a bipartisan and principled matter. What they have gotten is a deeply divisive President committed to transforming America into a European-style social democracy. In this first year, he forced a health care bill at the expense of vitally needed focus on job creation. He has scared hard-working American voters with his hard-left rhetoric and his signature policies.

The Obama approach to health care reform is the most egregious example of breaking trust with the American people. He brokered no Republican compromise; he demonized the other side for being captive to vested interests as he made private deals with Democratic special interest groups like the unions, the insurance companies and “hold-out” Senators like Ben Nelson (who was just looking for his pound of flesh at the expense of the rest of the American people); he outsourced the bill to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid behind closed doors as he focused only on taking the victory lap for pathetic, piecemeal legislation that does not deal with our exorbitant health care costs. Have no doubt, the speech trumpeting “his” historic achievement, where other less talented Presidents than himself have failed, is already loaded on the teleprompter.

These are major negative factors for the independent voters who believed that Barack Obama was a principled and moderate Democrat. This is particularly true in Massachusetts where the nation’s only universal health care plan is bankrupting the state because of politicians’ congenital inability to deal with spiraling costs. In Massachusetts, a full 47% of voters are Independents, with 33% Democrat and only 11% Republican. For many of these voters, Barack Obama is now a busted flush; he was full of promise but has neither delivered on that promise nor exhibited the capability to deliver. He has broken the trust of the people, and voters are taking the only action available to them: Electing a candidate who can stop the Obama agenda and help restore balance to a broken political system. The voters in the Bay State are resorting to the principle that our Founding Fathers made famous: checks and balances. It is unlikely that all voters overwhelmingly support Republican State Senator Scott Brown, but it is certain that they see him as a vital player in forcing Barack Obama to come back to the center.

Preach it, Sister Lynn! Bring it on home:

This is important to keep in mind in reviewing Tuesday’s results. Equally important is to reject the demonization of Coakley that is being perpetrated by the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress. Coakley’s troubles were never about her as a candidate; she has won state-wide elections before and few would argue she is more removed than John Kerry. Her problem was simply about the President and the radical course being charted by Democrats in Congress. A year after his inauguration — and three years since Democrats regained Congress — voters were holding Obama accountable. This simple fact makes scapegoating Coakley unconscionable, and yet this week all knives are out from the Obama White House. Coakley was insufficiently charismatic, leading Democrats are saying; she did not have an emotional connection to the voters. She did not work hard enough. She was more a “nun” than a political candidate!

This is all nonsense of course, but not surprising. After all, it’s not the first time the current crop of Democratic party leaders have torn down a talented woman in their midst.

That Hillary Clinton won Massachusetts by a resounding sixteen points in 2008 is not unrelated. While Massachusetts may be bluest of the blue, it’s a state where working class liberalism still runs deep, where an honest day’s work is still held in higher esteem than entitlement handouts. When Hillary ran on these principles, Massachusetts voters embraced her. And for this same reason, on Tuesday they embraced Scott Brown.

Obama’s team may want to make the election about Martha Coakley, but it’s not about her. As rank-and-file Democrats try to make Martha Coakley the issue and engage in her assassination, they miss the fact that they are in a circular firing squad. Their problem is that they are out of touch, and their boosters in the media cannot save them.

Voters this week stood up and said ‘enough is enough.’ It’s high time Obama and the Democrats in Congress got the message.

Amen to that. And if they don’t get it after this, there is always November…

*Updated: Ohmygosh – now Barney Frank has done a COMPLETE 180, saying he could vote for the Senate bill now. WTH is wrong with this guy? And who got to him? Wow, he is a piece of work. Way to stick to your guns there, Barney! Yeah. Right.

Second Update: well, Nancy must have heard an earful from the other representatives. Now she says the House has to make changes to the Senate’s bill:

Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president’s desk quickly. But House liberals strongly dislike the Senate version, while moderate Democrats in both the House and Senate have raised doubts about forging ahead with the ambitious legislation without bipartisan support.

The only way to keep the Senate bill alive, Pelosi said, would be for senators to initiate a package of fixes that would address House concerns about the bill. In particular, Pelosi described her members as vehemently opposed to a provision that benefits only Nebraska’s Medicaid system. Also problematic are the level of federal subsidies the Senate would offer to uninsured individuals and its new excise tax on high-value policies, which could hit union households.

“There are certain things the members simply cannot support,” Pelosi said.

Like I said, I guess the representatives let her have it. It will sure be interesting to see what happens next.

Fast forward to the end of year one of President Obama’s rule. He outsourced control to the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Franks, et al – the worst of what the current Democratic Party has to offer. Just like the Bush Administration before them, they co-opted the “never let a crisis go to waste” mantra, using the fears of the American people to ram through an unsuccessful pork-laden stimulus package and an incomprehensible health care giveaway to insurance and big phrma. But no jobs. Where are the jobs? Tone deaf. Arrogant. 2008 all over again. We are still being told we don’t matter. But this time, it is not just Hillary supporters – it is all of the American people. I live in a liberal area and I am seeing the anger growing even here.

Citizens at both ends of the spectrum are steaming and do not appreciate having their good will and trust abused. This was made clear in the past two Governor’s races. The special MA Senate race, where it looks as though Scott Brown may actually pull out a win in true blue Massachusetts, is sending shock waves in political circles throughout the country. As it should. That is the price you pay for treating the American people like we are a bunch of idiots. Congress, living in its rarified air, has the audacity to think they know what is best for us when they do not share our struggles.

But how can we blame Obama and Congress for thinking the American people can be led around like sheep when that is exactly what happened last year. The majority of voters bought into a commercial brand, without any evidence that the product could deliver as advertised.

How many of us have been calling our representatives complaining of reckless spending? My Congressman’s assistant had the facts wrong on the health care bill even as she bragged to me about its merits. My Senators’ staffers are arrogant and impatient when I call. And they are elitist as well. I have done my homework. I am their constituent and voicing my righteous concerns. And I am still being told to sit down and shut up.

The Democrats are as drunk with power as the Republicans were when they had a huge majority in 2002. The neo-cons predicted a supermajority for 20 years. They got their comeuppance. The same is coming for Democrats. I am heartbroken after biting my lip for eight years with the rule of the neo-cons that this is the “change” we are stuck with. Bailing out Wall Street and not Main street, back door deals and no transparency. Continuation of the policies of the previous administration.

I, too, was for Martha Coakley and wrote on her behalf when she was contesting the primary. I still believe she was the best of the Dem. primary contestants (particularly since she was running against a Pelosi pick) but I am disturbed by what I have learned and seen unfold this last week. Considering Coakley fought back the Stupak amendment, supports Gay rights and supported Hillary to the end, I am miserable to see her stand in lock step now with Obamacare and some of her other statements and actions this week have knocked me for a loop.

For her to fall into Party groupthink behavior is not what we need in the Senate. We have far too much of that already. Coakley having a fundraiser thrown by Big Insurance/Big Phrma was not the message the Coakley campaign wanted to send. Part of the reason I liked Coakley was that she did not stand with Obamacare. She has folded. In so doing, she has likewise turned a deaf ear to the mood of the country and to her own principles. That action has also tied her to Obama, scapegoating her for the actions of this reckless Administration.

The herd mentality is common to both parties and is killing us all. We need independent thinkers regardless of party. In our current system where there is no limit on campaign spending or fundraising, how is it possible for our public servants not to be slaves of the almighty dollar. When they are threatened with primary challenges if they do not kiss the feet of their respective party’s establishment and follow their orders, how can they vote their consciences? Clearly, public service of this kind is not meant to be a lifetime career. A little less focus on self-aggrandizement or re-election and more focus on doing the people’s business is in order.

Scott Brown may have skeletons in the closet of his record as well. Coakley might be the sacrificial lamb here since the Pelosi wing clearly has no use for her. But the fact is, what we have of late discovered about some of Coakley’s record does not look good. As much as I would like to trumpet a qualified woman for this office, I have seen that my wish to break the boys club and reward someone with the guts to stick with Hillary to the end allowed me to trust what I saw on the surface without digging in deeply for myself. Yet I am not assuming that Scott Brown by himself will be able to stop Obamacare as it currently stands. Like the Bush Administration before them, this bunch will push through whatever they see fit.

Such arrogance brings into sharp focus another mistake of the Coakley campaign post-primary. She, like many of us, assumed that in blue Massachusetts, winning the primary was as good as winning the general — what Republican would gain a foothold here? What Republican indeed. Nothing can or should be be taken for granted. Media boobs like MSNBC’s David Shuster wondering whether the people of Massachusetts “have lost their minds” and the likes of Shuster, Anderson Cooper and even Senator Schumer referring to the opposition as “teabaggers” does nothing to help Coakley’s cause.

Scott Brown is offering a populist message and in his Sunday campaign rally skillfully used Obama’s 2008 rhetoric against him. Truly I have no idea what he’s going to do if he gets into office. He could likewise be capitalizing on the mood of the country and trumpeting a populist message he has no intention of enforcing. I have seen far too much kabuki theatre from both sides to be trusting again. I can only hope that he is sincere. Nonetheless, the bigger picture has become breaking the supermajority. And sending a message to the arrogant few who are telling the many that we don’t matter.

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…

Well, there is one organization that has a request for Congress, and that would be C-Span. Surely you remember the numerous times Obama promised to debate healthcare in the open, so constituents could see what their elected officials were doing, and that it would be aired on C-Span, rather than the bill being crafted in secret, behind closed doors? Well, naturally, we should have known (and many of us suspected), that scenario, the secret meetings one, was EXACTLY what the Democrats have done. C-Span is over it, and recently sent this letter to the Powers-That-Be:

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Harry Reid
Speaker Majority Leader
United States House or Representatives United States Senate

The Honorable John Boehner The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader Minority Leader
United States House of Representatives United States Senate

Dear Speaker Pelosi:
Representative Boehner:
Senator Reid:
Senator McConnell:

As your respective chambers work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills, C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.

The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of these sessions LIVE and in their entirety. We will also, as we willingly do each day, provide C-SPAN’s multi-camera coverage to any interested member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool.

Since the initial introduction of the America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 in the House and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Senate
C-SPAN has televised literally hundreds of hours of committee hearings, mark ups and floor debate on these bills for the public to see. And importantly, we have archived all of this video for future generations to study in the C-SPAN Video Archives.

President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.

We hope you will give serious consideration to this request. We are most willing to employ the latest digital technology to make the cameras, lights and microphones as unobtrusive as possible.

Please contact me if I can answer any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Lamb

I guess Mr. Lamb couldn’t put “Honorable” in quotation marks, though I think I would have been sorely tempted to do so for the members he addressed. But that’s just me.

And what kind of response did C-Span get? Nothing formal yet, but Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D,MD), among others, appeared before the cameras in the video below. Wait until you hear Speaker Pelosi’s response about Obama’s campaign promises. That’s a good one. And Rep. Van Hollen goes on at some length about the process behind the Healthcare bill. I suggest you not drink or eat anything while he is speaking. Just a suggestion. Then it goes back to Speaker Pelosi. Does it ever get funny around the 7:45 mark:

Okay, just HOW is it that none of their heads exploded while they stood up there lying through their teeth? Mr. Van Hollen’s voice did go up and crack, a tell-tale sign he’s lying, and Pelosi just blathered on with impunity.

I might add, yes, there were all kinds of Town Halls, Mr. Van Hollen, and the vast majority of people then told you and your colleagues that We. Do. Not. Want. This. Bill. As. Crafted. We have been saying it, screaming it, writing, it, and phoning it in, Rep. Van Hollen. The problem is, y’all aren’t listening. Even today, the majority of Americans do not want this policy you are about to shove down our throats.

This certainly explains another poll, that the majority of Americans think Congress is doing a poor job. Yeah. No kidding.

Oh, wait, maybe there’s another possibility for the La-La Land response by the giggly Speaker of the House. Perhaps Nancy just doesn’t understand the word. That is the only possible explanation I can think of to explain her emphatic insistence that this has been the most transparent process EVER. Either that, or I’m thinking really, really good drugs. Considering her giddy, giggly self, I am inclined to the latter. Ahem.

In case you didn’t catch what she and Rep. Hollen said, this aptly entitled article,
Nancy Pelosi’s Response, has it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress’ work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations–likely without TV cameras–might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.

“We will do what is necessary to pass the bill,” Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been “subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny.”

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged.

“We don’t even know if there’s going to be a conference committee,” he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.

Oh, yes, unprecedented “public scrutiny.” Seems to me Rep. Van Hollen has been smoking a bit too much of that Hopium if closed-door, often partisan, meetings in which decisions are made to payoff Big Pharma (Obama – before the official work on the Healthcare Bill even got started), the insurance industry, and to force taxes on the middle class that will make it the working poor class. Staggering. Again, Rep. Van Hollen, we have said – CLEARLY – that we do not want this bill of yours. (The Comments after this article are mighty telling. I didn’t see a Pro-Pelosi one among them. Here’s the Link if you’d like to see for yourself.)

Oh, and the White House? If you had to guess, what do you think Obama would do? If you guessed avoidance, you’d be right. If you wish to read Robert Weasel Gibbs’ slippery response to queries about the C-Span letter, click HERE. If you have a strong stomach, or high threshold for bullshit, that is.

Here’s the reality of the situation:

You tell it, Johhny Mac. Transparency on this issue, with this Congress, is simply non-existent. Oh, and Mr. Lamb? I wouldn’t be holding my breath for Nancy, Harry, or Barry to let the cameras in anytime soon…

Thanks to faithful No Quarter reader, French Nail, who alerted me to this article detailing the vast generosity of Obama – with your money. Oh, how I wish I was not making this up: Obama’s Holiday Bribes; PRO-OBAMA JOURNALISTS GET PAID WITH TAXPAYER MONEY, TO SURROUND OBAMA DURING HOLIDAY IN HAWAII. Yes he did, and yes we are:

Obama will enjoy a 13 day Hawaiian Holiday repleat with a corps of jouralists (sic), payed for with your tax-dollars.

Obama will enjoy a 13 day Hawaiian Holiday repleat(sic) with a corps of jouralists (sic), payed (sic)for with your tax-dollars.

(Dec. 11, 2009) — Just after the aftermath of yet another insult to our allies via the refusal to participate to the traditional events surrounding the award of the Nobel Prize including a dinner with the King, on the pretenses that the recipient was a very busy, sitting “President,” responsible for not one, but two, wars and facing the worst economic crisis “EVAHHH!”, the White House is quietly organizing yet another vacation-time for the Obamas.

They would have you believe that nothing has been decided yet, when in fact the logistics of booking their 13 day vacations in Hawaii, from December 23 to January 3, are in full swing!

And the invitations for the entourage are out!

Joy! Obama has found a way to keep the media in his back pocket. No doubt, he felt them begin to pull away, and like suitors, lavished them with an expensive gift. Except the cheapo didn’t pay for it himself. Nope – you did. Merry Christmas to them!!!

Naturally, it wasn’t the American press that reported this:

Yesterday, December 10, Laurence Haim, the only French-Press-accredited, White House correspondent — but for the AFP — revealed that she had received an email inviting her and a guest to stay for the duration of Obama’s trip to Hawaii, at a Hotel next to the Obamas’ vacations spot. Her revelations were aired on the French TV leading evening news program.

To listen to the program in French, go to the 20:00 mark in the broad cast at http://www.zataz.com/news/17388/canal-plus–regarder-gratuitement.html

(UPDATE – 12/13/09: 10:10 PM — The audio file has now been archived, and moved to a new url: http://player.canalplus.fr/#/299716 )

According to Haim, the entire corps of White House correspondents, domestic and international has been invited (with a guest of their choice), to follow the Obamas under the sun at the American taxpayer expense.

In times when the American people are facing a bleak and sobering Christmas, when millions have lost their jobs and homes, the Obama Court is relocating to a Hawaiian paradise on the public dime. And to insure the cooperative silence of the Main Stream Media, it is bribing the lackeys of the press, with lavishing and outrageous favors.

This would be cause enough to raise eyebrows, but since when is 13 day vacation outside of the mainland U.S.A. accpetable (sic) the “President” of a nation at war?

I guess Christmas at home in Chicago or New Year at Camp David does not fit the standards of the Grandiose Obamas (emphasis mine).

Probably not Historic enough!

I love the snark, but I bet it sounded better in French (what doesn’t? Bear in mind that it was written in French and translated.). But no doubt – it wouldn’t have been “historic” enough. I had been wondering the same, too, why they didn’t go back to Chicago or to Camp David. But no doubt, the writer got it just right.

Isn’t it refreshing to see SOME in the media finally waking up to Obama and who he really is? About time. Though I don’t expect those reporters plus one in Hawaii at a luxury hotel on OUR DIME are going to look too deeply anytime soon.

You know what would make me happy in the New Year? For this kind of bribery to stop with these politicians, be they the president, senators or representatives. If they or their plans cannot stand on their merits, then they deserve to fail. I am way, way past over it. How about you?

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Yeah, me, too. Here Obama is in his own words. I found the shortest one I could (you’re welcome):

That was then, this is now. You’re damn right, Obama, we DO care about “special interest dominated politics in Washington,” and we are seeing plenty of that in YOUR Administration.

In a a follow-up to a post on Senator Lindsey Graham’s ire over the Health “Care “Bill, this article from Politico tells the tale about what a great year this is for the K Street Crowd:

Lobbyists On Pace For Record Year

Main Street has had a tough year, losing jobs and seeing little evidence of the economic revival that experts say has already begun.

But K Street is raking it in (emphasis mine).

Washington’s influence industry is on track to shatter last year’s record $3.3 billion spent to lobby Congress and the rest of the federal government — and that’s with a down economy and about 1,500 fewer registered lobbyists in town, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Many lobbying firms have escaped the worst of the corporate belt-tightening, thanks, in large part, to the ambitious agenda set out by President Barack Obama — who, ironically, came to Washington with a pledge to break what he considered the undue influence of special-interest lobbyists.

Plenty of sectors have scaled back their K Street spending, including traditional big spenders like real estate and telecommunications. But Obama’s push for legislation on health reform, financial reform and climate change has compensated for the grim economic times.

And that’s after Obama kicked off the year with a massive economic stimulus package — and every major business sector tried to get a piece of the action.

“Lobbyists love it … when you’ve got an activist agenda like this, and you’ve got serious problems like this, and people want to do something about it,” said James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.

“It is the most active time that I have ever seen in the advocacy business — from 1973 on,” Thurber added.

“We’ve never had as good a year,” said one lobbyist whose shop deals mostly with financial services and health care issues. “It’s been a tremendously busy year, and it’s going to keep getting that way,” the lobbyist said, noting that both health care and financial reform will remain active as congressional action moves from drafting legislation to implementation to the inevitable fixes.

Oh, yippie ki yay – they are all SO happy to be rolling in the dough to get bills like the Health Care Bill passed, a piece of legislation with “Lobbyist” written all over it.

One more lie from Obama. What a surprise. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you. Ahem.

There’s more:

The year-end lobbying expenditure figures don’t come out until late January, but Thurber and others predict that the top line number will exceed the $3.3 billion spent in 2008. Groups spent $2.5 billion during the first three quarters of 2009, which is a slightly faster quarterly pace than 2008, according to CRP.

And the fourth quarter has been a particularly busy time on Capitol Hill, with the House passing health care and financial reform bills and the Senate digging in on health care, too.

Health care has provided a particular jolt to the lobbying business, insiders say, since the scope of the legislation outstrips any health efforts in recent history.

“This was the biggest, most broad attempt at passing legislation that we’ve seen. This is even bigger or more broad than ’93,” said Bill Pierce, senior vice president and health care guru at APCO Worldwide, referring to President Bill Clinton’s attempt at health care reform. “It touches all the various parts of the entire health care environment. … Everybody has some dog in the fight.”

And the lobbying expenditure figures don’t include the heaps of cash interest groups are throwing at advertising, coalition-building, grass-roots and Astroturf outreach — all of which don’t get reported in the figures. Advocacy groups have spent almost $200 million on ads on the health care issue so far this year, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group.

“Astroturfing”? Isn’t that what Pelosi accused regular people of doing when they stood up to the way she and others are ruining our country? Huh. I guess she was wrong about that – no, I know she was wrong at the time. Just more smoke-screening from those who care less about what the people say despite their job being to represent us. Who knew all those Tea Party people should have been getting PAID? Ahem.

Of course, lobbyists aren’t on just one side:

The legislation’s reach has drawn in an almost-encyclopedic expanse of interest and corporate groups — from activists on both sides of the abortion debate, to MoveOn.org and FreedomWorks to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to health insurance companies.

“That doesn’t happen every day. When it does happen, you get this great deal of money being pumped into the political system on the lobbying end because all of these folks feel like they need to be a participant, and that if they don’t participate, they do so at their own peril,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for CRP, a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog group. Nearly $400 million has been spent on health care lobbying during the first nine months of 2009, according to CRP’s data.

A closer look at some of the health care lobbying expenditures shows just how high the stakes are. PhRMA, a top trade group for drug makers, spent as much as it did in all of 2008 — $20.2 million — during the first nine months of 2009. America’s Health Insurance Plans is also on pace to outspend its 2008 lobbying budget, spending $6.3 million during the first nine months of this year.

The Obama administration’s determination to revamp the nation’s financial rules and regulatory structure has fueled a somewhat less broad but no less intense advocacy business.

Lobbyists for the industry describe working nonstop since last August, when the financial system started to crumble, through the fight for the $700 billion bailout last fall. This year, they’ve battled several attempts by Democrats to pass so-called cramdown legislation allowing bankruptcy judges to modify troubled mortgages and fought — ultimately unsuccessfully — against strict new credit card rules, among other policy battles.

All this while the industry must keep up with the larger financial reform bill, which is moving through Congress. “If it weren’t for the crisis, that bill could have easily taken four years, minimum,” observed one exhausted financial lobbyist of the bill that the House passed Dec. 11.

Aren’t you just so worried on their behalf? At how “taxed” they must be as they’re rolling in the dough? Didn’t think so:

The Credit Union National Association has already spent about $650,000 more than it did during the same period last year and is on track to spend “considerably more” lobbying than it did in 2008, said John Magill, the trade association’s senior vice president of legislative affairs.

“It’s been such a frantic pace this year. The Congress has churned out so many things,” he said, ticking off a list that includes financial reform, credit card legislation, new bank overdraft rules and credit unions’ ongoing battle to raise the amount they can lend to small businesses.

Magill said that the lobbying expenditures CUNA reports to Congress don’t take into account its extensive grass-roots efforts, such as the 5,000 members that “hiked the Hill” last spring or the approximately 650 who flew into town the week the House debated the financial reform bill on the floor.

Magill credits that grass-roots lobbying for the defeat of a House bill on a cramdown amendment, which came after the House passed a similar measure earlier in the year.

While times may be good for lobbyists, there’s a more dismal lesson to be learned from the relentless upward trend of lobbying spending that appears undaunted by even a massive recession: Lobbying is seen as an issue of political and economic survival in this town.

“If lobbying the federal government did not work, people wouldn’t spend money doing it,” Levinthal said.

That about says it all, doesn’t it? And work it has. We are about to be saddled with a Lobbyists’ Dream that will constitute One-Sixth of our entire economy. That is all thanks to their “tireless” efforts on behalf of their clients, who, by the way, are not us. No matter how much we oppose it, no matter how much we decry their unethical conduct, no matter how much we rage over the buying of votes, Congress continues to sell off legislation to the highest bidder rather than working for us.

And that cannot stand. Vote these people out. Let’s reclaim our country for US, the people, not for the lobbyists.

Ahahahhaha – just kidding. I know that while pandering to, I mean, granting an interview, to Oprah, Obama graded himeslf on a major curve and gave himself a B+ thus far. Wowie zowie – I bet his students loved him at the Law School if this is how he gave grades back then. I bet they were beating down the door to enroll to bump up their GPA.

I also know ACORN got their way with a federal judge’s assistance when Judge Nina Gershon ruled the cut-off was un-Constitutional. I guess she’s a-Okay with all of the shenanigans perpetrated by ACORN, from voter fraud to a willingness to fund illegal, underage prostitution. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it?

And then there was that speech for the Nobel Peace Prize to the most undeserving winner, well, EVER. Ironic that it came after he agreed to send in thirty thousand troops to Afghanistan? At least the first half of it was an improvement for Obama speaking abroad. For once, he didn’t slam the country he represents, so there’s that. Heck, even Charles Krauthammer liked the beginning of the speech:

Krauthammer’s comment, when asked by Bret Baier about Obama’s claim to “humility,” said that was NEVER going to happen. Teehee! I managed to not listen to ANY of it until just now – for you. I know, I know, I’m a giver.

But my favorite goes back to Oprah’s interview. It has to be the answer by the Obamas to Oprah’s question regarding who gives the best gifts:

Dang. I have no love lost for Michelle, but I gotta say, I don’t know how she didn’t slap him upside his fool head, as we say down South, for his response. Naturally, NO ONE does anything as well as HE does, but he also humiliates his wife to pump his own self up more. He must be a JOY to live with, don’t you think?

Well, it’s good to be back, but I have to run. My laptop charger died, and I’m working on borrowed time until my replacement arrives.

Did I miss anything else? Is anything going on in, say, Copenhagen? Fill me in!

The contents of which we pretty much already know at this point (thus raising the question why we still have to listen to Obama), a whole bunch of people are protesting the expected surge. One group is Code Pink:

Another person who thinks we care what he has to say is Michael Moore, that arrogant, sanctimonious windbag (okay, okay – I admit it – I own Fahrenheit 9/11 and used to like him), who seems to think he is both a military strategist and a member of the Intelligence Community. He wrote Obama a letter laying it all out for prior to the speechifying. Moore says Obama should NOT listen to the generals on the ground regarding Afghanistan because we are a civilian nation. In other words, he thinks the generals should be told what to do by the likes of Moore, apparently, as opposed to listening to the people who are actually in theater. I guess Moore missed it when Obama was campaigning and made the claim that Agfhanistan was going to be his primary focus in the War on Terror. Oh, right – no one actually listened to what he said, just the melodic, dreamy way in which he said, it.

Excuse me – I have to go throw up now.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s Obama in his own words (you won’t have to wait long for it):

It gets better. Moore, with his apparent connections to the Intelligence Community, claims there are fewer than 100 members of Al Qaeda still in Afghanistan. Now, I know a bunch of people have gone to Pakistan. I get that. But, where the hell is Moore getting this information, which, if true, I assume might be classified? I’m just wondering.

Te letter goes on (and on). Feel free to click HERE if you care to read any more of it.

You can watch the speech tonight, if you wish. Or you can read this NY Times article and get the scope. I can bottom line it for you: 30,000 troops over 6 months, not as many as Gen. McChrystal wanted, but big surprise there. And, Obama will set a timeline for when the US will start pulling back those reinforcements. You’re welcome!

Bottom line, Mr. Moore, and Code Pink – Obama s actually keeping one campaign promise, even though he dragged his feet for months before he did it. Believe you me, no one is more surprised than I am. And maybe now you know you should have actually paid attention to the “Words, Just Words” that were coming out of his mouth during the campaign and not being lulled into your Obama LaLaLand of Happy Rainbow Unicorns. Just a thought.

Oh, just in case you don’t know this about me, I am not a war hawk, not by a long shot. But on this, going after the people who attacked us, I think we are right, Code Pink and Michael Moore notwithstanding. Do I wish we had accomplished our mission there already? Absolutely. Should we leave before we do? No. That sends a dangerous message – people can attack us, and after a while, we’ll just give up on finding them. These are patient people. They will wait until our guard is down. I don’t see how we can afford not to continue in Afghanistan until the job is done. Can you?

I reasonably can see “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” eliminated… I would never make this a litmus test for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously, there are so many issues that a member of the Joint Chiefs has to deal with, and my paramount obligation is to get the best possible people to keep America safe. But I think there’s increasing recognition within the Armed Forces that this is a counterproductive strategy — ya know, we’re spending large sums of money to kick highly qualified gays or lesbians out of our military, some of whom possess specialties like Arab-language capabilities that we desperately need. That doesn’t make us more safe, and what I want are members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who are making decisions based on what strengthens our military and what is going to make us safer, not ideology.

So, he can “see” doing it, it’s just the ACTUAL doing it with which he seems to have problems.

As a bonus, here is something else Candidate Obama said in this interview when asked this questions:

What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?
Somebody else who influenced me, I actually had a professor at Occidental — now, this is embarrassing because I might screw up his last name — Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time (emphasis mine), but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Oh, yes, we LGBT people are practically missionaries. So glad this one professor didn’t “proselytize” his students, or push his “gay-ness” on them. What a guy. I’m sure it was difficult for him since, you know, that’s just how we are. Ahem.

And people wonder why I have said all along that Obama is not our friend? Because he is not.

Here is the story of one highly decorated pilot:

Here is a follow-up to Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s story:

Did you catch the very beginning, the ways in which someone can have a service member investigated in both videos? Shocking. Just shocking.

As is the lack of any action whatsoever by Obama on this issue. Sure he gave a talk to the (sell out) HRC a month or so ago, claiming, once again, that he would abolish DADT at some point. But that’s just talk. Here is what President Obama has done thus far on this issue:

* crickets *

How many more broken promises before DADT is abolished? One thing is for sure. On the Eve of Veteran’s Day, there are too many new Veterans as a result of this law. 500 too many.

Ironic that yesterday, NY Times columnist Charles Blow, certainly an Obama cheerleader from way back, penned a column entitled Obama’s to Fix, in which he cautions the President to stop blaming George Bush for the “mess” he inherited. Clearly, our President, far from undoing such a mess, is daily making a bigger one of his own. Mr. Blow begins with this ominous phrase:

What a difference a year makes.

In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. … We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.

“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”

“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.

He has not made jobs his top priority. This health care debacle, bailing out Wall Street, getting into the car business and generally putting money into the pockets of everyone except those who need it have all taken priority over putting Americans back to work. And, no, putting an extra $13 a week into people’s paychecks is not going to do the trick when as Mr. Blow points out the new official labor statistics have us at 10.2 unemployment, which is an increase of “more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech.”

“(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)”

I am still at a loss to understand why there was such a great urgency to pass health care legislation that is not supposed to go into effect for more than three years. Someone on another blog made the observation that Obama and Pelosi et al are using the economic crisis and joblessness as a weapon to pass their agenda. As people are panicked at losing their jobs and their healthcare, they are more likely to look to government to bail them out – and more amenable. As Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good crisis.” What better time to ram this through. Mr. Blow continues:

Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.

But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.

This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.

It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.

There were many options to put people back to work this year if that was really the priority. Clearly it was not. This President spent almost a billion dollars to get his job. I don’t want to hear complaints now. Obviously, he inherited a mess, which he has made worse with reckless spending. No one expects him to fix everything in the space of a year, but I thought his “good judgment” meant he knew how to prioritize. We need leadership and part of that involves sacrificing one’s ego to help those who need it most. That is far more important than pushing legislation just for the purpose of putting a check mark next to one’s name. You don’t not spend billions, even trillions, you don’t have at a time like this. Since this bunch so miscalculated on their $787 billion stimulus package, I am not inclined to trust them now by handing over 1/6 of the economy to their stewardship.

It is interesting that Mr. Blow, who played the race card on Mr. Obama’s behalf last year, is now joining the ever increasing number of his pundit supporters who are having problems with his endless campaigning, blaming and wrongheaded focus.

As to the health care debate, I called my Congressman’s office Friday morning to complain about the bill and his assistant debated the merits with me. At least she took the time to do so. It was a shame she was wrong on the facts. I told her to go back and read the thing. Now we have a 2,000 page beast that the Senate must contend with and we are told it will never pass in its current form. So why the rush? Why wouldn’t this Administration be in the same kind of rush to help get people back to work?

There are 237 millionaires in Congress. Perhaps that explains why they have difficulty relating to the urgent need to put millions of Americans back of work, instead manufacturing an urgent need to pass labrynthian legislation for the mere purpose of saying “Mission Accomplished.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase before?